# Presentation: 493077

## FIRE PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

**PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL HALON REPLACEMENT WORKING GROUP MEETING**
**ZURICH, SWITZERLAND**
**June 1998**

**Notes:**
Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to present some of the new projects being pursued at Wright Laboratory.

## BACKGROUND

**INTERNATIONAL LAWS HAVE RESULTED IN A BAN ON THE PRODUCTION OF HALONS**
**RESULT  HAS BEEN A RAPID EVOLUTION OF VARIOUS AIRCRAFT FIRE PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIES**
**LITTLE EFFORT DEVOTED TO METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TO EVALUATE VARIOUS REPLACEMENT TECHNOLOGIES**

**Notes:**
International concern for the apparent depletion of stratospheric ozone has led to agreement to eliminate man-made production of ozone depleting chemicals (ODCs).  Recent studies have shown halons are the worst known ODCs per unit mass, making it the first chemical family to be eliminated.  Originally planned to be phased out of production by the year 2000, the production ban of halon was accelerated to January 1994.  This now leaves only existing stocks of halon for use in essential applications such as aircraft fire and explosion suppression systems.
The banning of halon production and the search for non-halon fire extinguishing material has resulted in a rapid evolution of a wide variety of aircraft fire protection technologies.  This has prompted sizable development programs by government, university, industry, and R&D organizations.  These are expected to continue for some time, especially with the advent of the DoD 9-Year Next Generation Fire Protection Technology Program.
Because of the heavy reliance on halon in the past, halon's high effectiveness, and the "standardized" approach to the design and test of halon systems, there has been little or no development of methodologies for evaluating the various competing fire extinguishing technologies which may replace halon.
With the current explosion of fire protection technologies competing for limited R&D budgets, facilities, and expertise, it has become necessary to develop a R&D assessment methodology to compare, rate, and evaluate these competing technologies in order to select the most promising technologies for further R&D, to assess the potential benefits and costs for each, and to develop a rational funding profile for each technology and the R&D program as a whole.  

## FIRE PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT - PHASE II

**DEVELOP METHODOLOGY TOOLS DEFINED IN PHASE I**
**DEMONSTRATE THESE TOOLS IN A TRANSPORT ENGINE NACELLE APPLICATION**
**TWO SCENARIOS**
**NO FIRE SUPPRESSION**
**FE-25 FIRE SUPPRESSION**
**DEVELOP PLANS TO EVALUATE GAS GENERATOR TECHNOLOGY FOR SAME APPLICATION**

**Notes:**
Phase II of the project I was talking about before has just recently been placed on contract.  In Phase II we are going to do all the things we talked about doing in Phase I.  But we are going to do more than develop the tools.  There is a “show and tell” involved.  The tools will be validated in a transport engine nacelle application.  Two scenarios will be investigated - a baseline with no fire suppression will be established, and then the overall effectiveness of HFC-125 will be evaluated.  During Phase II we will also develop plans required to evaluate gas generator technology, also for the engine nacelle application.  And finally, if schedule and budget permit, we will try to automate this process as much as possible.

## PROJECT TEAM

**USAF Research Laboratory **
**BOOZ•ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.**
**WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE**

**Notes:**
These are the organizations involved in this project.

## FIRE PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT - PHASE II PROJECT OBJECTIVE

**DEVELOP AND DOCUMENT A METHODOLOGY TO QUICKLY AND COST-EFFECTIVELY ASSESS THE POTENTIAL OF PROPOSED FIRE PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIES ALTERNATIVES**

**Notes:**
Develop and document a methodology to quickly and cost-effectively assess the potential of proposed fire protection technologies and/or systems to reduce life cycle costs, determine ideal applications, and develop performance metrics for the new technologies.

## FIRE PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT METHODOLOGY

**Notes:**
A methodology is needed to assess the value, cost, benefits, risks, etc. associated with various competing aircraft fire protection technologies.  Ideally, this assessment would attempt to address all issues from “Lust to Dust” including development, acquisition, certification, deployment, operation, maintenance, service intervals, destruction, etc., including the projected impact on aircraft and crew loss rate, the risk to ground crews, corrosion, toxicity, and other issues.
If feasible and cost effective, the assessment methodology should be automated to provide a tool which could be quickly used to screen various R&D proposals to select those with the highest return, the largest payoff, or the least risk.  The goal is to expedite R&D development.  This methodology will be especially valuable for the DOD Next Generation Plan which is likely to elicit many more concepts than funding limits can support.  It’s applicability to the commercial sector is quite apparent.

## Expert Choice

**   ****Helps you organize the various elements of a problem into a hierarchy**
**   ****Guides you in judging, via pairwise comparisons, the relative importance of the objectives and the preference for the alternatives that you have defined**
**   ****Derives priorities by combining intangible information from your experience & intuition and tangible information such as data**
**   ****Allows you to analyze the sensitivity of your results to changes in judgment**

**Notes:**
Over the life cycle of any system, here are some of the system attributes that are considered and their timing over the life cycle.

## Objectives & Criteria

## Layers & Alternatives

## Pairwise Data Assessment

**Notes:**
The number of criteria considered in a particular decision is often large.  For example, two stones may be compared according to color, size, weight, smoothness, porosity, roundness and so on.  Evaluation and Choice gives you a format in which to organize complex problems with a large number of criteria.

We usually perform measurements using scales with units such as pounds, seconds, miles, or dollars.  But these scales limit the nature of the ideas we can deal with.  Social, political, and other qualitative factors can in no reasonable way be assessed in terms of physical or economic measurement.  What then can we do to incorporate these seemingly non-measurable factors?

Just as we can distinguish and measure physical quantities such as meters for length or seconds for time, we are able to do the same with our perceptions of other qualities.  We have the capacity to experience a wide range of feelings and discriminations.  This permits us to develop relationships among the elements of a problem and to determine which elements have the greatest impact.

Expert Choice is unique in that it can accommodate a variety of data types and merge them into a single overall measure to determine which alternative is the most desirable.  Expert Choice does this by devising a scale that enables us to measure intangible qualities.  To be credible, this new approach should work in areas where we already know the unit of measurement.  The method underlying Expert Choice has been validated in many experiments.  For more information on how Expert Choice does indeed generate results conforming to classic ratio scale measurements in physics, economics, and other fields where standard measures already exist, please refer to the User Guide, and to the chapter titled Validation Example.

## Assessment &  Notes

## Sensitivity Analysis - EPA

**Notes:**
A second way to perform sensitivity analysis is to use dynamic sensitivity.  The dynamic sensitivity analysis emphasizes the priorities of the criteria in the model and how changing the priority of one criterion affects the priorities of the others.

You can increase or decrease the criteria bars on the left by clicking and holding the mouse button and dragging the bar right or left, or by pressing the <Right> or <Left> arrow keys.  To move to another criterion select it with the mouse or press the <Down> or <Up> arrow keys.  

As the priority of one of the criteria increases (by dragging its bar to the right), the priorities of the remaining criteria decrease proportionately to their original priorities, and the priorities of the alternatives are recalculated.

The dynamic sensitivity analysis enables you to see the change in the priorities of the alternatives as you increase or decrease the priority of one or more criteria.  To obtain a dynamic sensitivity analysis of the alternatives with respect to the criteria, move to the GOAL node:

## Sensitivity Analysis - VE

## Sensitivity Analysis - RD

## Sensitivity Analysis at lower levels

**Sensitivity Analysis at lower levels**