# Presentation: 312910

## Testing of Thermal Imaging Device

- Scenarios Tested:

- 1. Stow Bin Fire (simulated and actual)

- 2. Overhead Area Fire (simulated and actual)

- 3. Aircraft System “Live” Check

- Argus®3

## Actual Fire in Stowbin Using Energized Resin Block

## Actual Fire in Stowbin Using Energized Resin Block

## Actual Fire in Stowbin Using Energized Resin Block

## Simulated Overhead Fire in 747SP

- Thermal Trace of HeatPak

## Actual Fire in Mocked-up Overhead Area

## Actual Fire in Mocked-up Overhead Area

## 2nd Fire in Mocked-up Overhead Area

- 2nd Fire in Mocked-up Overhead Area

## 3rd Fire in Mocked-up Overhead Area

- 3rd Fire in Mocked-up Overhead Area

## Flaming Material on Upper Side of Ceiling Panel

- Very Small Piece

## Testing of Thermal Imaging Device

- Summary:

- 1. During simulated tests using heat packs, thermal detection was only possible when hidden
-     heat source was in contact with surface being viewed.

- 2. During actual fire in stow bin, large quantities of smoke were observed from seams
-     prior to camera detecting any heated surface.

- 3. During actual fire in mocked-up overhead, substantial fire was present above ceiling
-     panel with no camera detection until pieces of flaming debris dropped onto panel surface.
-    However, only a relatively small piece of flaming debris was required for thermal detection.

- 4. Thermal traces were observed in aircraft when critical systems were functioning, without
-     the presence of actual fire.

## Testing of Thermal Imaging Device

- Conclusions:

- 1. Only heated surface can be detected by camera (i.e., camera cannot see “through” surface).

- 2. A substantial heat source/fire is required in the overhead area to achieve thermal
-     detection from below, in the absence of flaming debris on surface of panels.

- 3. False thermal traces may lead to confusion during an actual fire in a powered aircraft.

## Effectiveness of Handheld Extinguishers and

- Ceiling Mounted Ports Against Overhead Area Fires
- In Narrowbody Aircraft

## Slide 14

## Narrowbody Test Article Showing Location of Candle Lanterns

## Close-up of Overhead Area

## Technician Applying Agent Through Ceiling-Mounted Port

## Updated Agent Discharge Port w/Rotating Diffuser

## Agent Discharge Through Updated Port

## Agent Discharge Through Updated Port

## 2 of 6 Candle Lanterns Extinguished

## Diffuser Removed from Updated Port

## Diffuser Removed from Updated Port

## 1 of 6 Candles Extinguished

## Extinguisher Port Test Results in Narrowbody

## Extinguisher Port Test Results in Narrowbody

- Conclusions:

- 2. Effectiveness of the extinguisher is highly dependant on the nozzle design.

- 1. The use of hand-held extinguishers and ports to combat overhead fires is more
-     feasible in narowbody aircraft than wide-body aircraft.

- 3. The most effective nozzle design was capable of providing a 4 ft radius of protection
-     when using one 2.5 lb halon 1211 extinguisher.  This capability would necessitate
-     approximately 8 to 10 ports for a typical narrowbody cabin.

## NEA System Installation in 727 Test Article

## NEA System

- in 727 Test Article

## NEA System Installation in 727 Test Article

## Future Work on Fires in Hidden Areas

- Determine feasibility of using NEA to protect overhead space

- Measurement of oxygen concentration in cabin area

- Optimization of system

- Testing using HF membrane and engine bleed air

- Determine feasibility of using NEA to protect other hidden spaces

- Cheek Area

- Tunnel Area below floor

- E & E Bay