unclassified ad number - dtic · (final engineering report)1 2 further development of the rotating...
TRANSCRIPT
UNCLASSIFIED
AD NUMBER
AD878848
NEW LIMITATION CHANGE
TOApproved for public release, distributionunlimited
FROMDistribution authorized to U.S. Gov't.agencies only; Test and Evaluation; 19 JAN1971. Other requests shall be referred toNaval Air Systems Command, Attn: Air-5363,Washington, DC 20360.
AUTHORITY
US Naval Air Systems Command ltr dtd 14Oct 1971
THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED
H Report No. IITRI-C6206_ 1 2(Final Engineering Report)
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THEROTATING BRUSH AEROSOL SEPARATOR
January 8, 1970 through October 7, 1970
Contract No. N00019- 7 0 C_0256IITRI Project C6206
DIS-"22UTIC:• LTIMITED TO U.S.C -U'7 /::.%
FOREWORD
ROTATING BRUSH AEROSOL SEPARATOR
This final report presents the results obtained duringdevelopment work on Contract No. N00019-70-C-0256 for the NavalAir Systems Command. The purpose of the program was to furtherdevelop and test the rotating brush aerosol separator to thepoint where an airframe manufacturer could intelligently designa separator for protection of specific helicopter turbines. Theprogram started January 1970 and all planned experimental workwas completed in November 1970.
Respectfully subnitted,
lIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dnld'K.- WerleResearch Chemical EngineerFine Particles Research
APPROVED BY:
Vohn D. StockhamManagerFine Particles Research
D1'W/j ac
II
ti
i IABSTRACT
ROTATIN BRUSH AEROSOL SEPARATOR
-Vhe rotating brush aerosol separator developed on ContractNo. N00019-68-C-0459.was redesigned and extens'vely modified topermit a parametric investigation of the design and operationalvariables. Centrifugal effects heve bon found to be an impor-tant mechanism, although impaction effects significantly enhanceseparation at brush speeds above 2400 RPM. In comparable testswith flat-blades versus 1 mm wires, the wire brushes required 15%less horsepower at 3000 RPM and 8000 CFM to achieve a 95% sepa-ration efficiency compared to 86% for the flat-blad3 brushes. Thehighest efficiencies were obtained with the near exhaust positionwhen the wire brush speeds exceeded 2400 RPM. The addition ofwires in the axial direction (more or tonger brushes) is moreefficient than in the radial direction (more wires/row), espe-cially for the 2 mm wires. Similarly, at 3000 RPM and 8000 CFMwhen the number brushes was doubled, the amount of dust which wasnot removed by the separator was reduced by one-half. While the1 mm wires appear to be more efficient than the 2 mm wires ona
constant impaction area basis, considerations of wire erosion andease of maintenance favors the use of the heavier wires.
Separation efficiencies at 8000 CFM and 300C RPM approached
100% for size-classified test dusts in the 15-35 Mm _ýze range.At 2.7 Am, the separation efficiency had fallen to a respectable66%. Above 35 Mm, the separation efficiency on the sodium bicaz-bonate test dust appears to drop away somewhat from 100%, perhapsdue to some large particle size reduction by impact with brushwires. Only 7 HP was required to rotate the brush shaft at 3000RPM and 8000 CFM and at a pressure drop of only four inches ofwater.
I
iii C6206-12
TABLZ OF CONTENTS
PageNo.
FOREWORD
ABSTRACT iiiLIST OF FIGURES v
A. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A. Brush Separator and Test Facility 2
B. Flow Measurements 10C. Size Distribution of the Test Dusts 10
D. Test Procedure 10
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Tabulated Data and Noncomparative Plots 11B. Comparative Parametric Analysis 11
1. Residence Time (Exhaust Position) 11
2. Centrifugal Contribution 40
3. Axial and Radial Spacing Between Wires 42
4. Impaction Area 47
5. Wire Size 476. Particle Size Effects 57
IV. SWO&LAn CONCLUSIONS
A. Residence Time (Exhaust Position) 60
B. Centrifugal Efft.-. s 60C. Axial and Radial Spacing Between Wires 60
D. Impaction Area 60
R. Wire Size Effects 61
F. Particle Size Effects 61
G. Power Consumption 61
V. RECORDS AND PERSONNEL 62
VI. FUTURE WORK 62
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRA lMY 63
DD 1473 64
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
ivC6206-.12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
1 Brush Separator and Test Facility Schematic 3
2 Single Brush with 1-mn Wires 43 Flat Blade Brush for Centrifugal Effect Tests 5
4 Interior of Brush Housing 65 Three Brushes Mount 31 on the Shaft 8
6 Brush Separator Test Layout 97 Size Distribution of the Test Dusts 11
8 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM with Flat Blades and Near Exhaust 17
9 Inlet Air CFN vs. Efficiency and Horsepowerat 1200 RPM with Flat Blades and Near Exhaust 18
10 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM with Flat Blades and Far Exhaust 19
11 Inlet Air CPH vs. Efficiency and Horsepowerat 1200 RPM with Flat Blades and Far Exhaust 20
12 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFK with Far Exhaust and 1-nm wires(4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 21
13 Inlet Air CFD vs. Efficiency and Horsepowerat 2400 RPM with Far Exhaust and 1-mn wires(4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 22
14 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CF?4 with Near Exhaust and 1-nm wires(4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 23
15 Inlet Air CFM vs. Efficiency and Horsepowerat 2400 RPM with Near Exhaust and 1-nm wires(4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 24
16 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFN with Near Exhaust and 1-mu wires(2 brushes, 46 wires/row, , 12 rows/brush) 25
17 Inlet Air CNN vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 RMi -ith Near Exhaust and 1-mn wires(2 brushes. 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 26
18 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFH with Near Exhaust and 1-am wires(4 brushes, 24 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 27
19 Inlet Air CNN vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 RPM with Hear Exhaust and 1-mi wires(4 brushes, 24 wires/row. 12 rows/brush) 28
V C6206-12
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure PageNo. NO.
20 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM with Near Exhaust and 2-umn wires(4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 29
21 Inlet Air CFM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 APM with Near Exhaust and 2-nm Wires(4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 30
22 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFK with Near Exhaust and 2-nm wires(2 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 31
23 Inlet Air CFM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 RPM with Near Exhaust and 2-mr wires(2 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 32
24 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM with Near Exhaust and 2-nm wires(2 brushes, 24 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 33
25 Inlet Air CFK vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 RPM with Near Exhaust and 2-nm wires(2 brushes, 24 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 34
26 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM with Near Exhaust and 2-m wires(4 brushes, 12 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 35
* 27 Inlet Air CFI vs. Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 RPM with Near Exhaust and 2-rm wires(4 brushes, 12 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) 36
28 Effect of Exhaust Position on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 8000 ClIIwith Flat Blades 37
29 Effect of Exhaust Position on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFK with1-am wires (4 brushes, 48 wires/row,12 rows/brush) 38
30 Effect of Exhaust Position on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RPM with1-am wires (4 brushes, 48 vires/row.12 rows/brushes) 39
31 Centrifugal Effect (Flat Blades vs. 1-4 wires)on Separation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CR (4 brushes, 48 wires/row.12 rovs/brush) 4.1
* 32 affect of pac±, -m Wirel o- SeparationEfficiency and . -,ower ;a t )0" CYN 43
Mll 619ARCH IbuSfIT61E
Vi 06206-12
LIST OF FIGURES (tCont'd)
Figure PageNo. NO.
33 Effect of Spacing of 1-rm Wires on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RPM 44
34 Effect of Spacing of 2-m. Wires on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFW 45
35 Effect of Spacing of 2-mn Wires on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RPM 46
36 Effect of Impaction Area of 1-mm Wires onSeparation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 cm 48
37 Effect of Impaction Area of 2-rnm Wires onSeparation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 Cm 49
38 Effect of Impaction Area of 2-ram Wires onSeparation Efficiency and Horsepower at2400 RPM 50
39 Effect of Wire Size at Constant Impaction Areaon Separation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 Cm with Two Brushes 51
40 Effect of Wire Size at Constant Imupttion Areaon Separation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFm with Four Brushes 52
41 Effect of Wire Size at Constant Impaction Areaon Separation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 C7% with 48 wires/row 53
42 Effect of Wire Size on Separation Efficiencyand Horsepower at 8000 CYN with 2304 Wires 54
43 Effect of Wire Size on Separation Efficiencyand Horsepower at 8000 CPt with 1152 Wires 55
"44 Separation Efficiency and Horsepower vs. TestDust Particle Size at 8000 CP with NearExhaust and 2-vm Wires (4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush) at 3000 am 58
Table
1 Brush Separator Efficiency Tjsts withAisul XaHOD 3 12
i1t ISSiAICH INS0lI61t|
Svii C6206-12
ITmn BuSH AOSOL SEPARTOR.I. INTRO UCTION __
This program was directed toward the continuing developmeatof a rotating brush aerosol separator. The previous program,Contract No. O00019-68-C-0459, demoust-ated the feasibility ofthe rotating brush dust separator for ase as an air cleaning devicefor protecting selicopter turbine engines fron ingestion of abrasived1ust without an excessive power or performance penalty. •.trapo- Alation of data taken at low-inlet air volumes clearly showed thatan efficiency of more than 90% could be achieved on a 45-micron massuwdian diameter dust with an expenditure of but 7 HP per 10,000 CPRof cleaned air.
The principle of operation of the rotating brush aerosol sepa-rator is the fact that particle impaction theory predicts that ther smaller the diameter of the collecting surface, in this case, a wireor filament, the greater the efficiency of the collector in sweepingout rn'all particles in its path. Thus, a rotating brush composed ofmany fine filwaents sbmuld be effective in impacting and scavengingparticles *3sted into an airstrean. The British Admiralty ResearchLaboratoryl, 2,•,4) first reported the theoretical development of therotating brush separator. The theoretical studies in Great Britainpredicted efficient contact between the dust particles and the brushfilaments, but the behavior of the dust particles after impaction wasopen to question. The sugoestion was madve that solid pax-ticles couldbe kept fran being re-entrained by wetting the filaments with a waterS'pray.
The previous program at IIT Research Institute(5 )dusonstratedthat high collection efficiencies could be obtained without the useof wetted brush filaments. The introduction of a water spray intoa turbine inlet would be undesirable for several reasons, ano would--squire an on-board water supply of considerable capacity in view ofthe enormous volume of air handled during a typica'. dzy's operation,even if one only considers water injection å landing and take-off. The relative effectiveness of impoctio4 and centrifugal forcesin cbs operation of the brush separator was not clear, anm one of theobjectives of the current program is to clarify this point. reparo-tion of dust in the brush separator -ry result fram centrifugal forcesalone, i.e., the. rotating bruash may impart enough spin to the air---str to czuse the particles to drift to the periphery ununr theinfluence of centrifugal forces. lzpection on the ftllents amy apre-ciably increaot the residence time of the particles in the collectionnone by tr"ping the In the turbulent eddies of the rotat .ng filme.
Besides establishing the relative importance of Im;_acton andoeftrifugol effects, the purpose of this program is to 9imerrte suf-ficient design and o-xrating rLt to enable an airfrm manufac-turer to plan and fabricate brush engine air particle separators firuse on specific helicopter turbine air inlets.
1. C6206-12
"b %
~'' ~I2!
____ ___ ____ I4
E-
'ao
1411
0-
5 0*
AINI
4U1
iii$.4
3 C6206-12
S.
I IIr
II II IIS
I IJ
IFiq 2: Siz�1e Brush with 1 nun Wires
1*I.
4(�62O6-12
- �-------.�.
A|
Fig. Us Flat Blade Brush for CentrifugalEffect Tests
5
C626-1
I
Fig. 4s Interior of Brush Housing
6C6206-12
-- [______________
• housing on the downstream side is shown in Fig. 5. A photograph* of the brush separator test layout is shown in Fig. 6.
* In normal operation, the separated dust was drawn off fromthe downstream periphery of the brush with a small fraction ofthe air, usually about 250 CFK. This purge air carrying the dustconcentrate was discharged through a cyclone dust collector. Aslide valve regulated the purge air volume. Flowrate was deter-mined from pressure drop measurements across the cyclone.
The test dusts, usually sodium bicarbonateswere introduced.t the outlet of the 25 HP fan. A Sylco dust feeder was used toentrain the dust in a 1 CFM airstream. The dust inlet upstreamof the separator was modified by introducing the dust more uni-formly through a horizontal manifold with nine holes, either facingup, down, or in the direction of flow near the center of the duct.A six inch wide, vertical perforated-plate baffle was placed eightinches downstream of the horizontal dust manifold to further dis-perse the dust. In this manner, a more uniform dust distributionwas possible in the relatively short distance between the dustinlet and the upstream sampling probe. The sampling probes werealso changed. Instead of a single, horizontal-flute sampling probeacross the center of the duct as originally used, two flute probesat right angles to each other and 450 off the vertical, were placednormal to the line of airflow. By improving the dust feed andsampling techniques, the variation in concentration between theupstream and downstream sampling probes with a static brush (flat-blades) was reduced to less than 1.3% in the average of threetests with a maxiumum variation of + 5.5%. This small variationindicates representative sampling.
The filter sample flowrate was also increased to nearly 6 CFMfrom the original 1.3 CFK value, thereby increasing the amount ofcollected dust and enhancing the accuracy of the measurements. Theincreased flowrate was made possible by the use of a glass-fiberType E (Gelman) filter of 47 mm diameter, instead of the plasticmembrane filters used previously.
The analytical procedure for analysis of the sodium bicarbonatewas also modified by using bromocresol green indicator and boilingthe acid titrated solution to avoid the supersaturation by carbondioxide which would otherwise mask the true endpoint. Precise end-points now pinpoint bicarbonate contents precisely.
All of the above modifications reduced experimental errors tothe point where running tests in triplicate, as in the previousprogram, is unnecessary and wasteful. Tests, instead, were run induplicate, permitting the investigation of additional parametricfactors or levels.
7C6206-12
Fig. 5: Three Brushes Mounted on the Shaft
8 C6206-12
Iti
II
Fig 6a Brush SWerator Test Layout
9 EC6206-12
B. Flow Measurements
A comprehensive calibration of the brush separator and purge* cyclone flowrates had been obtained previously by three independent
measurements which agreed to within + 5% (see Ref. 5). These cali-brations were checked in the current investigation through the useof the orifice flow equation which confirmed the previous calcu-lations. Therefore, the reader is referred to Ref. 5 for the de-tailed flow data and the description of the calibration techniquesused.
The pressure drop through the brush separator is a functionof the air flow. At 8000 CIX, the pressure drop is only fourinches of water as shown in Fig. 7 of the previous reference.
C. Size Distribution of the Test Dusts
A fire extinguishing chemical, Ansul +50B sodium bicarbonate,was used for most of the efficiency tests. The size distributionof this material had been measured by separating into narrow-sizefractions with a Babco classifier and microscopically sizing theweighed fractions, Fig. 7. In the last series of tests, largequantities of Babco fractionated sodium bicarbonate with mediandiameters of 15-, 33-, and 44 ;Am were prepared and used to estab-lish separation efficiency and particle size relationships. Theamallest particle size range was covered with a ball-milled anthra-cite coal powder with a mass median diameter of 2.7 ;Am, as deter-mined by Andreason pipette sedimentation measurements.
D. Test Procedure
The details of the test procedure used for all tests utiliz-ing the Ansul test dust are given in Appendix B. In tests utilizingcoal dust, the filter analysis was gravimetric instead of volumetric.
10 C6206-i2
4'"40willI I I If -
L -u uSM '4
U 6%4
~ 9.4 41
inS
00'
On4"- P4
C6061
a. ~abuate -Data, and Uonawative Plots
22m results. of the brush separator efficiency tests arepresented In Table 1. Twelve different brushb configuationsutilizing flat blades and two different wire sizes were testedat four brush speeds in the range of from 1200-to 3000 OK asshown in Figs. 8 through 27. Generally, the separation efficiencyand brush borsepoer increased as the brush *1K increased. srushborsagowr was calculated from the hydraulic fluid pressure drop
across the drive motor and the hydranlic f luid flovrata throughthe motor. Detailed comparisons are made in the followrtng section.
The parameters which were investigated are residence time(exhaust position), centrifugal effects, wire spacing, impactionarea, wire diameter, and dust particle size. Most of the figuresin this section are overlays of casqrative figures fro, thepreceding section (Figs. 8-27) to simsplify the comparison.
. MiEno Time (Awhams Position)
The effect of the residene time on separation efficiencywas deteimined by varying the-position of the exhaust annulus.In the near exhaust position, the sxhaust annulus which separatedthie cleaned airstream~ from the particle-laden dirty airstream was
*located intdiately after the last brish. in the far ehustposition, the inner aluminsa cyline (Part; C614, Appendix A) wasremved so that the two airstreami separroted ace16-1/2 inchesfurther downstream. This allowd ;-Afttional time for the spinningaction of the airstream to take place prior to splitting the cleanand dirty airstreams.
There was no pronounced difference in s~eration efficiencyrelative to exhaust position with the flat blades at M00 CPRI overthe range of 1200 to 3000 UK. although slightly less horsepowerwas required with the ner ";ast. Fig. 28. Separation efficiencyappears to approach a maximum of about 88% In the region of 2400-.3000 MM, with brush horsepower increasing rapidly with increasing
With the 1-sm wire brushes, Figs. 29 and 30. the effect ofexhaust positiop on separation efficiency was much more pronc mced.than with the flat-blaefs. Ifte that the totbl projected area ofthe l-m wires in theme tests Is the same as the projected area ofthe f lat-blades. At 8000 CMS Fig. 29 Owth near exhaust resulf edin separation efficienciess approaching 95% at 3000 on,. vheresswith the far exhmaut. the efficiency peaked at 85% at 2400 AM andfell of f to below 70% at 3000 WK. Similarly, at a constant brush
* UKM of 2400 and varying inlet air CMU. Fig. 30, the near exhaust
11 06206-12
UC 4444 444444 44 44444 444 .iC4 4144
o" g4.4 r.i i. m a v w, a m .4 in a * o o A co
V4 Sq4 1..0 .I0 Insh ct (G enC S. fa4 St .4 V ft 00 .4i 0D4
or tn t-~ m ronanto 66 ms or- in- wo ani o s
I- w n Of40 ftf% 0 04 0. 00 00va t.0 v 00 '00O4f a; 1; d;4. 0;t a;i 0* at 4;
4;.
u. #41 & eIm 1 L dL. &gIOad$a14 A4dU.., a h4 A i I u Id 1wA.S.6
i4 rIti CI f" on, V4 . 4 0.4 V4 V m A 044 4.4444
P4 04tf( n.w 04 04P eV 44 44O 4e * ov wdo o 4V 4.
*on Ot- G 445 44f 4444 04U 4h44 .do WNev
044 .. 4.4vafd..44 "Ml all w t~ fot Cfa'
0626-12
in
4640 f"o 0 q " inv~c Ow ma .~-4 mO tý ri ow P4 at at n m~ m
It . .. .. a. 9** *4 o 'n Co 1 004 1'. ** In Co No rO's r,- Ofý I ,I b. Sk vOk mr..a Okf- - 0
r- 0: 1*. 0 f.mr Co t-00t;~tot. 1 0MMP c0
in~~~ ~ ~ .4.. f dv ev 4 a ni "W nq
t. em q A~ in in an in in inmm
*,w w 0in l w 1-.1% - r. 3V4 4 t 44Cl 4 " eq t I .4 e ce eqtv 4 e C4r4 eq v t f
7_ _ _ _ _ _ _1
14 4 ocs 4 14 044 4 c44 44A O 4SI 4~ 4C 44 4c4 4dc4 4co4 04 4
a% in (D .0 M,~ r-. In en 1 N inl r- ý(
m, f D W CD in t4 CD 0D 0% CD . m' 0h
4440oo,1 W ýC Cý U! 4i n Wd4ý* CD ic ine' m at 4 (v'N r r1 r 00% m In 0
IN i 4 f 0 i #t n 1 d" c'N tv W ~ 0 00 1) rVnM
S 9DJ44 Ifu' 'Vu' 00 CM Car- r, 4 4 ODf 0'V V1 N- N 0 0 %0 f- co * W 4 n n4 --4
p5. 4600 00 fin 00 00 00eal Wo 00 00 00 N0 0' 0'AA r :444c4.
A 0-A 4j O if- W - C f-t r-) Uinf M111 U D% in %0 t r- iaf, v-1(4 V-u en t r- i rif in t M n 0 -04 4j iC'n f" MU)i - ni r, 1- %0%2 in v4 -4(4 C c" NN) r4N W N. 0 WC4 (IN1N ,
Cw .u; 00 U0Lf 00 00 00 00 0.. m; ;0 0 0 0 00 00 'fn
0 n i 00 0 ON(I00 00000 tn nin0 0000 00 00 00 inN NC N4 N0 N 0C14 S NN NN I C4 N N NN N N 0 C4N ^ NC1
4j u~00 0000 00 00 0 00000 000 000 000000 co 0
A 0LoL)CK)OD 00000000 0000 n DC 0 000 0 00 0000 C Cr - 0%oOOOOOrO0O 0O0 oo190 C (400 o 00 0%0NN
620 m.4 W WW $ 4 4k 1 4 (IN fI IW~ WN in-4-W 54
W4 WI $4 4
000 0 00 00 0 0 00 c00 00 00 (D 0 0)
RIGr4u P 4 clN q (" N N (I M I qI 4.oC C 4N m m 4 4 "Im 4 C4 44 (4 4
P4 N I4 @-IM r4 M P4r4 r4 r.4 r4 4 j.4 V44 C4.4 (44 r41 C444 (.4 C (4C4
V n% -O 4N #i 09 Da 0 P- N(n W n 0 oa D 0 r4 c4 r
C6206-12
A 44 4I 4 4 o 4 44 4c4 444c c 4 44 44o cA 44 PC 4coc4 44 44 44 fcoi~~t~ ~0 M Qt.C (IN an to rýcr 0 0 vS r4 as
zr n 4- i 4 .4 4 i 41 1E
4 N 4wV11
C . W 4 t M 6 4 0 4 0 **.... ....O~D f-N LM ~0 (P % N 0 44 00 P4 N O if% f1 1~
0 oO D40 tc m Wr n% nv l nQ DC -r in tn
NN C4-f- 4V00 t-r- 40 P4P4 f In # OO t 00 CMC4 00 04
A1 -.-. 4 . 4, - *,4 *., 4 6 -6 e . * 6 - -4 0 3 -.- 4 .4 - -4
Cp r *i o *n m n t- *o% 0% .- n, en 0v nP Dc D Dr w a % 4P
(610 00 .( sf ý u)Lf U1O CU) aff mlul a; lf mm mu 00 00 0* a;U4J a
0 0 000 in% in' 000000 n nL L ALni n ni L 000 0 Lo~ 00000
000co00000 00a 00 00 00 0000ccO' 00 0000 0000 00 000000 n DW00 00 00000% o00 00 00 00
0 00 0 N 00,00 00000 C O % V 0 00, 00
0 J00 00 00 0)4)0 0)0 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 000 0 00
:s 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00CIO 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0064 o 9 00 V rI C N 4-94I It'* oo '4$ V m W94 CD4 No N94 10l 0 tq DO
0015
N N C NN (4N (4(4NN NN 4N N C'4N NCM 044N C620N N6- N C4 NM~p ". 4 P4 r4 r4 P4 r.4 r44 P44 r 4 r4 IP.4 HA rI -I, M -,4 r4 H 4 m4 4 p4,4 ý4,
Md N94 N 94 C4 4 N 94 N94 Na N~C4 C4 N0 4NNNNN N N 4C N 4. N, N NN NN
N Nr NC4 N N NN NC4MN NC CN NCMNN N N C4 C4N NC' (N 494944t4"49
MM 0 0% (A M 4 9 4 P4r4 P4 e4 P4,@4 Mp4,P4 P,4 o44 p44 4 ,M 4 M MP4,r4 r4,
15-.- -C6206- 12 i
44 40c 044c mm Uri anQMMM
iC at m r- e in
*~aD C-4 v ' 0' W '
In
•r-V . * * .* *. * •.*
#P-4 r4 MN Itý r r % N 44 O , ,.,.P4 f.
0 0.O
of - 0 C- N n ow ow c o r-P4o• r-O04 MO O (0• OD 0 O Fi0 O0 0% f• 'a %0
(f) C" ~ e m•O m•• 000 1"me nc"c 4
0 14
u-4
0 * w cm in a's V o O 0 V %
-44 w) t- o n t L m in l ot-d i
"mO 'n 00 ' mm P" "mm q mO ql°u
4)4 000 ;o :tz 0 ;C .
410 '9 . .0-
00co0000 0000 80O0 0 0 U00'%0%000 0000 c 00 a a
OD On LM e Lg m0 toO O wu w o ees41e44
weJ we000O0 000 we fo
co 4 m Id
P4l r4I N N N N M( nfn M C" t Uin 0
+ ++c *n
in N (4 NNCMNCMr4' N'( ( M N '4NN(04 + w 0 .u-
en 0 4OUQ
P4P -1 u-l-I u-I4 P-4 V4 V 40 1 .I40 10 0 # w w
16 a62I6w1
1 0 0 ... e.. . I . . . . . ,I
90
*44
S70
0 .4 0
L 60-
oo-90.
Lo+ 40-
m
30- 6
20- -4
3
10" 2
ol 10
600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Srush RIPMFig. 8 3rush RPI vs Efficiency and 'lorsepower at 8000 CFtRA with
Flat 31ades and Near Exhaust
17C6206-12
*100
07
+00
0 so
10
40 9
30 3
20
1018
C6206...2
7ý
50 ... 10S40-
"U4 9* 1 € 8
7$4
X - 6133 3
+
10
600 1200 1660 24000 .. • .. . 0
mush P~M
fig. lOt snob AN vs utlinmq end seo..posr at 6000 c withFlat 914dm aml Par awwmit
C6206-12
li~_
100r
90
80
70O
60
0 so- ,
V4 60
V
9
~40
N7
30t- 6
+ 5
20-
000
2000 3000 4000 5000 8000 7000
Inlet Air, F
P19. IIa Inlet Air CFM vs Efficiency and Horsepower at 12001.MIwith Flat Blades and Far Rxhast
20 C6206-12
S~.4?100
99
408
0
A
6 0
02
~S0 10
60 1200 1W 2400 300Stvsah RiM
with faraz Mithot andlI m wilres (4 nbrses. 48 wirooei/row,12 r-om/br-uab 21 C6206-12
Cb
1, '4ll
_
I • .. " • " . .. .. .. - . ... " ' : 'a"~
100
90
* 70
0i"4_
0 60"RM 'I'
0 -50
19
" 407
S30+
S
~20 - 8
3
10 2
- I
2000 1000 4000 50()0 fA 7000
IFIS4. 13 Inlet Air CP% vs Efficiency an•-, Ihr* wr at 2400 RvRvith far hboust and = wvires (4 huunbas, 48 vims/rov,
2 rows/bruh) 22
C6206-12
i.i
100
SoS90
7 Z
306
-4
'4
60 20Cw20 30W
a6o R
Irtv 141ftim amvi af Icevc SrA*t a CP
witC Nersms ael 9wl%6fw12 tos/bt-WW 2I*061
900
60--
14
so[ 10
a9
+
5.
3
M IltAix CMvs a Zf 1CLObc enad moew it2W0 RMIWith tear iamust and I mwires (4 bwimbr-s, 8 wv*r/rnw.
24 G6206- k.2
90
80
4 0-
I.0
0 1 0
I0. ;i0 so 200 N
10
12 r~'~uab 25 206-12
100...
90
80epoae
70 70
Ci 6044
0
40
'7v
40
~Ln
~ 30
10 2
101
0o. I II 0I2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000Inlet Air, CF!4IFig. 1.7s Inlet Air CFI4 vs Efficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RPM
with Near Exhaust and 1mm Wires (2 brushes, 48 wires/row,12 rows/brush)l
26 C6206-12
* 100
"44
~0
A04 10
.4.' 9
4C8
o 7i
6I•,6
~20 4
1�2
1
600 1200 1800 2400 3000Brush RPM
Pig. 18s Bruss. RPM vs Efficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFM withNear Exhaust and lmm Wires (4 brushes, 24 wires/row,12 rows/brush)
27 C6206-12
100I I I
80-
70
60.
514
10
1. 940- -8
z
+
"P45
3
1c 2
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000Inlet Air, CFM
Fig. 19s Inlet Air CP4 vs Efficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RPMwith Near Exhaust and lmm Wires (4 brushes, 24 wires/row,12 rows/brush)
28 C620642
* 100
90
70
* IU"4 "'44
0
iso U
S.H0 9
$4* iv
~40 -80 30- -6I.)
LO
+ + -5
200
10 22
1
I__,_ _1_ 0600 1200 1800 2400 300
Brush RPMFigure 201 Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower
at 8000 CFM with Near Exhaust and 2 m Wires(4 Brushes, 48 Wires/Row, 12 Rows/Brush)
29 C6206-12
104 - ,, r
V4
0
4.4
040-
m 8•10 i_ ~U
0 ;
in 3(> 6"5 -
+
4-2
fA
I~h. 2
OL,.._. I I I!02000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Figure ~ ~ c 21V8e M il~.1hik±eP"ncy and Horsepower at2400 RPM •ith Near Exbaust ard 2 - wires(4 Brushes, 48 Vires/Row, 12 Jows/Brush)
30 C6206-12__,
101'44-
• 6- 0
C
0 0-LO
IU 7
0in
+ 5
S20- 4-
" 3
l1
0600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Brush RPMFigure 22. Brush RPM vs. Efficiency and Horsepower
at 8000 C1 with Near Exbaust and 2 wo Wires(2 Brushes. 48 WireAtow, 12 Plwa/5rush)
31 C6206-12
* .*,-. |
90-
80-
* 70-
60-*44
*44
0 1
~40 -8
0U7
0U
+ 5-
20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4
10 120 I 02000 3000 4000 '5000) 6000 7001) 80%^9
Inliet Air, c1%Figure 23s Inlet Air vs. 9f ficioncy and Horsepower
at 2400 RPM with.Pear Ixhaust and 2 - Wires(2 Brushes, 48 Wires/Raw. 12 Rovwf~rush)
32C6206- 12
* 100
90-
S80
V54a 70-r4
04
9:9
600
S.. •
19
50- %00
U -9
z
go 40 80U,+ 7
130-1
0
333
10- 2
01 0brUIZV 1800 20
brush RPM
*fig. 241 Brush RR4 vs. Ef ficiency -ird Horsepowerat 8000 CM'I with Near Zxhrnist and 2 mmWires (2 brushes, 24 wires/row, 12 rows/brus1-.,
33C6206-1J2
100
90
80
rw
so
99
t 40
om7In 7
30
20 4* 30
10 2
0_ L I_ 0
*• 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000Inlet Air, CYR
rig. 251 Inlet Air CK vs. 3fficiercy ar" Horseower at2400 RWA with Mear 3xhz;ix+ ar4 2 im Wires(2 brushes, 24 wires/rov. 12 rows/brush)
34 C6206-12
* LOG I 00
90
70-
S60
40
"41
Ii 0
150 102
8 9Sn0.. 82010 ''- 30
fig.26t ras RPMvs. ffiienc ondHoropowr aWW M tt Yer kh~t nd2 W."7.,/4 4rse.l -r~o, 2rw~huh
30 C6W1
W~9c -
* 7C-
99
r47
Y 6
SS
044
3
2004) 30`0 40UO 50 )o 60C J, 7000 8000
Fig, Ils Ir et A-ir CM~ vs. V- csi z ire~vrai4 bPP4vA Asor Uhatrt and 2 m Wires(4 oruIshos. 1.2 wlres/.'ov. 12 rcvs/L-ush)
36 C3206-12
100,
90 Nea• Exlhaust.90 .-
N - -
c so Far Exhaust
IdI"40• 0S40 /
60
60h
o1
'~08
// 9
1 40 . . . .
730 -Far oUAK' 6I0
20Near I "Ks
600 1200 1800 2400 3000Brush RPM
Fig. 28t Effect of Exhaust Position on Separation Ffficiencyand Horsepk at 8000 CM with Flat Blades
C6206-12
----
MIM
90 --
80 /
-'arExh.im St
70-
mw 60- 0H
Z 5 0 -1 I 0
+S40- I
-443f40 -8
Far x•haust •.20- 4 z3 3
20 -ar -- 2x~j,33
Exhaust Ea
- ..
600 1200 1300 2400 3000
Brush RPM
•Fig. 29: Effect o• Exhaust Positiona on Separation"Efficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFA with1 mm Wires (4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush)
38 C6206-12
100
S90
so 80 r Exhaust
44
0
S70
600
so - 10U,0m 50- -Ii+ 9
40 8
30 64-
/ r Exhaust 5
20 4 -1
Near Exhaust - 3
10 2
0 I I I 02000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Inlet Air, CFM
Fig. 30: Effect of Exhaust Position on Separation Efficiencyand Horsepower at 2400 RPjM with 1 mm Wires (4 brushes,48 wires/row, 12 rows/brv,shes)
39 C6206-12
q Iposition was again superior, especially as the inlet air volumewas reduced. No significant difference in brush horsepower wasnoted with regard to the effect of exhaust position.
It is believed that turbulence downstream of the brushes inthe region ahead of the exhaust annulus worked against any improve-ment in separation efficiency that might have been possible withthe longer residence time. Therefore, any additional separationlength must be filled with additional brushes to take advantage ofa longer residence time. For the above reasons, all subsequenttests were run with the exhaust annulus in the near position,i.e., with Part C614 in place so that the clean and dirty airstreams
Swere separated immediately after the trailing brush as shown inassembly drawing E600 of Appendix A. Note also that in all testswith less than the full complement of four brushes, the forwardbrushes were removed so that the distance froit the trailing brushto the exhaust annulus was kept constant.
2. CentrifuQal Contribution
The effect of centrifugal separation as opposed to separationby impaction was examined through the use of flat blades and 1 mmdiameter wires. The flat blades, Part C605 of Appendix A, were1.875-in wide, and twelve blades were mounted on each of four brushhubs for a total projected width of 4 x 12 x 1.875 x 25.4 = 2282 mm.I he use of flat blades rather than wires reduced the influence ofimpaction as a separation mechanism since the impaction parameterdecreases as the width of a collecting surface increases. Thecomparative tests with 1-mm wire brushes utilized four brusheswith 48 wires/row and 12 rows/brush for a total projected widthof 4 x 48 x 12 x I = 2305 mm, or essentially the same as that pre-sented by the flat-blade brushes.
The blade versus wire comparative tests are shown in Fig. 31.It appears that at brush speeds below 2400 RPM and at an airflowof 8000 CFM, the flat blades are more effective than the wirebrushes, probably due to a more efficient transfer of rotationalvelocity to the incoming air. However, at brush speeds above2400 RPM, the separation efficiency of the flat-blade brush hasdecreased from its maximum of about 88%, whereas the separationefficiency of the 1-mm wire brush continued to rise beyond2400 RPM and reached 95% at 3000 RPM. In the region of m3ximumseparation efficiency, it appears that while centrifugal separation Iis a major factor, impaction effects become increasingly importantand supplement the primary centrifugal effect. An added bonus isthe fact that the wire brush configuration takes about 15% lesshorsepower at 3000 RPM in spite of the much higher separationefficiency. The detrimental effects of the far exhaust positiondo not permit a talid comparison of centrifugal effects for thismode of operation.
40 26206-12
iN
103
Wire Brush----* .0
90 - 001
• • / /Blade
W /. 70/
44I
.060
/ 41.4
En 50 i100 • -9U
S40 80
+ -
3- Flat -6Blade W
'I I-520 -4
S/ Wire Brush
I0 - I/-0 -II .Io
600 1200 1800 2400 3000Brush RPM
Fig. 31: Ceni•rifugal Effect (Flat Blades vs 1 imm Wires)on Separation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM (4 brushes, 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush)
41 05206-12
It should be noted that while we have ettempted to distinguishbetween centrifugal and impaction effects in these experimentswith the flat blades, this was done only to a degree since eventhe blades will allow much impaction of particles in the sizerange of 50 Am. For example, the 50% impaction size for a spheri-cal particle of NaHCO3 at a six inch radius on a 1.875-in. wideflat-plate at 3000 RPM is only 16 Am as calcula ted from the data"of Langmuir and Blodgett.a In spite of this shortcoming, theflat-blade tests do show the superiority of the wire brush inobtaining higher separation efficiencies at lower power consump-tion.
3. Axial and Radial SDacing Betweeen Wires
The effects of wire spacing on brush separator performance
were evaluated in a series of tests in which the radial spacing(wires/row) and the axial spacing (number of brushes) was variedfor both 1-mm and 2-mm wire brushes at various test conditions,Figs. 32 through 35. In the tests with the 1-mm wire brushes,at a constant total projected wire width of 1152 mm, Figs. 32 and33, the differences in efficiency and horsepower are slight andare not significant.
The method of wire spacing does become important when 2-mmwire brushes at a constant total projected wire width of 1152 mm
Sare used, Figs. 34 and 35. As the brush RPM increases andseparation efficiency rises, Fig. 34, the four-brush configura-tion becomes increasingly superior to the corresponding two-brushconfiguration. A similar situation occurs when the brush speedis kept constant at 2400 RPM and the inlet-air CFM is increased,Fig. 35. As the inlet-air volume increases from 6000 CFM to8000 CFM, separation efficiency falls Gff rapidly for the two-brush configuration, whereas the four-brash configuration is muchmore stable in performance. Slightly more horsepower is requiredfor the four brush configuration, perhaps due to a more efficienttransfer of energy to the inlet air resulting in a faster spinimparted to the air. The faster spin imparted to the air passingthrough the separator would then enhance the centrifugal separationmechanism.
While axial versus radial wire spacing does not appear to bean important parameter for 1-mm wires in the tests conducted, itis an important parameter when 2-mm wires are used. As will benoted later, structural and abrasive considerations favor the useof the laraer wires. The significance of the results of the wirespacing tests is that 2-mm wires added to a configuration in the
a Chemical Engineer's Handbook, J. H. Perry, Ed., 3rd Edition,
p. 1022.
42 C6206-12
"* 100
90
S80 -
4rj
S70 -- 4--- l.p4
S.40 602 brushes/48 wires/row A/ brushes
12 rows/brush / 24 wires/row(2-48-12) -Z.* 12 rows/brush0o 50 1 0
#-L,-(4-24-12)
z 9
o /uo 40 8+
/ 7G7
20 -- (4-24-12) • "// -4
/ , '/ -• ( 2- 4 8 - 1 2 , W30 --- 2
1,.
i 0 1
0v t J
600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Brush R'M* Fig. 32: Effect of Spacing of 1 m•i Wires on Separation
Efficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFM
43C2-S~C6206-12
1004 brushes
"24 wires/row12 rows/brush
90 /• 4-24-12)90-
8 2 brushesS80 48 wires/row
U 12 rows/brushS~(2-48-12)
0*.H4 7044M
0 60gU
4)
50 10
• 9z
0 40 8LA+r4 74
< 30 6
520 0
20 (4-24-12) 4
-L4
(2-48-12)10 -2
1
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000Inlet Air, CFP
Fig. 33: Effect of Spacing of 1 mn Wires on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at.2400 RPM
44 C6206-12
100
90
S~4 brushes80 12 wires/row412 rows/brushe---_..
(4-12-121)/
Uv /0
"0 0S60 --
2 brushesS/4-+.- 24 wires/row
12 rows/brush" 50 - (2-24-12) 10
•0U
o 40- 8 -
1 04
,, 30 - 6 '
05 :
6000 82(4-012-3120
20Brush RP4
SFig. 34; Effect of Spacirvi of 2 Rmn Wires on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFM
45 C6206-12
10
4 brushes0 12 wires/row-
12 rows/brust(4-12-12)
so-
•70 2 brushesU 24 wires/row%W 12 rows/brush \
(2-24-12)
60
S50 1'0:..
50U1
9
Z40 8
o7LA+ (S30 rS(4-12-12) 59
20 .4
(2-24-1 2.10 2
10 .. . I I I 0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 000Inlet Air, CFM
Fig. 35: Effect of Spacing of 2 mm Wires on SeparationEfficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RP14
46 C6206-12
axial direction ;re more effective than wires added in the radialdirection. Carried to an extreme, this means that given so manywires, the most efficient use of tImhse wires woutld entail mountingthen singly on a shaft with only one wire per row, much like therungs :ý% a pole ladder. The least efficient use of these wireswould be to space them all in one row, much like the ribs on anunbrellm. O course, space limitations require a trade-off betweenthese two extremes.
4. Impaction Area
The way to change the impaction area is to ýange the numberof wires either tirough the radial or axial direction. As notedin the wire spacing tests discussed in the previous section, themost efficient way to edd impaction area is to increase the numberof brushes rather than increase the wire population on the samenumber of brushes. Therefore, comparative tests, Figs. 36 through38, were conducted by varying the number of brushes (2 or 4) whilekeeping the number of wires per brush constant(576).
A doubling of the number of 1-umn wire brushes, Fig. 36, re-sulted in a 6-to 11% increase in the separation efficiency overthe range of 1200--to 3000 RDIA. At 3000 RPM where efficiency asusual was at a maximum, the horsepower requirements increased by23% for four brushe.s as compared to two brushes. Also, at 3000(RPM, the amounL of dust nct r•o•ve, by the separator varies in-veLsely with the numbJer of brushes.
Si-milarly for 2-nr. wire brushes, eigo 31, the separationefficiency increased by 7- to 20% cver f-he range of 1200 to 3000RPM when four brushes were used instead of two. About 15% morehorsepower wis required -t 3000 RPM with four brushes. As with
l-am wire tests, doubling the irr•,ction 3rea at 8000 CFM halvedth1 dust penetration.
The effect of 2-amn wir2z, impaction area at 2400 RPM and vary-ing inlet air volume is shown in Fig. 38. Note that the increasedimpaction area is beneficial only above 3000 CFM. Apparently thenumber of brushes recommended for a given application will dependon the air volune requirements. While two brushes may be adequateat 3000 CF4, at 8000 CE4 half of the dust which penetrates twobrushes can be removed by adding two more brushes.
5. Wire Sie
A series of tests were conducted with various brush combi-nations at various test conditions to show the effect of wiresize on separation efficiency, Figs. 39 through 43. The two wiresizes examined were l-nmm and 2-amm diameter. Since a change in thewire diameter also changes impaction area if the same number" ofwires is retained, several combinations were examined to try toisolate the effect of wire size.
47 C6206-12
*.
1L C . .. ..
90 4 brushes48 -odresy row //"12 rows/brushh /(4-48..12)...
80 /
/ / I
V 70
/, /
• / 2 brushesM #7--48 wires/row12 rows/brush -0 6
(2-48-12)
L40
' 30
50i
0 -9
z 40 --
( 4- 48-}.21 20
v _ _
I+ 6
80- (4-48--21
ICI: ~ 6 0 0 1 20 0 1 8 0240 0 3 0.-
B r u s h R P M: :f•ig. 36t Effect of Impoction Area of 1 m~m Wires on Separation•' ~Efficiency and Horsepower at 80C0 CFM
48 C6206-12
100 I
4 brusnes48 wires/row
90 12 rows/brush -"...(4-48-12)
S80 -
7n 2 brushes
r /4448 wirec/row4---- / 12 rows/brush
o / / (2-48-12)*v4
• 60 /
S40
Ln/
+ /
S7o' 0 F WoI
u/
o 40f-
5 34
I I I
6012080 240004-48-12)00
S20 -4 - 4
32-48-12)
10-r 2•
600 1200 1800 2400 30
Brush RPMFig. 17: Effect Of Impaction Area of 2 Mm Wir~eS on Separation
Efficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CPR4
49 Ci2M-li
100
4 brushes90 48 wires/row
12 rows/brush-\ (4-48-12)
U 2 brushes1 48 wires/rowV 12 rows/brusho(41ri (2-48-12)
44 70
04j
' 60
4)4
50 -10
' 9
+ 8I 40 -
-)0
6 (n2
(4-48-12) #k5
20 4
(2-48-12) /• - 3
10 2
1
002000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Inlet Air, CFM
Fig. 38: Effect of Impaction Area of 2 mm Wires onSeparation Efficiency and Horsepower at 2400 RPM
50 C6206-12
£
•. i~~~ ~~00 .. . . .. . , ,
1 mm wires2 brushesij.• 80- 48 wires/r
12 rows/brush ((2-48-"12)
a)
707So 70i ~-,
-•: 44'44
0 60-
W 2 rrm wires/ (2-24-12)
aI)
(n 50 -13
•0oo -9
40- 8
0 O+
7)S• 30 -6
2 imm wires /(2-24-12) 5
20-4$4..~~ ~ mmo wires.% /:'(2-48-12) -3
10 - 2
S-0600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Brush RPMFig. 39: Effect of W're Size (t Constant Impaction Area onSeparaition Efficincj and Horsepower at 8000 CFM
with Two Brushes
C6206-12
100
90
1 mm wires 74 brushes
80 24 wires/row --- _/12 rows/brush /(4-24-12)
S~/
.70 /S~/
4/&z-2 nm wireso 60 / (4-12-12)
4.40/ ° ~//
J 50 / 10M
M 9
U)
on 40- /8
/ 8
o 30 6 nLA+ 0r- 5•S2 mm wir
r.2 (4-12-12) ZIS20- 4
30"f 1-- mm wires 2
10 (4-24-12) 2
0 I I I o0
600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Brush RPM
Fig. 40: Effect of Wire Size at Constant Impaction Areaon Separation Efficiency and Horsepower at8000 CFM with Four Brushes
52 C6206-12
100 1
01. m wires9 0 4 brushes
48 wires/row -12 rows/brush
(4-48-,12) -L I80-
702/mm wires70 -(2-48-12)
44
= 60 /0
4-jm
S50 / 10
0U
S40 8Z14
o7S30 -1iramwie-." .. c
w1 r e -i _V)(4-48-12) W
U) 05 mO
,)0,20 --- 4
2 mm wires(2-48-12)
10 2
10 I II 0
600 1200 1800 2400 3000Brush RPM
Fig. 41: Effect of Wire Size at Constant Impaction Area onSeparation Efficiency and Horsepower at 8000 CFMwith 48 wires/row
53 C6206-12
100 I I I T
2 mm wires90 4 braishes
48 wires/rovZ--12 rows/brus --(4-48-12) /
// / *."',•m wires
/ (4-48-12)• 70
600
.q4
r4
.,4
50 10
o 9U
z 40 8mo
+
,-430 2 mwire3-%u.,i
V..S( 4-.48 1 "' 5°200
204
3/~~~ r=--Im wires
10 (4-48-12)
1
0 1 0500 1200 1800 2400 3000
Brush RPMFig. 42: Effect of Wire Size on Separation Efficiency and
Horsepower at 8000 CFM with 2304 Wires
54 C6206-12
I
100
90-2 rmu wires2 brushes
48 wires/row - ,-12 rows/brush\%
80 "(2-48-12)
US70 /
.44
.,-I44
S60 / -/ mm wires
J 50 10En
0
40 40
/ W4+
r4 30 6 L4
20 -2 a wir -1 424
.0.
-• •----I nu. wiresI0 - ///•/(2-48-12) -2
10 (
o .... I . ... I , I 0600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Brush RPMFig. 43: Effect of Wire Size on Separation Efficiency and
Horsepower at 8000 CFM with 1152 Wires
C6206-12
Figure 39 compares the two wire sizes at 8000 CFM with onlytwo brushes in use. Impaction area was kept constant by halvingthe number of 2-mm wires from 48 wires/row to 24 wires/row. Withthis configuration, the 1-mm wires are clearly £Lore effective.At 3000 RPM, the separation efficiency of the 1 mm wire config-uration was 89% compared to 76% for the 2-mm wire brushes.
When four brushes were used with the same total impactionarea (by halving the number of wires/row once more), no signifi-cant difference in separation efficiency or brush horsepower couldbe seen, Fig. 40. At 3000 RPM and 8000 CFM, both the I-mm aid2-mm wires resulted in an 89% separation efficiency.
Still another combination was examined as shown in Fig. 41where the full complement of 48 wires/row was used for both wiresizes, but the impaction area was kept constant by using onlytwo of the 2-mm wire brushes compared to four of the 1-nmm brushes.Here the 1-mm wire brushed are more effective with the separationefficiency approaching 95% at 3000 RPM compared to 87% for the2-mm wire brushes. Below 2000 RPM, the differences were notsignificant.
For the tests depicted in Fig. 42, the full complement offour brlshes, 48 wires/row, end~ 12 rows per brush witn a total of2304 wires was used. This meant that the number of wires waskept constant rather than the impaction area. The 2-mn wirebrushes, thus, had twice the impaction area of the 1-mm wire brushes.At brush speeds belcq 3000 RPM, significantly higher separationefficiencies were obtained with the 2-mm wire brushes at slightlymore horsepower. Essentially identical performance was observedat 3000 RPM with separation efficiencies of 94-95% at nearly 7 HP.Figure 43 with half as many wires (only two of the full complementbrushes instead of four as in Fig. 42) shows the same effect to alesser extent.
While the 1-mm wires appear to be more efficient than the2-mm wires on a constant impaction area basis, as one would expectfrom impaction theory, consideration of the problem of wire erosionand ease of maintenance favors the use of heavier wires. If thesame total number of wires is used as the comparison criterion,no difference is observed at 3000 RPM, and somewhat higher separa-tion efficiencles are obtained with the 2-mm wire brushes at lowerbrush speeds. Therefore, in the final series of tests with narrowsize fractions of classified tests dusts, the decision was made touse the 2-mm wire brushes with the complete complement of fourbrushes, 48 wires/row, and 12 rows/brush.
56 C6206-12
6. Particle Size Effects
The relationship between separation efficiency and dust parti-cle size was evaluated at 8000 CFM with the full :c.mplement of2,304 wires on four brushes. The wire size selected for this lastseries of tests was 2 mm, based on the reasons stated in the pre-vious section. Five different test dusts were utilized whose sizedistributions were shown previously in Fig. 8 (p. 17). One ofthe test dusts was, of course, the Ansul +50B sodium bicarbonateas supplied which was used for the majority of the tests itemizedin Table I (pi-, 12-16). The Ansul +50B was also classified intothree smaller size fractions through the use of a Bahco classifier.This technique permitted the size range of from 15 -4m to 46-am tobe covered with the sodium bicarbonate. Ball-milled onthracitecoal with a mass median diamneter of 2.7-4m was used to cover thesmall particle region where separation efficiency falls offrapidly. The tests with sodium bicarbonate were assessed as usualby chemical titration of the filter samples. The tests with coaldust were assessed by gravimetric analysis of the filter samples.
Blank tests were run to determine more accurately the trueoperatinc; separation efficiency since transient conditions duringthe Start-up and shut-down periods of a test contributed a smallamount of dust to the downstream sampler which would not otherwisereach the sampler during continuous operation. Even without thecorrection for the blank in these tests, efficiencies instead ofapproaching 100% for the classified sodium bicarbonate were onthe order of 95%. In an on-board helicopteL e-v-ine air-particleseparetor, provision can be made for rotating the brush ot speedduring these transient periods. This was not possible during thetests due to the danger of excessive brush speeds at conditions ofno load or reduced load when the inlet air volume is low. A speedlimiting governor will correct this situation and provide addi-tional particle protection to the gas turbine.
It is evident from Fig. 44 that, as expected, particle sizehas no measurable effect on horsepower requirements. At 8000 CFMand 3000 RPM, the brish horsepower required 7 HP, is a function ofthe air volume and RPM conditions alone and the extremely low incre-ment of mass contributed by the dust compared to the mass of theair is insufficient to make a measurable increase in the horsepowerrequirements.
In the particle size region of 15-35 4m, the particle separa-tion efficiency is essentlally 100%. In the region between 15-.mand 2 . 7 -bim, the separation efficiency falls off rapidly, but anefficiency of 66% at 2.7-ý4m was surprisingly high for such smallparticles.
57 C6206-12
S80
S0 Coal Dust, 2.7 ýLm
)X Ansul +50B, 46 4n
70 o Classified Ansul +50B,15 4m, 33 um and 44 Am
(n
o 60
44
0 50 10
o
9
4 40- 844•4.
S 30 6-
040
20 4
10
I0 0
0 3 1 I .. . .. 00 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mass Median Diameter, amFig. 44: Seperation Efficiency and Horsepower vs. Test Dust
Particle Size at 8000 CFM with Near Exhaust and2 mn Wires (4 brushes. 48 wires/row, 12 rows/brush)at 3000 RPM
58 C6206-12
Above 35-Mm, the separation efficiency appears to drcp awaysomewhat from 100%. Perhaps this is due to the tendency of thebrush separator to pulverize some of the larger, more friable par-ticles of sodium b.Lcarbonate on impact with the wires. This maybe less of a problem with harder materials, such as sand. A simpltsolutio.i to this tendency, if it appears to be a serious problemin field use, is to pizecede the brush separator with an inertialseparator designed to remove most particles above 5 0 -Am in size.Or, the brush separator can be staged, with the first brush elementcontaining larger diameter wires or elements to better withstandthe abrasive ection Cf these larger particles. Succeeding brusheswould then have progressively finer wires to remove smaller particles.It is apparent that the separator efficiency in the below 15-Mmregion can be improved if the 2-mm wire brushes are followed upwith a polishing action by finer wire brushes, which would not beexposed to the more abrasive environment of the preceding morerobust brushe6.
C6206-12
IV. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
A. Residence Time (Exhaust Position)
The highest efficiencies were obtained with the near ex-haust position when the wire brush speeds exceeded 2400 RPM.It is believed that turbulent mixing downstream of the brushesis the region ahead of the exhaust annulus defeated any im-provement in separation efficiency that might have been pos-sible with the longer residence time associated with the farexhaust position. Therefore, any additional separation lengthmust be filled with additional brushes to take advantage of alonger residence time.
B. Centrifuqal Effects
Centrifugal effects for Ansul + 50 B &dst have been foundto be an important separation mechanism, although impactioneffects significantly enhance separation at brush speeds above2400 RPM. In comparable tests with flat blades versus 1-mmwires, the wire brushes required 15% less horsepower at3,000 RPM and 8,000 CFM to achieve a 95% separation efficiencycompared to 86% for the flat-blade brushes. It was not pos-sible to completely separate centrifugal and impaction effectsin the tests conducted with Ansul + 50 dust because of thepresence of impaction scavenging of large particles even withthe flat blades. A smaller particle test dust would show evenmore differences in separation for the wire brushes comparedto the flat blades.
C. Axial and Radial Spacinq Between Wires
In the tests with the l-mmz wire brushes at a constanttotal projected wire width of l152-mm, the differences inefficiency and horsepower for axial versus radial spacing be-tween wires are slight and are not significant.
In the 2-mm wire brushes the method of wire spacing be-comes important. As the brush RPM increases and separationefficiency rises, the four-brush configuration becomes in-creasingly superior to the corresponding two-brush configura-tion using the same total number of wires. The significanceof the results of the wire spacing tests is that 2-mm wiresadded to a configuration in the axial direction are more ef-fective than wires added in the radial direction.
D. Impaction Area
At 3,000 RPM and 8,000 CFM, when the number of brusheswas doubled, the amount of dust which was not removed by theseparator was reduced by one-half. With 2-mm wire brushes at2,400 RPM, the increase ini impaction area in going from two
60 C6206-12
brushes to four brushes is beneficial only above 3,000 CFM.The number of brushes required for a given application willdepend on the air volume requirements among other factors.While t'ro brushes may be adequate for separation of Ansul +50Bdust at 3,000 CFM, at 8,000 CFM half of the dust which pen-etrated two brushes was removed by adding two more brushes.
E. Wire Size Effects
On a constant impaction area basis, the 1-•m wire brushestended to be more effective than the 2-mm wire brushes in thetwo-brush configuration. No significant difference was noted,however, in the four-brush r~nfiguration. When the totalnumber of wires was kept :ocL ant (2,304) the 2-mm wire brusheswere more effective at brush speeds below 3,000 RPM. At3,000 RPM the efficiency curvez then appeared to cross over,suggesting that above 3,000 RPM -he 1-mm wire brushes wouldsurpass the effectiveness of the 2-mm wire brushes with thesame total number of wires. Since the smallest particles areundoubtedly removed more effectively at the higher brushspeeds, the .-rossing of the curves above 3,000 RPM furthersuggests that the smaller the particle to be removed, thesmaller the wire element needed to remove that particle withthe same effectiveness.
While the I-mm wires appear to be more efficient than the2-mm wires on a constant impaction area basis, considerationof wire erosion and ease of maintenance favors the use of theheavier wires.
F. Particle Size Effects
Separation efficiencies at 8,000 CFM and 3,000 RPM ap-proached 100% for size-classified test dusts in the 15-35 Amsize range. At 2.7-gm the separation efficiency had fallento a respectable 66%. Above 35-gm the separation efficiencyon the sodium bicarbonate test dust appears to drop away some-what from 100%, perhaps due to some large particle size re-duction by impact with the brush wires.
G. Power Consumption
Only 7 HP was required to rotate the brush shaft at3,000 RPM for 8,000 CMM and at a pressure drop of only 4-inof water, the conditions used in evaluating particle sizeeffects with the full complement of 2-mm wire brushes.
61 C6206-12
V. RECORDS AND )PERSONJNEL
Data are reoorded in ZITRI Logbook C19929 and the testdata sheets are entered in the Project Data Book C6206. Mostof the tests were conducted by Devnis Krebs and Erdmann Luebcke.Edmund Swider and William Kiscellus redesigned the brushseparator. Administrative supervision has been under thedirection of Meryl Jackson and John Stockham.
VI. FUTURE WORK
Now that the experimental parametric investigation of thedesign and operating variables of the brush separator has beencompleted, it is recommended that a flight model compatiblewith a specific turbine engine be designed and built. A morethorough analysis of the voluminous data obtained to date maypermit a modification of Socle's design parameters to be a p-plied to the design of such a flight model separator. Timelimitations on the currenc progran did not permit such ananalysis to be made, b•it such a combination of theory andexperimental results should allow the calculation of designrequirements based on theoretical-empirical relationshlips.
6I
iI
S62 C6206-12
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Soole, B. W., "The Theory of the Design of RotaryFilamentary Filters for the Continuous Removal ofParticulate from Fast Flowing Gases", Admiralty ResearchLaboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, 1966, ARL/C/R20.
2. Soole, B. W., "Aspects of the Design of Rotary FilamentaryFilters for the Removal of Gas-Borne Particulate",Admiralty Research Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex,1966, ARL/C/R19.
3. Pyne, H. W.,"Physical Principles of the Design of aRotary Brush Filter", Admiralty Research Laboratory,Teddington, Middlesex, ARL/C/R17, 1964.
4 Pyne, H. W., "Air Filtration by Moving Filaments",Admiralty Research Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex,ARL/Rll/C, 1962.
5. Report NO. IITRI-C6154-8, Final Engineering Report onContract No. N00019-68-C-0459 for the Naval Air SystemsCommand by Ted Rymarz, March 25, 1969.
6. Sage, W, and Tilly, G. P., "Significance of ParticleSize in Sand Erosion of Small Gas Turbines", Aeronaut.J., 73, 427, 1969.
7. Stober, W. and Flachsba, H., "Size Separating Precipitationof Aerosols in a Spinning Spiral Duct", Env. Sci. Tech.,3, 1280, 1969.
63 C6206-12
- UNCLASSIFIED-Security CesifiaIction
~~ CONRL DA"TA- R&Dr. 81916w4',i b~IIT C e *~,a ahi nuola be entered abee as overal optI @ '.,. a. iue~e
1. S144"RIO ACTVITY(Colf 1-o auw 12. R&PORT US11CDRITV C LA1181PICATION
I IT Research Institute Ucasfe10 West 35 Street26GRUChicago, Illinois 60616 A
REPORT TITLE
Rotating Brush Aerosol Separator
4. 011SCRIPTIVII NOTIS (Typo oqref ow&d Uaehelwe dueft)
Firnal Report - January 8, 1970 through October 7, 1970S. AUTMOR(S) (Loee name. Name name, IntlialV
Werle, Donald K.DISMfIRtJTIDN LIM ITED TO U. So
S.REOR DATE~ UUV:77-1~. #WIN*.~* or P7ss Mo.#. Opp "r@P
December 31, 1970 C1.>A ~& ~Oa 7Is. CON4TRACT OR GRANT HO. L V ~ ~ A@SRPRTN~E8
b c:RiJa PUNoS
p.S BE x "' M r~a f4It8A 55 T #40(8) (Any oahet maoi a goal sop be aeoli~ed
VAL ARSYS i CWAOaLýh=ZM- Report10. A VA ILABILITY/LIMITATI Ie
I I. SUPPL ESN TARY MOTO1 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY
Naval Air Systems CommandWashington, D. C. 20360
11 ABSTRtACT
The rotating brush aerosol separator developed previously wasredesigned and modified to permit a parametric inver~tigation of thedesign and operational variables. While centrifugai effects werefound to be important, impaction effects significantly enhanceseparation at brush speeds above 2,400 RPM. The highest efficien-cies were obtained when the wire brush speeds exceeded 2,400 RPM.While the 1-mm wires appear to be more efficient than the 2-mmwires on a constant impaction area basis, consideration of wireerosion and ease of maintenance favors the use of the heavier wiresSeparation efficiencies at 8,000 CFM and 3,000 RPM approached 100%for size classified test dusts in the 15- to 35-ptm size range. At2.7-gmu, the separation efficiency fallen to a respectable 66%.Above 35 4in, the separation efficiency on the sodium bicarbonatetest dust appears tr' drop away somewhat from 100%, perhaps due tosome large-particle size reduction by impact gi±Z- the brush wires.Dnly 7 HP was required to rotate the brush shaft at 3,000 RPM for
* J 8,000 CFM. and at a pressure drop of only 4-in, of water.
!) DiIA4* 1413 64 UNCLASSIFIEDSecumity ClUQFCe-20 V
UNcLASS Clasification_____
KYWRSLINK A LINK 3 LINK C
Dust separator KY OD
Arcle,=nerEngine Air particle separatorTurbine engine protection
INSTRUCTIONS1. ORIGiINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address imposed by security classification, using standard statementsof the contractor. subcontractor, grantee, Department of De- such as;nsalls activity or other organization (corporate authar) Issuing (1) "Qualified requester. may obtain copies of this
the report. report ftrom DDC.'2s. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the over- (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of thisall security classification of the report. Indicate whetherreotb Disntuhosd"Restricted Data" in included. Marking Is to be In, accordl-rertbDCisntuhoid.once with aipprpriate security regulations. (3) "LI. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of
2b. ROU: Auomaic owngadig isapeifld inDoDDi.this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC2b. ROU: Auomaic owngadig isspeifid inDoD01-users sthall request thirough
tective 5200t. 10 land Armed Forces Industrial Manual., Enter othe group itasnb.r. Also, when applicable, show that optionalmarkings '.ruve ocen used for Group 3 and Group 4 *as authoor- (4 111.1 S. militar~y aget... .s may obtain copiese of thi-itrod. Ireport directly from DDCo Other qualified users
3. REPORT TII'LE; Enter the conipiets report title in all shall request throughcapital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassilfied. oIf a meaningful title cannot be selected with-out claos~fic*. ()"l itiuino hsrpr ncnrlod wltion, show title classification In all capitals in parenthesis ()"Udsrbto fti eoti otold ulimmediately following the title. ified DDC users shall request through
I4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES. If appropriate, enter the type of ___________________
Ireport. e.g., iloter'.i, progress, summary. annual, or fintal. If the report has heart furnished to the Office of TetchnicalGive the incluiti..e dules when a specific reporting period is Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public. mndi.covere. Cate this fact and enter the price, if known.
5. AlITHORIS): Hiamer (he aaren(s) of author(s) as shown on IL SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES& Use for additional oliplans-o,, in the report. Entw tselst namte, first name, middle initial, tory noites.It n~iI it ary. show rankt ane breach of service. The name ofINMLTAYCIV Y-tathsmeoth rnis ito d at- absolute minlmunt requirement. 12. SPONSORIN ITR CIIY ne h aeo
6. R~J'kT ATLEntr te dae o th reortma ay, the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pat-6.onth,OR yearn; or Ent .yerhI ir th anoe date othrertaspeays Ing for) the research and development. Include address.
on the reimort. use date of publication. 13 ABSTRACT*. Enter &as abstract giving a brief and factualTOTA NUMER F PAES totl pge cunt summary of the document indicative of the report, even thou,"
7a..rrLHM3RO AE&T ttlpg on It may aslo appear elsewhere in the body of the technical re-shoulid follow normael pagination procedures. i.e., enter tihe port. If additional space Is required, a continuation sheet shallnuint-er o'f poegs containing InilormastIon. be attached.
7b. NUMI4LR OF REVXRRNCK* Enter the total number ef It is hioly desirable that the abstract of classitied reportsrefoorences cited in the rep..rt. be unciuesi~tl-d. Each paragraph of the abstract shall end with,
do. CONTRACT ONl CRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter onl Indication of the military security classification of the in-the applicable numetie of the contract or greant under which formation In the paeugrspik, represented as (rs.#. (s). (c). or ().ther report was written. Theme is no slimittiono *the leagith of the abstract. How.
&b. Or., & 6d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate ever, the suggested length 14 froom ISO to 225 woeds.
military depaartment ideatficatiOn, each as project sme 14. KEY WORDS: May word* are technicolly matiniaghl teasubsoict umbr. ystm mmbes. asknumer,*~or tiheet phrases that chaorectieritte a waepoett sand may he need a
9a. OIIIGINATIOWS REPORT NUMBUR(SW RaOe the oliffi Iadies natbles for cataloging the report. It" words must beciel report number by which the document will be identified selected so that as security clesslifcativn is required. idiesti-and controlled by the eeigioatiig activity. This nmober most thaag, such as equipment moeal desipaities. traed same. mltr?
be uniques to this repoort. preiftt cede same. go~tsphi location. may~ be used as key9h. OTHER REPORT NUMS3KR(d): If thre report has beeis wartls but will be folowed byma ind~icetlon of t*"coacl ceo'aesIgned sriy other report numbers (eitiler by ths erd#AOOF lat The asatlgfmeatofithrlsan eo s poe.
or by fke sponsor), also enter this mlimbeor(s).I&. AVAIL ABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES1 EBte aMY him
nations as fuwthan dsseemlaties of *Ae r"art other haMSi4
65 UNCLASSIFIEDSecusily cleuifcate"
DISTRIBUTION LIST
No. ofCopies Re~aipient
1-22 Department of the Navy '.Naval Air Systems CommandWashington, D. C. 20360
Attention: Commander (AIR-604)
23-26 Department of the NavyNaval Air Systems CommandWashington, D. C. 20360
Attention: Command3r (AIR-5203)
Code AIR-53631F
27-28 Department of the NavyNaval Air Systems Command IWashington, D. C. 20360
Attention: Commander (AIR-330)
I IT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
29 S. L. Blum
30 M. J. Klein/Division C Files
31 J. !. Stockham, Section Files
32 G. E. Burkholder/Main Files
33-34 P. Caputo
35 D. K. Werle
66 C6206-12
II
iI
Appendix A
ENG•NEERING DRAWINGS OF THE MODIFIED BRUSHSEPARATOR AND SEPARATOR COMPONENTS
.!
Ii
11T RESEARCH INSTIT9UTE RNSHEETTECHNOLOGY CENTER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60616 [or..
* PROJECT No. PARva List froR
DRWNG PART NAME TOTAL DESCRIPTION & SPECIFICATIONNo. QANTIT(a~~N sP5 ILtA 6LE
M~USH ASLSLA&L4
to (.0 sL p A c. c P'N( T (aH$M-I
________ ( _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ONE __ _ _ __ _
f~~-4o k_____ N Gk'Tw
__ _ --- ,vf f-Kr~~f oI- -
t 4 (Itf-OVEKC.t O>I)L 1P-ysm ru m-poF' VA~vbTr Tues.
____V_ 8 N 10_ _________a_"_
____________ ________________ _________________'I"___________1 ________________
-k 4b~
* ~ .*5 PJIJT 4. 1tOZ.N-S ___
A- IC6206-1 2
:i
LII
I. - - -I i
II, q l
I I.
I !
*1
9 jS
4 . ..--'... .. . . . ..
____
S. a ,
ai•
, I,
�1
iigg�)
z�. *
p - =1.0
4 I.�L.r i 'I�ll
It�11!g I
4' *Ijti' liii ii-� N ffD' I �
- N A
�I
� "'K'
- 0
.dAI 0
-, � .DS
I 111
-, 0
III,
- I
- I
K -- E�Z iLl ________
T
Iw
na
uJ 1,
4 d
w0I
W U
-- 4 '0 wit uI
je t~ar0fhc5
-C Z
LALi
Tz
T- I
A- C6061
> sit
IIs
S • I
'I .] -I' - 'I '$it.
'~A I•zj
114
0 -
"&J3 ,
• ,,, . "• -- -, " --
0t
He
I -
a V,
Pa~ 'r
x
4;4
Co M -
ii"
'Ii 3- P •
: ix
I- WZ_ 4 |1 [ ['
5 -8I
~I~1
a.
3,,
4 I
1 r0
Aoh
J CO
fz
j vi IUI
-060
01 I I
0\ Iikii
A-S 0C6206-12
0 •
0 -1
A vP
146IL
2.j
__ 1 _ _ _
,-- Su..j to
t -J
A-9
"l"J
C60-
ilo,
j~
I~t 1 I
ILI
>.,.2
a O
x~_au
2 IhilIi604 1 I
(-T-
THIS DRAWING REVST ZUN POPRIETARY AND gym. DATE DESCRIPTION OF REVISION NAMECOMM XKTIAL DESIGN 1INFORMATION ORIGIXATIDByItSAK" IMST$WTI[ANtDWHICH SHALL lT R S A C NTT TNOT It OWSCtOIC OR IJTIWK in ANY mANNE[R T R S A C N TT TWflNOUT 1*ROP W~RITTI AUTHORIZA'iON. TECHNOLOGY CENTER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 80818
MTRIAL.~R$ Rt
MEAT TREAT -F
T O L l N C E SF IN IS H Q U A N T IT Y P E R DE I NE RA N CM M CKE A P PR V ED
TOZ CS DEIGND DAW
FRACTIONS *I/"5 DECIMALS OW VQ5T~R E-'' 1 -~THOS CLASS IPf ANGULAR I*1 SUB."arsMLY IDATE ~ -- o 3 2 740
V SCALE NEXT ASSCM13LY NJ. PROJECT DRAWING 140.94MA AL. UNAWI CORNOW RSU
A-il C6206-12
I ~ IDV-A- .
KE.-/ w
2 F7 t
~-4-
9 Z I5
t o -
TH4S DRAWIX4 RIVRUIr1 P ~rOrIAitY AMD SYM. DATE flESRIPTION OF REVSION NaMC01010[WflA D=UGN IROREATIOM ORIAlKATEDWYIff K IAMZH IIUiTTEANMWHICH 14ALL IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTEWT 8 DR ISCLOSW O11 UTILIZD IN ANlY MANNER~
WmHOVTr PROP= WRrTTEN AUTHMORIZATION. TECHNOLOGY CENTER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60816MATERIAL j P..ol)
HEAT TREAT
TOLARANCES FINISH QUANTITY PER DESIGNED DRtAWI CHECME APPROVEDUNLESS OTMENWI SpECilE OANE m" ~
PRACTICftS * 1/6 DECIMALS *A I VLsTH04 CLASS 2 PIT AN4GUL.AR * S SUn-ABSUMNLY DATE 5 - ^7o J zo -;r
00 M CAL -RZM IWRMSCALE NEXT ASSEMDLY NO. PROJECT DRAWING NO1.
C I UKAMMU IS M 20 *I Fuq-t4-s- --otmon wim UMaImWI
A-126.1
c cc
AC)
'tI lip
•2~" $OP IL ll•.
cc '2' % I
" -I 'BO i: t
Iii..'pJ
d d•. j
* .
1~ 61llLill
60 IF
A if
S/ /!l0
iiiz!-•!! i4LF: --- I' _ -__
1 \, / l' 1P
z,. !i ll..
I
-- -------
t~ " I""J"
-- - 7,. .
"" "; ; 'a
I'
(IJI
04
oL
"'• - • .. . ..........--... ... .4• j -.
Va VAi 130
_ I 06 I
_"._ A"• J~ I€.• 18
i'
• "r
40
I,-
. __.
19
2 g•=i*
L. - I - -Iil
50
J 4
V" ZI -- "4 -0i we..
"0
I ii
I! ,I -
S. .. -.. • .- ' "* -. ,
I II
- kZ_ �
I-�t
-
,� ,��.
4 � ,-8 �4 :1
-�
�i�IE- Jr'¾ .- 4
If 1
I,
z
ijlgp� �.t
oi'r''
________ ________ II--.
I;.3p.I a
1 0
"'.5
5- 0 a0
�4$.5
I 5.4�
.1
S I
I I
I I
I I
I, I Iii9-� -*1,f� og�-j�J�'44 v� Lid dFW-
A-Il -.
Appendix B
TEST PP.OCZiURZ
TEST PROCEDURE
"1. Install clean type Z glass fiber filters in clean filter"holders.
2. Check flow rate for both filters and mount in positionwith cloan sampling probes, holes directed upstream;turn pumps off when through.
3. Weigh in dust for feeder.
4. Turn on big blower (main air flow) and measure Ap's forexhaust, brush and cyclone.
5. Turn on brush, low speed -- high speed and set for desiredGPM (RPM) with big blower on. Measure pump pressure andoGw.
6. Turn on vacuum pump for filters.
7. Turn on dust feed (high rate) using 15 PSIG air (air onfiEs) and leave on for measured time (usually 3 min.-using timers.
8. While dust is feeding measure Ap's for exhaust, brushand cyclone.
9. At proper time (usually 3 min.) shut off dust feddermechanism and air supply and record dust feeding timeinterval.
10. Turn off vacuum pump for filters.
11. Turn off brush. high speed--+low speed-off.
12. Turn off big blower.
13. Carefully disconnect sample probe from filter holder(so no dust is lost from either probe or filter holder)and check filter flow rates again - record.
14. Place filter in clean beaker or flask and idd rinsingsfrom sample probe. Dilute to fixed volume - say 100 cc.
15. Use B.C. green indicator, 1-2 drops 0.1%, and titrate togreen color. Boil ca. 2-ndn, cool, (color will turnblue after Xs CO is boiled off) and continue titrationwith 0.1N H SO io green color. Record ml acid used.Also ml NaOR uted if back titrated.
16. Prepare for next test.
B-1IC6206-12Sikt
'SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20360 IN REPLY REFER TO
• • AIR-60•A1 March 1971
From: Commander, Naval Air Systems CommandTo: AdmInnistrator
Defense Documentation Center ForScientific and Technical InformationCameron Station, Building #5Alexandria, Virginid 22314
Subj: Distribution statement on AD- 878 848L, change of
Ref: (a) NAVMATINST 5200.20
1. In accordance with referepce (a), subject documient is controlledunder distribution statement 'rt Iti requested that this documentbe placed under the control of distribution staterment noB,(Test andEvaliation)2. Delete all proprietary markinrs ifi Appendix A. These rarkin.s appearon pages A 2 thro-zgh A17.
!7
Julia M. Lutz 94x"BY DIRECTION
iE'