# Presentation: 409750

## Tim Marker

- Discussion of Burnthrough Test Method for
- Aircraft Thermal Acoustic Insulation Blankets

- FAA Technical Center

## Items Discussed at June Working Group Meeting

- Differences in burner castings, flanged vs. socket

- Differences in fuel nozzle, “F-80” vs. new style

- Impact of fuel nozzle orientation on calibration and test results

- Results of mini round robin using 6.5 gph nozzle with TexTech felt

- Results of Round Robin VI

## Round Robin VI

- (Initiated: Spring ‘04; 3 materials, 8 tests each)

**Approach**: Visit each lab prior to running tests, utilizing Boeing calibration tools
- to correct any deficiencies with equipment set-up.  Once calibration is achieved,
- tests could be completed.

**Result**: Labs A, B, I, and J visited during 2004.  Difficulties encountered at
- each lab during calibration process, preventing completion of tests.

**Preliminary Conclusion**: A calibrated burner does not necessarily produce
- test results that correlate with FAATC results.

- All labs capable of obtaining correct temperature profile.

- 4 of 5 labs capable of obtaining correct heat flux.

- All labs: quicker burnthrough times and higher backface heat flux.

**Summary:**

## Items Discussed at June Working Group Meeting

- Differences in burner castings, flanged vs. socket

- Differences in fuel nozzle, “F-80” vs. new style

- Impact of fuel nozzle orientation on calibration and test results

- Results of mini round robin using 6.5 gph nozzle with TexTech felt

- Results of Round Robin VI

## FAA Burner, flanged

## Boeing Burner, socket

## Length Difference

## Survey Results: 4 Flanged, 5 Socket

## Items Discussed at June Working Group Meeting

- Differences in burner castings, flanged vs. socket

- Differences in fuel nozzle, “F-80” vs. new style

- Impact of fuel nozzle orientation on calibration and test results

- Results of mini round robin using 6.5 gph nozzle with TexTech felt

- Results of Round Robin VI

## Boeing PL Nozzle

- FAA PL Nozzle

## Boeing PL Nozzle

- FAA PL Nozzle

## Boeing PL Nozzle

- FAA PL Nozzle

## Conclusions of FAA vs. Boeing Trials

- Various types of motors do not impact heat flux or burnthrough times.

- Replicate stator does not impact heat flux or burnthrough times.

- Difference in housing/draft tube does not impact temperature or heat flux.

- Difference in fuel nozzle impacts both heat flux and burnthrough times.

- More testing needed to determine impact of housing on burnthrough time.

## Items Discussed at June Working Group Meeting

- Differences in burner castings, flanged vs. socket

- Differences in fuel nozzle, “F-80” vs. new style

- Impact of fuel nozzle orientation on calibration and test results

- Results of mini round robin using 6.5 gph nozzle with TexTech felt

- Results of Round Robin VI

## Impact of Rotation on Heat Flux for Various Nozzles

## Items Discussed at June Working Group Meeting

- Differences in burner castings, flanged vs. socket

- Differences in fuel nozzle, “F-80” vs. new style

- Impact of fuel nozzle orientation on calibration and test results

- Results of mini round robin using 6.5 gph nozzle with TexTech felt

- Results of Round Robin VI

## Slide 17

## Slide 18

## Slide 19

## June 2005 Mini Round Robin Summary

- All labs reporting were capable of obtaining correct temperature profile.

- 4 of 5 labs reporting were capable of obtaining correct heat flux.

- 3 of 5 labs still indicate a more severe test than FAA lab; quicker burnthrough
- times by approximately 1 minute.

- The 3 labs with a more severe result use the socket-style burner.

- Material analysis indicates weight/area consistency, no impact on results.

## Planned Activities from June Meeting

**FAATC**: Complete fabrication of additional flanged burners for comparison testing.

**FAATC**: Investigate correlation between premature failure and socket-style burner.

**FAATC**: Visit Airbus and Boeing labs to assist in calibration of existing burners.

## Baseline Results

## Effect of Location on Air Velocity Measurement

**Objective**: Investigate problems associated with measuring intake air velocity at
- its present location inside the airbox, and compare to measurements at intake of
- flexible duct.

## Slide 24

## Slide 25

## Slide 26

## Slide 27

## Slide 28

## Effect of Location on Air Velocity Measurement

- Average = 2165.6

- Average = 2058.3

## Development of a Stream Straightening Device

**Objective**: Compare intake air velocity measurements taken at airbox to those
- obtained using a stream straightening device, while maintaining a constant
- intake damper setting.

**Methodology**: Fabricate a stream straightening device that utilizes an upstream
- length of at least 10 diameters, to produce a laminar flow across an in-line
- velocity sensor.

## Slide 31

## Slide 32

## Slide 33

## Initial Three Burner Comparison

**Methodology**: Compare heat flux, temperature, and test results of three flanged
- burners using original FAA fuel nozzle (Monarch 6.0 gph 80o “F-80” style).

**Objective**: Determine if differences exist amongst flanged burner housings,
- and if so, what impact they have on calibration and test results.

## Slide 35

## Slide 36

## Slide 37

## Initial Three Burner Comparison

- 1.  Calibration heat flux substantially different

- 2.  Calibration temperature profile slightly different

- 3.  Test results Similar

## Mapping Exit Area Air Velocity

**Methodology**: Map exit area air velocity of each burner to determine if there
- is a correlation between shape of exit air and heat flux.

**Objective**: To determine cause of difference in measured heat flux during
- calibration process when using three identically-prepared flanged burners.

## Mapping Exit Area Air Velocity

## Exit Area Air Velocity Mapping

## Slide 42

## Slide 43

## Slide 44

## Mapping Exit Area Air Velocity

- Summary of Results: While measuring exit area air velocity in three burners:

- 1.  Air velocity maps all unique, slightly different

- 2.  Burner A produced highest peak velocity, burner B lowest peak velocity

- 3.  All burners show left-side bias when viewed from flame side

- 4.  No obvious correlation between peak velocity and heat flux

- 5.  Correlation between velocity and burnthrough location

## Final Three Burner Comparison

**Objective**: Prepare 2 spare flanged burners for industry use, and complete
- extensive comparison testing with original FAA burner to ensure correlation.

**Methodology**: Outfit spare burners with Monarch 6.5 gph “F-80” style fuel
- nozzles.  Adjust fuel pressure to deliver proper 6.0 gph output, then compare
- heat flux, temperature, and test results.

**Desired Outcome**: Confirm equivalency of spare burners to original FAA burner.

## Final Burner Comparison

## Final Burner Comparison

## Final Burner Comparison

- 8 oz/yd2 TexTech felt

## Final Burner Comparison

- 14 oz/yd2 TexTech felt

## Slide 51

## Final Burner Comparison

## Spare Burner B Heat Flux Trials Using 6.5 gph Fuel Nozzle

## Spare Burner B Heat Flux Trials Using 6.5 gph Fuel Nozzle

## Spare Burner B Heat Flux Trials Using 6.5 gph Fuel Nozzle

## Slide 56

## Slide 57

## Slide 58

## Slide 59

## Slide 60

## Slide 61

## Slide 62

## Slide 63

## Slide 64

## Slide 65

## Slide 66

## Slide 67

## Slide 68

## Slide 69

## Slide 70

## Slide 71

## Slide 72

## Slide 73

## Slide 74

## RTV Sealant Added to Blade Edge

## RTV Sealant Added to Blade Edge

## RTV Sealant Added to Blade Edge

## Various Stators Used in Trials

- Original FAA

- Other H215 Original

- Modified Replicate

## Slide 79

## Slide 80

## Spare Burner B Testing Summary

- Testing indicates fluctuations in heat flux the result of variances in stator.

- Minor adjustment of stator shape resulted in heat flux calibration.

- Test results indicate equivalency to FAA results.

## Conclusions and Future Considerations

- Industry now in possession of equipment that correlates with FAA equipment.

- FAATC will receive 2 socket-style burners, continue comparison testing with
- FAA equipment to produce equivalency when using this apparatus.

- Susceptibility of heat flux due to minor stator differences needs to be quantified;
- Produce a simpler, more reliable, more easily manufactured stator?

- Review of data suggests +/- 5% fluctuation when using flanged burner.