Lauren K. Clayman, Sandra L. Olson, Suleyman A. Gokoglu, and John E. Brooker

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Paul V. Ferkul

National Center for Space Exploration, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Henry F. Kacher

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Large Scale Flame Spread Environmental

Characterization Testing

NASA/TM—2013-216501

April 2013
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Lauren K. Clayman, Sandra L. Olson, Suleyman A. Gokoglu, and John E. Brooker

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Paul V. Ferkul

National Center for Space Exploration, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Henry F. Kacher

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Large Scale Flame Spread Environmental

Characterization Testing

NASA/TM—2013-216501

April 2013

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Spacecraft Fire Safety Demonstration Project under the Advanced Exploration Systems Program. 

The authors would like to thank the Project Manager, Gary Ruff and the Principal Investigator, David Urban for their management

and guidance. The authors would also like to thank Michael Johnston for his assistance with test planning and preparation and 

Justin Niehaus for his data analysis support. Finally, the authors extend thanks to the rest of the test team, including the facility 

engineers and technicians, who all made signifi cant contributions toward test preparation and execution.
NASA/TM—2013-216501 iii 

Contents 

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Facility .................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Test Description ..................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Experimental Rack, Hardware, and Instrumentation ....................................................................... 3

3.1.1 Frame .................................................................................................................................. 3

3.1.2 Sample Holder .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.3 Cameras .............................................................................................................................. 6

3.1.4 Thermocouples .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.5 Radiometers ........................................................................................................................ 7

3.1.6 Anemometers ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.7 Pressure Transducers .......................................................................................................... 8

3.1.8 Mixing Fan .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.9 Igniters ................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1.10 Heat Exchangers ................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.11 Quench Bars ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Data Acquisition, Storage and Archive.......................................................................................... 12

4.0 Fuel Material ........................................................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Cheesecloth .................................................................................................................................... 12

4.2 SIBAL ............................................................................................................................................ 12

5.0 Design of Experiments ......................................................................................................................... 13

6.0 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 15

6.1 Pressure Plot Examples and Pressure Trends ................................................................................ 15

6.1.1 Top vs. Bottom Ignition .................................................................................................... 15

6.1.2 Simultaneous vs. Sequential Sample Ignition ................................................................... 17

6.1.3 Quench Bars: With vs. Without ........................................................................................ 19

6.1.4 Heat Exchanger: With vs. Without ................................................................................... 20

6.1.5 Cheesecloth vs. SIBAL ..................................................................................................... 22

6.1.6 Pressure Trends ................................................................................................................. 23

6.2 Temperature Data Plot ................................................................................................................... 26

6.3 Anemometer Data Plot ................................................................................................................... 27

6.4 Radiometer Data Plot ..................................................................................................................... 28

6.5 Determining Burn-Times From Radiometer Data ......................................................................... 29

6.5.1 Cheesecloth Burn-Times ................................................................................................... 30

6.5.2 SIBAL Cloth Burn-Times ................................................................................................. 33

7.0 Closing Remarks .................................................................................................................................. 35

References ................................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A.—Experiment Operating Procedure ....................................................................................... 37

Appendix B.—Experimental Rig Dimensions and Diagnostic Instrumentation Locations ........................ 39

Appendix C.—As-Run Test Matrices ......................................................................................................... 43

Appendix D.—Initial Experimental Rig Concept ....................................................................................... 53

Appendix E.—Engineering Drawings ........................................................................................................ 55

Appendix F.—Sample Holder Installation Procedure ................................................................................ 59

Appendix G.—Sample Holder Removal Procedure ................................................................................... 61

Appendix H.—Camera Settings .................................................................................................................. 63

Appendix I.—Thermocouple Diagrams ...................................................................................................... 65

Appendix J.—Agilent Data-Logger Instructions ........................................................................................ 67
NASA/TM—2013-216501 iv 

Appendix K.—Final DOE With Experimental and Response Model Delta P ............................................ 69

Appendix L.—Tabulated Delta Pressure for DOE and Supplementary Matrices ....................................... 71

Appendix M.—Stills From Test Video Files .............................................................................................. 73

List of Tables 

Table 1.—Experimental Instrumentation ...................................................................................................... 7

Table 2.—DOE Custom Design.................................................................................................................. 13

Table 3.—DOE Name vs. Response Model Name ..................................................................................... 13

Table 4.—Response Model Estimates ........................................................................................................ 14

Table 5.—Cheesecloth Burn-times for Upward Burning (Bottom Ignition) .............................................. 30

Table 6.—Cheesecloth Burn-times for Downward Burning (Top Ignition) ............................................... 31

Table 7.—SIBAL Cloth Burn-times for Upward Burning (Bottom Ignition) ............................................ 33

Table 8.—Diagnostic Instrumentation Locations ....................................................................................... 41

Table 9.—DOE Test Matrix, As-run .......................................................................................................... 43

Table 10.—Supplementary Test Matrix, As-run ........................................................................................ 49

Table 11.—Camera Settings for XR160 ..................................................................................................... 63

Table 12.—Camera Settings for CX110 ..................................................................................................... 63

Table 13.—Final DOE with Experimental and Response Model Delta P .................................................. 69

Table 14.—Experimental Delta Pressure for DOE and Supplementary Tests ............................................ 71

List of Figures 

Figure 1.—Vacuum Facility 13. ................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2.—Experimental rack in VF-13. ...................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3.—Depiction of sample holder designs (not to scale). ..................................................................... 5

Figure 4.—Igniter wiring leads on a four slot sample holder. ...................................................................... 6

Figure 5.—Igniter concept. ........................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 6.—Photo of igniter. .......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 7.—Depiction of an aluminum honeycomb core (similar to L1). ..................................................... 9

Figure 8.—Photo of one of two aluminum mesh heat exchanger panels (L2). ........................................... 10

Figure 9.—Sample card with quench bars. ................................................................................................. 11

Figure 10.—Actual vs. Predicted Delta P. .................................................................................................. 14

Figure 11.—DOE test 1-1 top ignition example pressure plot. ................................................................... 15

Figure 12.—DOE test 3-6 bottom ignition example pressure plot. ............................................................ 16

Figure 13.—DOE test 1-2 simultaneous bottom ignition example pressure plot. ...................................... 17

Figure 14.—DOE test 2-4 sequential bottom ignition example pressure plot. ........................................... 17

Figure 15.—DOE test 7-14 simultaneous top ignition example pressure plot. ........................................... 18

Figure 16.—DOE test 20-39 sequential top ignition example pressure plot. ............................................. 18

Figure 17.—DOE test 22-43 no quench bars example pressure plot. ......................................................... 19

Figure 18.—DOE test 23-45 with quench bars example pressure plot. ...................................................... 19

Figure 19.—DOE test 10-19 no heat exchanger example pressure plot. .................................................... 20

Figure 20.—DOE test 14-27 L1 heat exchanger example pressure plot. .................................................... 21

Figure 21.—DOE test 17-33 L2 heat exchanger example pressure plot. .................................................... 21

Figure 22.—SUP test 4-5 50100 cm cheesecloth example pressure plot. ................................................ 22

Figure 23.—SUP test 14-21 50100 cm SIBAL example pressure plot. ................................................... 22

Figure 24.—Top ignition DOE test runs by categorical parameter. ........................................................... 23

Figure 25.—Bottom ignition DOE test runs by categorical parameter. ...................................................... 23

Figure 26.—Effect of starting chamber pressure. ....................................................................................... 24

Figure 27.—Top ignition pressure rise by number of samples (sheets)...................................................... 24
NASA/TM—2013-216501 v 

Figure 28.—Igniter length effects on bottom ignition pressure rise. .......................................................... 25

Figure 29.—Pressure rise versus area burned for upward burns. ............................................................... 25

Figure 30.—Pressure rise versus area burned for downward burns. ........................................................... 25

Figure 31.—DOE test 10-20 temperature data plot. ................................................................................... 26

Figure 32.—DOE test 7-14 anemometer data plot. ..................................................................................... 27

Figure 33.—DOE test 7-14 radiometer data plot. ....................................................................................... 28

Figure 34.—Burn-times for cheesecloth upward burns. ............................................................................. 31

Figure 35.—Burn-times for cheesecloth downward burns. ........................................................................ 32

Figure 36.—Cheesecloth upward burn pressure effect. .............................................................................. 32

Figure 37.—Burn-times for SIBAL cloth upward burns. ........................................................................... 34

Figure 38.—SIBAL cloth upward burn pressure effect. ............................................................................. 34

Figure 39.—Interior dimensions of the experimental frame (Top-view). ................................................... 39

Figure 40.—External dimensions of combustion tunnel. ............................................................................ 40

Figure 41.—Coordinate system used in Table 8. ........................................................................................ 40

Figure 42.—Sketch of initial experimental rig concept. ............................................................................. 53

Figure 43.—Thermocouple Support Plate Drawing. .................................................................................. 55

Figure 44.—One slot, 50 by 100 cm, sample holder drawing. ................................................................... 56

Figure 45.—Three slot, 16.7 by 100 cm, sample holder drawing. .............................................................. 57

Figure 46.—Four slot, 12.5 by 100 cm, sample holder drawing. ............................................................... 58

Figure 47.—Thermocouple configurations A and B................................................................................... 65

Figure 48.—Thermocouple configurations C and D................................................................................... 66

Figure 49.—Three sample cheesecloth, bottom simultaneous ignition, with quench bars. ........................ 73

Figure 50.—Three sample cheesecloth, top simultaneous ignition, without quench bars. ......................... 73

Figure 51.—Three sample cheesecloth, top simultaneous ignition, with quench bars. .............................. 74

Figure 52.—Two sample SIBAL, bottom sequential ignition, without quench bars. ................................. 74

Figure 53.—Two sample SIBAL, bottom simultaneous ignition, without quench bars. ............................ 75

Figure 54.—Large 50 by 100 cm cheesecloth, bottom ignition, 15 cm center igniter. ............................... 75

Figure 55.—Large 50 by 100 cm SIBAL, bottom ignition, full width igniter. ........................................... 76

NASA/TM—2013-216501 1 

Large Scale Flame Spread Environmental Characterization Testing 

Lauren K. Clayman, Sandra L. Olson, Suleyman A. Gokoglu, and John E. Brooker 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Paul V. Ferkul 

National Center for Space Exploration Research 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Henry F. Kacher 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

Under the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Spacecraft Fire Safety Demonstration Project 

(SFSDP), as a risk mitigation activity in support of the development of a large-scale fire demonstration 

experiment in microgravity, flame-spread tests were conducted in normal gravity on thin, cellulose-based 

fuels in a sealed chamber. The primary objective of the tests was to measure pressure rise in a chamber as 

sample material, burning direction (upward/downward), total heat release, heat release rate, and heat loss 

mechanisms were varied between tests. A Design of Experiments (DOE) method was imposed to produce 

an array of tests from a fixed set of constraints and a coupled response model was developed. 

Supplementary tests were run without experimental design to additionally vary select parameters such as 

initial chamber pressure. The starting chamber pressure for each test was set below atmospheric to 

prevent chamber overpressure. Bottom ignition, or upward propagating burns, produced rapid 

acceleratory turbulent flame spread. Pressure rise in the chamber increases as the amount of fuel burned 

increases mainly because of the larger amount of heat generation and, to a much smaller extent, due to the 

increase in gaseous number of moles. Top ignition, or downward propagating burns, produced a steady 

flame spread with a very small flat flame across the burning edge. Steady-state pressure is achieved 

during downward flame spread as the pressure rises and plateaus. This indicates that the heat generation 

by the flame matches the heat loss to surroundings during the longer, slower downward burns. One heat 

loss mechanism included mounting a heat exchanger directly above the burning sample in the path of the 

plume to act as a heat sink and more efficiently dissipate the heat due to the combustion event. This 

proved an effective means for chamber overpressure mitigation for those tests producing the most total 

heat release and thusly was determined to be a feasible mitigation strategy to incorporate into the 

microgravity experiment. 

1.0 Introduction 

Past and present space programs have emphasized the need to address practical spacecraft fire safety 

issues for crewed vehicles on exploration missions. As part of the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) 

Program, the Spacecraft Fire Safety Demonstration Project (SFSDP) was initiated to develop technology 

in all areas of fire safety. While many experiments have been performed on small scale samples as a way 

to understand the basic science of combustion and flammability, characterizing fires that are more 

substantial in size has not been executed in a controlled space environment. The project has proposed a 

zero-gravity large-scale fire demonstration experiment to reveal material flammability, burning trends, 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 2 

and environmental (control volume) impacts. In addition, experimental data will allow for the verification 

of detailed numerical models of such an event. Many material tests have been conducted in microgravity 

to characterize combustion and flammability characteristics, but experiments to date have not been 

considered large-scale. Among the tasks developed in support of the SFSDP large-scale spaceflight 

experiment, is the initiative to understand and characterize the environmental impact of such an event to a 

spacecraft. A major safety concern for any carrier vehicle is the environmental effect of a large-scale 

burn. As a risk mitigation activity supporting environmental characterization, a full-scale fire 

demonstration experiment was conducted in vacuum chamber at the NASA Glenn Research Center 

(GRC). 

Similar material burning experiments have been conducted at GRC, but with different objectives. The 

primary objective of this test was to measure pressure rise in a large sealed chamber and to characterize 

that data as a function of sample material, burning direction (upward/downward), heat release rate, total 

heat release, and heat loss mechanisms. Unlike tests before it, this task did not intend to examine the 

burning phenomena of various fuel materials, but rather the changes to the ambient environment. The 

experimental data will lend itself to producing useful correlations and trends, answering engineering and 

design unknowns, and providing an anchor upon which to validate analytical models. Data gathered from 

this test will serve as risk mitigation in terms of facilitating further definition of the expected environment 

that will result from burning candidate flight material in a closed volume. The experimental outcomes will 

fold into the project’s Safety Data Package. 

1.1 Purpose 

The purpose of this test report is to provide a description of the experimental test set up and 

associated hardware and equipment, to provide a synopsis of the test procedure, and to provide examples 

of data instrumentation plots to facilitate data interpretation. 

2.0 Facility 

Vacuum Facility 13 (VF-13), is a large volume chamber residing in building 301 designed for tests 

requiring a high vacuum environment (Fig. 1). This test utilized the chamber to provide a reduced 

pressure environment. It has a 149.9 cm inner diameter, and a height of 360 cm, yielding a total volume 

of 6.35 m3

. The base is 107.9 cm deep and supports the electrical feed-throughs. It has a removable steel 

Figure 1.—Vacuum Facility 13. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 3 

cap that is 252.1 cm tall. The cap has four viewing windows. It attaches to the base via connecting 

flanges. An experimental rack was fabricated to fit into the chamber to support the integration of the test 

components and will be detailed in the experimental hardware description. 

3.0 Test Description 

By varying constraints such as heat loss mechanisms and sample burning rate, experimental outputs 

will more effectively validate analytical simulations. To achieve these variations, the experiment was 

designed to accommodate a removable quenching mechanism at the sample mounting location, as well as 

the addition of a thermal mass, or heat exchanger, downstream of the burn plume to more closely mimic 

the expected flight configuration. Sample holders (also referred to as fuel cards) were designed to 

accommodate different material sizes and were wired such that ignition could be achieved at either the top 

or bottom of a sample. The material burning rate was varied between tests by burning the material 

samples either simultaneously or sequentially and by varying ignition location to mimic possible flight 

experiment burning scenarios and to help provide a range of data for analytical simulation validation. 

For each test, VF-13 was sealed and the air inside was evacuated until reaching a specified starting 

test pressure. Up to two runs were performed during each test. A mixing fan was mounted to the bottom 

of the experimental rack to mix the chamber air after each test to help encourage chamber equilibrium. 

Upon test completion, the chamber air was partially evacuated and then refilled to vent the combustion 

products before removing the chamber lid. The comprehensive operational test procedure is included in 

Appendix A. 

As described further in section 3.1, experimental instrumentation for data collection included a 

pressure transducer for measuring tank pressure, thermocouples for capturing tank air temperature, 

radiometers for estimating radiant heat flux, anemometers to measure air flow, and video cameras for 

visually documenting the material burning rate. Feed-throughs were needed for the experimental data 

instrumentation, the ignition system, and the camera system (including the LED strips described in the 

Cameras section). Figure 2 is a photograph of the experimental rack, hardware, and instrumentation. 

Appendix B details the XYZ coordinate locations for the instrumentation. 

Given the wide-ranging objectives of this test, a controlled approach was taken to yield a set of tests 

that would best produce meaningful data correlations. Using a Design of Experiments (DOE) method, an 

array of tests was produced using a fixed set of parametric constraints. A supplementary set of tests was 

run which included a second sample material and several additionally varied parameters that deviated 

from the DOE constraints. Both test matrices are included in Appendix C. In this document any test cases 

referred to by test/fill and run number are prefixed with either DOE, identifying the tests in the Design of 

Experiments matrix, or SUP, identifying the tests in the Supplementary test matrix. 

3.1 Experimental Rack, Hardware, and Instrumentation 

3.1.1 Frame 

A frame was constructed to fit within VF-13 that sits on an inner rim at the connecting flanges shown 

in Figures 1 and 2. The frame is made of Bosch Rexroth aluminum structural framing. It is capable of 

supporting one sample holder at a time. The sample holders are described in more detail in the following 

section. The frame supports Lexan (SABIC Innovative Plastics) glass panels which surround the sample 

holder on all four sides, partially mimicking the expected flight design enclosure configuration by acting 

as a combustion tunnel. Figure 2 illustrates the entire test rig. The original experimental concept sketch 

can be found in Appendix D, and dimensioned drawings are included in Appendix B. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 4 

Figure 2.—Experimental rack in VF-13. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 5 

3.1.2 Sample Holder 

As mentioned, an objective of the test was to vary heat release rate. This was achieved by varying the 

sample width and burning multiple samples sequentially while keeping the total sample area constant. 

Three sample holder designs were conceived for testing. Drawings were produced for the three sample 

holder designs and were submitted to GRC Manufacturing Division for fabrication. The dimensioned 

drawings can be found in Appendix E. Manufacturing ordered the material (1/16 in. thick aluminum), and 

cut the sample holders using a water knife. Due to the effort to constrain the input variables for the DOE 

matrix generation, only the four slot sample holder was used for DOE testing. The four slot sample holder 

and the one slot sample holder were both used for supplemental testing. The three slot sample holder was 

fabricated but never utilized. Figure 3 shows a depiction of the three designs. The two designs used 

during the test are shown in bold. 

To reduce the potential for reflection on the video recordings, the sample holders were sent offsite for 

flat black anodizing. Two of each sample holder design were fabricated (for a total of six sample holders) 

with the intent of expediting test preparations. The sample holders were not permanently mounted as part 

of the test fixture, but were designed to be easily installed and removed between tests. Because of the size 

of the sample holders and the height of the facility and test rig, the sample holders needed to be installed 

and removed using the facility crane. Procedures for sample holder installation and removal are included 

in Appendix F and Appendix G, respectively. 

Each sample holder was designed with the capability of igniting at either end of the sample. Igniter 

wires were permanently affixed to each end of the sample holders (Figs. 2 and 4). Graduation lines (scale 

factors) were drawn alongside the vertical perimeters of the sample cutouts to facilitate tracking the burn 

rate. Kapton tape was used to mount the samples to the sample holder. 

Figure 3.—Depiction of sample holder designs (not to scale). 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 6 

Figure 4.—Igniter wiring leads on a four slot sample holder. 

3.1.3 Cameras 

For this test, the four chamber viewing ports did not provide access for visual documentation of the 

experiment. Four HD digital video cameras, two mounted on either side of the sample holder, recorded 

and transmitted video of the experiment inside the chamber. Two of the cameras were purchased new 

(mounted in the front) and two cameras were borrowed. Wide angle lenses were purchased for both sets 

of cameras as the fields of view did not completely cover the entire sample area. With the addition of the 

lenses, the front cameras captured the entire potential sample area, while the back cameras did not. The 

camera locations are labeled in Figure 2 and additional information pertaining to the cameras can be 

found in and Appendix B. 

The cameras were mounted outside of the Lexan enclosure. Aside from documenting the experiments, 

the primary intent of the video imaging was to post-process the videos to reveal the burning rate of the 

samples. Secondarily, a live video feed was transmitted from the two front cameras to two flat screen 

monitors provided test operators with visual confirmation of fuel sample ignition and the outcome of the 

test. Illumination within the chamber to facilitate adequate lighting for video imagery was achieved with a 

series of green Light Emitting Diode (LED) strips, which were mounted vertically inside along the two 

front corners of the Bosch frame. More information pertaining to the LED strips can be found in Table 1. 

The cameras were not configured to operate remotely. As a result, the cameras needed to be turned on 

and recording prior to closing the chamber. Video data captured by the cameras was written to Secure 

Digital (SD) cards. During the course of testing, reflections were hindering flame tracking postprocessing of the video data files. A thin sheet of black card stock was added to the inner surface of the 

back Lexan panel to help minimize the reflection for the front set of cameras. All camera settings are 

captured in Appendix H. 

3.1.4 Thermocouples 

The facility had existing feed-throughs capable of supporting eight type K thermocouples. All eight 

were utilized for testing. Seven thermocouples were mounted in the plane directly above the top edge of 

the sample holder, with four evenly spaced on the front side and three evenly spaced on the back side of 

the test rig. The spacing was intended to allow for capturing temperature readings directly above the center 

of the sample being burned, despite which sample holder was being used. An eighth thermocouple was 

mounted one meter above the top edge of the sample holder to obtain a plume temperature reading. 

Thermocouple information can be found in Table 1. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 7 

TABLE 1.—EXPERIMENTAL INSTRUMENTATION 

Description Manufacturer/Model number Quantity Serial number Comments

Thermocouple Omega, KMQSS-062(E)-12 8 NA 

Radiometer 

(Thermopile 

Detectors)

ORIEL instruments, 7108 2 NA Utilized two amplifiers, one for each 

radiometer (supplier, Dexter 

Research Center, Model 1010 Low 

Noise Amplifier) 

Anemometer TSI, 8475-12 2 62010041, 

02/28/2012; 

62010042, 

02/24/2012 

Camera SONY HDR-XR160 HD (2) 

SONY HDR-CX110 (2)

4 HDR-XR160 

1179957-P 

1179960-J 

HDR-CX160 

1197443-F 

1202996-F 

Wide angle lenses were purchased 

for the cameras (SONY VCLHA07A wide angle adaptor, QTY 4) 

Pressure 

transducers

Setra 205-2 

Setra 270 

1 Setra 205-2, 

530528; 

Setra 270, 

N/A 

Setra 205-2 had a range of 0 to 

25 psia and an accuracy of 0.11% 

FS. Setra 270 had a range of 0 to 

20 psia and an accuracy of 0.05% 

FS. 

LED strips RL-SC-RSM-G-10 1 N/A 

Kanthal igniter 

wire

Product: Kanthal A-1 

Size (diameter): 0.0113 in. 

B&S wire gauge: 29 

T: 0.45 

Ω/FT: 6.751 

Net: 0.73 

REF NO.: 50130 

N/A N/A For sawtooth/sinusoid shaped 

igniters, actual wire lengths were 

approximately double igniter length. 

The thermocouple arrangement was revised for tests which utilized a heat exchanger. The 

thermocouple diagrams documenting the progression of the thermocouple arrangement are in 

Appendix I. Figure 2 shows the thermocouples on the test rig. Appendix B includes XYZ coordinates for 

the thermocouples. A thermocouple support plate was designed with pre-drilled holes to facilitate 

thermocouple mounting. Three support plates were fabricated by manufacturing and also sent out for flat 

black anodizing. Two of the support plates were used for thermocouple mounting, while the third and 

spare plate was instead used to mount the anemometers. The drawing for the thermocouple support plate 

is included in Appendix E. 

3.1.5 Radiometers 

Mounted within the front panel of Lexan were two radiometers for detecting radiant flux. Both were 

aligned vertically along the center of the Lexan panel. Two amplifiers were used for the radiometers. 

Table 1 lists additional radiometer information. Figure 2 points out the location of the radiometers on the 

test rig and their XYZ coordinates can be found in Appendix B. 

3.1.6 Anemometers 

Measuring induced buoyant flow was of interest for this test. Two omnidirectional anemometers were 

mounted several inches away from the base of the sample holder plane. Table 1 lists additional 

anemometer information. The anemometers are labeled in Figure 2 and actual XYZ coordinates are called 

out in Appendix B. A thermocouple support plate was used for mounting the anemometers. The drawing 

for the thermocouple support plate is included in Appendix E. The anemometer test data readings 

appeared to saturate at approximately 55 cm/s. Airflows of this magnitude were only present while the 

mixing fan was operational. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 8 

3.1.7 Pressure Transducers 

Two pressure transducers were actively recording data during testing. One pressure transducer was 

left in the facility by the previous occupant and had expired calibration certification. It measured 

pressures within a range of 0 to 20 psi. The second pressure transducer was calibrated prior to testing and 

it had a range of 

0 to 25 psi. While both pressure transducer readings are present in the test data, only the 0 to 25 psi range 

pressure transducer data is being considered for post-test evaluation and data correlations. The make and 

model of these transducers are included in Table 1. The pressure transducers were mounted in the 

chamber feed-throughs (at the chamber wall) approximately 1 ft below the bottom of the test rig. The 0 to 

25 psi range transducer mounted in the feed-through near the front left corner of the test rig and the 0 to 

20 psi transducer was mounted in the feed-through near the front right corner of the test rig. 

3.1.8 Mixing Fan 

To aid in mixing the chamber air following test runs, a fan was mounted along the base of the frame. 

Fan mounting location and air flow direction were not of concern, provided the fan did not interfere with 

the test article. 

3.1.9 Igniters 

Kanthal wire was used to create the igniters used for each test. More information regarding the 

Kanthal wire can be found in Table 1. For the majority of the tests the wire was bent in sinusoid/sawtooth 

shape until the total length of the igniter was the width of the test sample. Connector pins were crimped 

onto the ends. See Figures 4 to 6. The sawtooth shape of the igniter lent itself well to attaching to the 

sample by alternating peaks above and below the edge of the sample. The igniters were reused until 

broken, distorted beyond repair, or too brittle. 

Concerned that the wire would become hot and sag too quickly, for large sample (50 by 100 cm) 

tests, the igniter wire was simply woven through the fabric like a thread rather than attaching to the 

sample by weaving alternating peaks around the edge. The igniters were supplied with a constant current 

just under 4 A (approximately 3.9 A). The voltage source was an 84 V DC source, but the voltage drawn 

was variable depending on igniter resistance (igniter length). 

A switchbox was custom made for the experiment. It allowed for the experiments four igniters to be 

engaged in any combination, either simultaneously or sequentially, and it also allowed for 

synchronization of the illumination of the LED lights with ignition. 

Figure 5.—Igniter concept. 

Figure 6.—Photo of igniter. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 9 

3.1.10 Heat Exchangers 

As a means of varying heat loss during testing, two different heat absorbing panel configurations 

were used. These were both referred to as heat exchangers. The heat exchangers needed to be porous so as 

not to obstruct the induced buoyant flow during burning. 

The first configuration was comprised of two stacked aluminum honeycomb core panels from 

McMaster Carr. Each was 24 in. wide by 48 in. long by 0.5 in. thick with 0.5 in. cells. The aluminum 

itself was approximately 2 mils thick (a measured value upon receipt of the product from the manufacturer). Figure 7 shows a depiction of an aluminum honeycomb core similar to what was used for this test. 

Figure 7.—Depiction of an aluminum honeycomb core (similar to L1). 

 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 10 

The two panels were stacked together so that the cells were slightly offset and simply placed across 

the top of the test frame. The length of the panels exceeded the length of the frame so they protruded 

slightly on either side. The panel width was slightly less than the width of the frame so a ceramic paper 

was cut into long strips and used to eliminate the gap. The two panels together weighed 770 g (one 

weighed 380 g, one weighed 390 g). When the honeycomb began to lose its rigidity, it became evident 

that the honeycomb was bonded with adhesive and was not welded. This heat exchanger is referred to as 

“L1” within the context of the test matrices. The reference was an arbitrary label for the purposes of 

providing nomenclature for the parametric input to the DOE software. 

The second heat exchanger was comprised of two aluminum mesh (lath) panels with an aluminum 

frame from filters-now.com. The frame dimensions were 24 in. wide by 43 in. long by 7/8 in. thick. The 

mesh was 5/8 in. and was secured by the frame. Figure 8 is a photograph of one of the two panels. The 

two panels were stacked together and placed across the top of the experimental frame during testing. 

Unlike the honeycomb panels, the length of the mesh panels did not exceed the experimental frame 

length, however the panel width was slightly less than the width of the experimental frame so a ceramic 

paper was cut into long strips and used to eliminate the gap. 

Figure 8.—Photo of one of two aluminum mesh heat exchanger panels (L2). 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 11 

The two panels together weighed 5208 g (one weighed 2610 g, one weighed 2598 g). No adhesives 

were used in the fabrication of these panels. However, while testing, it became evident that the mesh had 

an undisclosed protective coating. Mesh panels with coatings are not uncommon given their range of 

applicability; microwaves, stove hoods, etc. The coating caused excess smoke release during several of 

the tests and at least once caused a secondary burn to occur as the coating caught on fire from the heat and 

intensity of the burning sample. This heat exchanger is referred to as “L2” within the context of the test 

matrices. 

3.1.11 Quench Bars 

As a secondary means of varying heat loss, aluminum bars, called quench bars, were designed to 

fasten along the vertical perimeters of samples on both the front and back of the sample holders. This 

means that four quench bars would be attached per sample. Figure 9 illustrates a depiction of a sample 

card with quench bars. The bars were made of 0.0625 in. thick aluminum and were each 43.25 in. long 

with a 1 in. square hollow cross section. Each bar was painted black with off the shelf spray paint to help 

minimize reflection from both the LED lights and the flame from the burning sample. The bars bolted to 

the sample holder at each end. 

Figure 9.—Sample card with quench bars. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 12 

3.2 Data Acquisition, Storage and Archive 

Data acquisition (DAQ) was achieved with an Agilent DAQ system supplied by the facility. The 

system supported two pressure transducers (one calibrated, one out of calibration), eight Type K 

thermocouples, two radiometers, two anemometers, and an igniter indication signal. Data was recorded at 

a rate of once per second. Plots of all test data were displayed on a computer monitor during testing. All 

raw test data was captured in Comma-Separated Values (CSV) format and read into a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet. Procedures for activating and using the DAQ are provided in Appendix J. Table 1 lists the 

experimental instrumentation and hardware used for data collection. 

All Excel test data files, video files, and test matrices, are stored for archival on an external hard drive 

that was purchased by the task. Additionally, all of the Excel test data files and test matrices will be stored 

in the AES Spacecraft Fire Demonstration Project on eRoom. All Excel data files are labeled as 

VF13_"matrix name"_"mm/dd/yyyy"_"test/fill-run".xlsx, where matrix name is either DOE or SUP. For 

example, the filename for DOE test/fill 1, run 1 would be VF13_DOE_04052012_1-1. 

4.0 Fuel Material 

The leading fuel material candidates for the Large Scale Flight Experiment include cheesecloth and 

Solid Inflammability Boundary at Low-Speeds (SIBAL) material. The DOE did not include fuel as a 

variable parameter and therefore cheesecloth was the only fuel utilized for the DOE testing. 

Supplementary tests included SIBAL fuel. Details of each test and materials burned are provided in the 

test matrices included in Appendix C. 

4.1 Cheesecloth 

Cheesecloth is a loose-woven gauze-like cotton cloth available in many different grades/weaves. Four 

types of cheesecloth were ordered for this task; #50 unbleached, #60 unbleached, #90 unbleached, and 

#90 bleached. All were from www.cheesecloth.us. It was decided that #90 bleached would be the most 

appropriate cheesecloth selection for this test given its higher grade (more tightly woven fibers) lending 

itself to falling within a targeted area density. Additionally, samples of each type of cheesecloth were 

burn tested in a much smaller chamber. It was found that bleached cheesecloth burns more cleanly than 

unbleached which was more desirable for this test. 

4.2 SIBAL 

SIBAL fuel is a custom made cotton-fiberglass blend. When burning, the cotton is consumed leaving 

behind a fiberglass matrix after the flame passage. This material is capable of one-sided burning and may 

exhibit inconsistent flame spread rates. Only one roll was manufactured almost a decade ago and what 

remains of the roll is all that exists of the material today. The material was supplied by the GRC 

Combustion and Reacting Systems Branch, code REC. SIBAL is significantly less permeable than 

cheesecloth. It also proved to be easier to handle than cheesecloth in terms of sample preparation. The 

fabric was less prone to snagging, fraying and stretching. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 13 

5.0 Design of Experiments 

The final DOE (JMP version 10.0) was an augmented custom design (build 1.3.2.20120426) 

consisting of five multi-level factors and one response as described in Table 2. 

The selected response model contained main-effects with 2nd order interactions and included a 

constraint that disallowed non-physical combinations of the factors. The JMP software identified 28 runs 

necessary for an optimal design. Experiments were conducted utilizing the 4-slot sample holder such that 

two runs were performed for each VF-13 chamber test/fill. As such, 48 runs were identified and used in 

the DOE analysis. These runs included retests of anomalies and single point replicates. The relationship 

between the DOE name and name used for the response model is shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 2.—DOE CUSTOM DESIGN 

Component DOE name Levels 

Continuous response Delta P Minimize 

Categorical factors Ignition location B, T 

----------------------------- Quench block N, Y 

----------------------------- Heat exchanger N, L1, L2 

Discrete numeric factors FES width 12.5, 37.5 (cm) 

----------------------------- FES area 0.125, 0.375 (m2) 

TABLE 3.—DOE NAME VS. RESPONSE MODEL NAME 

DOE name and relationship Response model name 

Delta P Y 

Ignition location A 

Quench block B 

Heat exchanger C 

(FES width-25)/12.5 X 

(FES area-0.25)/0.125 Z 

The response model expression is shown in Equation (1), 

CZCXBZ

Y BXBBCAZAXACABZXCBA

12 13 14

9876543210 10 11



             (1) 

where the parameter estimates, j, are multi-valued for the categorical factors. Using a Standard Least 

Squares fit (normal assumptions apply), estimates for the response model parameters were determined 

and are shown in Table 4. 

An Analysis of Variance provides a comparison between the fitted response model and a simple mean 

model. For this case, the results show (p-value 0.0001) that there is at least one significant effect in the 

response model with an R-squared value of 0.97 (estimates the proportion of variation in the response that 

can be attributed to the model rather than to random error). A graph of actual-versus-predicted Delta P is 

shown in Figure 10. The plot identifies the data points (markers), response model fit (solid red line) and 

95 percent confidence interval (dashed red lines), and mean Delta P (dashed blue line). The final design 

(DOE test matrix), along with the experimental results for Delta P (calculated and verified) and the 

response model predicted Delta P can be found in Appendix C and Appendix K, respectively. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 14 

TABLE 4.—RESPONSE MODEL ESTIMATES 

Parameter Factor Factor level Estimate 

0 Intercept Intercept 0.370 

1 A B 0.186 

-- -- T –0.186 

2 B N 0.045 

-- -- Y –0.045 

3 C N 0.130 

-- -- L1 0.062 

-- -- L2 –0.192 

4 X -- 0.076 

5 Z -- 0.109 

6 AB B, N 0.030 

-- -- B, Y –0.030 

-- -- T, N –0.030 

-- -- T, Y 0.030 

7 AC B, N 0.119 

-- -- B, L1 0.038 

-- -- B, L2 –0.158 

-- -- T, N –0.119 

-- -- T, L1 –0.038 

-- -- T, L2 0.158 

8 AX B 0.027 

-- -- T –0.027 

9 AZ B 0.096 

-- -- T –0.096 

10 BC N, N 0.005 

-- -- N, L1 –0.010 

-- -- N, L2 0.006 

-- -- Y, N –0.005 

-- -- Y, L1 0.010 

-- -- Y, L2 –0.006 

11 BX N 0.034 

-- -- Y –0.034 

12 BZ N 0.004 

-- -- Y –0.004 

13 CX N 0.016 

-- -- L1 –0.005 

-- -- L2 –0.011 

14 CZ N 0.046 

-- -- L1 0.035 

-- -- L2 –0.081 

Figure 10.—Actual vs. Predicted Delta P. 

Delta P Actual
NASA/TM—2013-216501 15 

6.0 Results 

The volume of data collected from the experiment was substantial. Each archived data file includes 

plots of the pressure transducer, thermocouple, anemometer, and radiometer readings. In lieu of capturing 

every data plot from each test within this report, the following sections highlight only select test data. 

Future publications will address and evaluate empirical relationships, trends, and correlations. 

6.1 Pressure Plot Examples and Pressure Trends 

Given the main test objective, the majority of the selected example plots to follow are pressure data 

plots. One pressure plot was selected to illustrate each test parameter. Trends in the pressure data were 

captured in a series of plots meant to group pressure outcomes according to categorical parameters. These 

are also included within the following subsections. The change in pressure for each test in both the DOE 

and Supplementary test sets is included in Appendix L. Several still pictures captured from the video files 

highlighting depictions of various test parameters are in Appendix M. 

6.1.1 Top vs. Bottom Ignition 

The following plots in Figures 11 and 12, show the difference in pressure rise between the two 

ignition locations investigated during these tests. The plots shown below are for similar cases; a single 

12.5 cm wide sample without quench bars and without a heat exchanger. Ignition at the top of a sample 

yields a much slower burn time and less intense flame than a bottom ignition. As a result, the peak 

pressure for a top ignition will not be as high as the peak pressure for a bottom ignition for otherwise 

equivalent cases. Additionally, the peak pressure takes longer to reach as a result of a longer duration 

burn with a top ignition. 

Figure 11.—DOE test 1-1 top ignition example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 16 

Figure 12.—DOE test 3-6 bottom ignition example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 17 

6.1.2 Simultaneous vs. Sequential Sample Ignition 

The following plots in Figures 13 to 16, show the difference in pressure rise between igniting multiple 

samples simultaneously and sequentially (also referred to as “in series”). The plots shown below are for similar 

cases. The first two plots are for cases burning three 12.5 cm wide samples ignited at the bottom without 

quench bars and without a heat exchanger. The second two cases are for burning three 12.5 cm wide samples 

ignited at the top without quench bars and without a heat exchanger. While total pressure rise appears to be 

different between the bottom ignition cases it is very close to the same. The apparent difference is caused by 

lag time while igniting sequentially as a result of test operator inaccuracies. The total pressure rise between the 

top ignition cases is slightly different. The sample material takes much longer to burn downward with a top 

ignition than upward with a bottom ignition, therefore sequential burns compared to simultaneous burns of the 

same amount of material at the same conditions will likely yield a lower total pressure rise. This is due in part 

to the released heat having more time to be absorbed by the surroundings. 

Figure 13.—DOE test 1-2 simultaneous bottom ignition example pressure plot. 

Figure 14.—DOE test 2-4 sequential bottom ignition example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 18 

Figure 15.—DOE test 7-14 simultaneous top ignition example pressure plot. 

Figure 16.—DOE test 20-39 sequential top ignition example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 19 

6.1.3 Quench Bars: With vs. Without 

The following plots in Figures 17 and 18, show pressure rise for cases with quench bars and without. 

The plots shown are for similar cases; three samples simultaneously ignited at the top without a heat 

exchanger. The plots are so similar that it is difficult to visually see any obvious differences in pressure 

patterns. Any quench bar influences are more easily seen in later plots in section 6.1.6. 

Figure 17.—DOE test 22-43 no quench bars example pressure plot. 

Figure 18.—DOE test 23-45 with quench bars example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 20 

6.1.4 Heat Exchanger: With vs. Without 

The following plots in Figures 19 to 21, show pressure rise for cases with each of the two heat 

exchangers and without. The plots shown are for similar cases; a single 12.5 cm wide sample ignited at 

the bottom without quench bars. As with the quench bars, the pressure plots for the case without the heat 

exchanger and the case with the L1 heat exchanger are so similar that it is difficult to observe the 

difference, if any, in the total pressure rise. The effect of the L1 heat exchanger is more easily seen in 

later plots in the Pressure Trends section. It is evident that the total pressure rise in the L2 heat exchanger 

case was lower than the case without a heat exchanger. 

Figure 19.—DOE test 10-19 no heat exchanger example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 21 

Figure 20.—DOE test 14-27 L1 heat exchanger example pressure plot. 

Figure 21.—DOE test 17-33 L2 heat exchanger example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 22 

6.1.5 Cheesecloth vs. SIBAL 

The following plots in Figures 22 and 23, show the difference in pressure rise between burning 

cheesecloth and SIBAL material. The plots shown are for similar cases; one 50 cm wide by 100 cm long 

sample ignited at the bottom without quench bars and without a heat exchanger. Burning SIBAL fuel 

yields a greater pressure rise than burning the same size sample of cheesecloth (despite the starting 

pressure being lower in this particular SIBAL test case). This is to be expected since the area density of 

SIBAL is greater than cheesecloth. SIBAL fuel burns more slowly than cheesecloth and consequently its 

pressure rise curve is more symmetric than the curve for cheesecloth. 

Figure 22.—SUP test 4-5 50100 cm cheesecloth example pressure plot. 

Figure 23.—SUP test 14-21 50100 cm SIBAL example pressure plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 23 

6.1.6 Pressure Trends 

To facilitate evaluating data from the tests, pressure trends from the DOE test runs are combined in 

the following plots in Figures 24 to 30. The data is separated categorically for visualization. References to 

top ignition or bottom ignition are synonymous with downward and upward burning, respectfully. 

Figure 24.—Top ignition DOE test runs by categorical parameter. 

Figure 25.—Bottom ignition DOE test runs by categorical parameter. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 24 

Figure 26.—Effect of starting chamber pressure. 

Figure 27.—Top ignition pressure rise by number of samples (sheets). 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 25 

Figure 28.—Igniter length effects on bottom ignition pressure rise. 

Figure 29.—Pressure rise versus area burned for upward burns. 

Figure 30.—Pressure rise versus area burned for downward burns. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 26 

6.2 Temperature Data Plot 

The following plot in Figure 31 shows the temperature response for three samples of cheesecloth 

ignited from the top and burned sequentially with quench bars. As each sample was burning, the 

thermocouple(s) directly above it were the most reactive and had the largest swing in temperature 

response. 

Figure 31.—DOE test 10-20 temperature data plot. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 27 

6.3 Anemometer Data Plot 

The following plot in Figure 32 shows the airspeed response for three samples of cheesecloth ignited 

from the top and burned simultaneously. There are two obvious periods of air disturbance during the test. 

The first is in response to the cheesecloth burning and creating buoyant flow. The second occurs while the 

mixing fan is operational. It can be seen that the anemometers saturate at a reading of approximately 

55 cm/s which is reached by one of them during fan mixing. It can also be seen that the anemometer 

readings are not congruent. In addition to the placement of the anemometers with respect to the samples, 

the asymmetry of the interior bottom section of the test chamber likely contributed to this. 

Figure 32.—DOE test 7-14 anemometer data plot. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 28 

6.4 Radiometer Data Plot 

The following plot in Figure 33 shows the radiometer readings for three samples of cheesecloth 

ignited from the top and burned simultaneously. The radiometer signals were output as a voltage rather 

than converted directly into a reading of radiant flux. The radiometer readings were suitable for indicating 

an accurate estimate of total burn time. While not shown in this plot, the radiometers saturate at 

approximately 8.5 V. 

Figure 33.—DOE test 7-14 radiometer data plot. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 29 

6.5 Determining Burn-Times From Radiometer Data 

A quantitative approach based on radiometer data was developed in order to avoid subjectivity to 

determine burn-times from the VF-13 tests. The analysis includes single-, double-, and triple-strip 

samples and full-size samples where the multiple samples are ignited simultaneously and the full-size 

samples are ignited along their full width. Repeat tests are also included, but multiple samples with serial 

ignitions (i.e., sequential burns) are ignored in the analysis. The anomalous tests are excluded. For DOE 

run 2.3, the radiometers seem dysfunctional, therefore this test is also excluded. 

For the downward burn cases where the samples are ignited at the top, the “ignition time” is obtained 

from the time corresponding to the first 30 percent reading of the full range of the top radiometer (while 

taking off), and the “extinction time” is obtained from the time corresponding to the second 30 percent 

reading of the full range of the bottom radiometer (while falling down). The term “full range” is defined as 

the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the radiometer reading. The burn-times are 

obtained from the difference of extinction and ignition times. Error bars indicate one standard deviation of 

all relevant data including repeats. No error bar means that there is only one single run of that given case. 

For the upward burn cases where the samples are ignited from the bottom, all of the radiometer 

readings saturate except the single-strip burns. Therefore, the radiative heat loss evaluation of doublestrip, triple-strip, and full-size sample tests are not possible. Also, the radiometer readings for many tests 

do not come down to their original minimum after the burns and seem to settle at a higher value (just like 

the pressure curves). Under the circumstances, the approach adopted to determine the extinction time for 

downburn cases is modified in order to handle the upburn cases in a more rational and consistent way. 

The determination of the ignition times for the upburn cases are kept the same as the downburn cases 

since the radiometer behavior is unaffected during ignitions of either cases. For determining the extinction 

times of upburn cases, 50 percent full-scale readings give reasonable values for these fast burns which last 

only about 9 sec (where “full scale” means the saturation value). Since the data is recorded every second, 

obtaining burn-times require some interpolations of readings at two consecutive seconds. 

The data presented are for either cheesecloth or SIBAL fuel material. The cheesecloth data includes 

all DOE tests and some of the relevant Supplemental tests while the SIBAL data is taken only from 

Supplemental tests. All tests had an initial pressure of about 11.7 psi (~0.8 atm) except where indicated 

otherwise. The pressure effect data is obtained from single tests of double-strip cheesecloth samples. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 30 

6.5.1 Cheesecloth Burn-Times 

Tables 5 and 6 and Figures 34 to 36, give the upward burn cases first followed by the downward burn 

cases. Burn-times labeled as “measured” are obtained from radiometer data as described above. 

TABLE 5.—CHEESECLOTH BURN-TIMES FOR UPWARD BURNING (BOTTOM IGNITION) 

Ignition

location

Quench

block

(QB)

Heat

exchanger

(HX)

Sample

width

(cm)

Sample

area

(cm2

)

Measured

deltaP

(psi)

Burn‐time

(s) Run.Fill numbers, test dates & comments

B N N 12.5 0.125 0.442 7.44 7.13 (4/24/12)

B N N 12.5 0.125 0.415 8.64 10.19 (5/2/12); replicate of 7.13

B N N 12.5 0.125 0.434 7.92 22.44 (6/1/12); replicate of 7.13

B N N 12.5 0.125 0.431 7.58 23.46 (6/4/12); replicate of 7.13

B N N 25.0 0.250 0.921 9.92 Supp1.1 (3/29/12); check out

B N N 37.5 0.375 1.369 8.93 1.2 (4/5/12)

B N N 50.0 0.500 1.776 9.82 Supp4.5 (5/3/12); full sample

B N N 12.5 0.375 1.051 2.4 (4/10/12); sequential burn

B N N 12.5 0.250 0.797 CO.b (3/29/12); check out; sequential burn

B Y N 12.5 0.125 0.394 8.16 3.6 (4/16/12)

B Y N 12.5 0.125 0.366 7.56 11.21 (5/3/12); replicate of 3.6

B Y N 12.5 0.375 0.859 12.24 (5/4/12); sequential burn

B N Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.334 7.06 6.11 (4/20/12)

B N Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.329 7.29 14.27 (5/9/12); replicate of 6.11

B N Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.334 7.64 21.42 (5/31/12); replicate of 6.11

B N Y/HX1 37.5 0.375 1.065 9.40 8.16 (4/26/12)

B N Y/HX1 12.5 0.375 0.860 5.10 (4/19/12); sequential burn

B N Y/HX2 12.5 0.125 0.097 7.80 17.33 (5/24/12)

B N Y/HX2 50.0 0.500 0.326 9.97 Supp11.17 (6/6/12); full sample

B N Y/HX2 12.5 0.375 0.202 16.32 (5/23/12); sequential burn

B Y Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.294 7.46 9.17 (4/30/12)

B Y Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.294 7.62 13.25 (5/7/12); replicate of 9.17

B Y Y/HX1 37.5 0.375 0.935 9.60 4.8 (4/17/12)

B Y Y/HX1 12.5 0.375 0.759 14.28 (5/9/12); sequential burn

B Y Y/HX2 12.5 0.125 0.070 7.70 18.35 (5/25/12)

B Y Y/HX2 37.5 0.375 0.205 9.93 18.36 (5/25/12)

B N N 12.5 0.250 0.800 10.18 Supp13.20 (6/8/12); initial P: 9 psi

B N N 12.5 0.250 0.679 13.56 Supp10.16 (5/22/12); initial P: 6.6 psi

B N N 12.5 0.250 0.541 18.40 Supp13.19 (6/8/12); initial P: 5 psi

sequential burn; not considered for burn‐times

anomalous tests; not considered

radiometer dysfunctional

All tests had an initial pressure of about 11.7 psi (~ 0.8 atm) except where indicated in aqua color.  
NASA/TM—2013-216501 31 

TABLE 6.—CHEESECLOTH BURN-TIMES FOR DOWNWARD BURNING (TOP IGNITION) 

Figure 34.—Burn-times for cheesecloth upward burns. 

Ignition

location

Quench

block

(QB)

Heat

exchanger

(HX)

Sample

width

(cm)

Sample

area

(cm2

)

Measured

deltaP

(psi)

Burn‐time

(s) Run.Fill numbers, test dates & comments

T N N 12.5 0.125 0.129 211.50 1.1 (4/5/12)

T N N 37.5 0.375 0.337 209.00 7.14 (4/24/12)

T N N 37.5 0.375 0.294 243.45 22.43 (6/1/12); replicate of 7.14

T N N 12.5 0.375 0.161 11.22 (5/3/12);sequential burn; anomaly

T N N 12.5 0.375 0.164 20.39 (5/30/12); retest of 11.22; sequential burn

T Y N 12.5 0.125 0.130 2.3 (4/10/12); radiometer dysfunctional

T Y N 12.5 0.125 0.105 12.23 (5/4/12); replicate of 2.3; anomaly

T Y N 12.5 0.125 0.113 240.75 20.40 (5/30/12); replicate of 2.3

T Y N 37.5 0.375 0.275 245.25 3.5 (4/16/12)

T Y N 37.5 0.375 0.275 212.00 23.45 (6/4/12); replicate of 3.5

T Y N 12.5 0.375 0.149 10.20 (5/2/12);sequential burn

T N Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.129 223.24 4.7 (4/17/12)

T N Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.130 222.77 5.9 (4/19/12), Replicate of 4.7

T N Y/HX1 37.5 0.375 0.315 9.18 (4/30/12); anomaly

T N Y/HX1 37.5 0.375 0.313 13.26 (5/7/12); retest of 9.18; anomaly

T N Y/HX1 37.5 0.375 0.307 224.54 21.41 (5/31/12); retest of 9.18

T N Y/HX1 12.5 0.375 0.164 15.30 (5/10/12); sequential burn

T N Y/HX2 12.5 0.125 0.084 243.25 16.31 (5/23/12)

T N Y/HX2 37.5 0.375 0.278 243.37 17.34 (5/24/12)

T Y Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.118 217.50 8.15 (4/26/12)

T Y Y/HX1 12.5 0.125 0.116 226.77 15.29 (5/10/12); replicate of 8.15

T Y Y/HX1 37.5 0.375 0.281 207.50 6.12 (4/20/12)

T Y Y/HX2 12.5 0.125 0.091 251.00 19.37 (5/29/12)

T Y Y/HX2 12.5 0.375 0.140 19.38 (5/29/12); sequential burn

radiometer dysfunctional

anomalous tests; not considered

sequential burn; not considered for burn‐times

All tests had an initial pressure of about 11.7 psi (~ 0.8 atm) except where indicated in aqua color.  

Average = 8.5 s

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Single Single +

Double

+ Triple

Full Single +

Double

+ Triple

+ QB

Single +

Double

+ Triple

+ HX1

Single +

Double

+ Triple

+ HX2

Full +

HX2

Single +

Double

+ Triple

+ QB +

HX1

Single +

Double

+ Triple

+ QB +

HX2

Burn‐time (s)

Upward Burns

(cheesecloth)
NASA/TM—2013-216501 32 

Figure 35.—Burn-times for cheesecloth downward burns. 

Figure 36.—Cheesecloth upward burn pressure effect. 

Average = 228 s

175

200

225

250

275

Single Single +

Double +

Triple

Single +

Double +

Triple +

QB

Single +

Double +

Triple +

HX1

Single +

Double +

Triple +

HX2

Single +

Double +

Triple +

QB + HX1

Single +

Double +

Triple +

QB + HX2

Burn‐time (s)

Downward Burns

(cheesecloth)

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0

Burn‐time (s)

Initial Pressure (psia)

Upward Burn Pressure Effect

(double‐strip cheesecloth)
NASA/TM—2013-216501 33 

6.5.2 SIBAL Cloth Burn-Times 

SIBAL cloth is a composite fuel material with a total area density of 18.05±0.02 mg/cm2

 and 

thickness of 0.31±0.02 mm, composed of 75 percent cotton and 25 percent fiberglass by mass. Only the 

cotton portion is burned and the fiberglass skeleton structure remains after burns. In terms of relative 

energy densities, SIBAL cloth fuel releases about 3.2 times more heat per unit area than cheesecloth. 

Even though the flame spread rates on SIBAL cloth are slower than those on cheesecloth, due to the 

larger area density of SIBAL cloth (18.05 vs. 4.28 mg/cm2

), the more energetic burns of SIBAL fuel lead 

to greater radiation. This results in faster saturation of the radiometers beyond their applicable scale and 

longer periods of recovery for the radiometer readings to fall back to their measurement range. 

Furthermore, after each burn, it has experimentally been observed that the remaining skeleton of SIBAL 

cloth fuel continues to glow partially due to the continued smoldering of cotton stuck on fiberglass 

structure and partially due to decaying radiation from warm fiberglass after the flame passes while it is 

cooling. SIBAL burning data is shown in Table 7 and Figures 37 and 38. 

These factors render the approach to use radiometer readings to determine burn-times impractical for 

SIBAL fuel. Although the determination of ignition times may be acceptable, the determination of 

extinction times for SIBAL cloth burns is highly unreliable, as reflected in the table and graph below. For 

the nominal initial pressure cases when no heat exchanger is used, the burn-times of various-width 

samples are expected to be close to one another. Yet, they are considerably different. Therefore, it is 

recommended that some method other than using radiometer readings be adopted to determine the burntimes of SIBAL cloth cases. 

TABLE 7.—SIBAL CLOTH BURN-TIMES FOR UPWARD BURNING (BOTTOM IGNITION) 

Ignition

location

Quench

block

(QB)

Heat

exchanger

(HX)

Sample

width

(cm)

Sample

area

(cm2

)

Measured

deltaP

(psi)

Burn‐time

(s) Run.Fill numbers, test dates & comments

B N N 12.5 0.125 0.695 27.07 Supp7.11 (5/17/12)

B N N 25.0 0.250 1.611 44.03 Supp5.6 (5/11/12)

B N N 32.5 0.325 2.395 57.19 Supp7.10 (5/17/12)

B N Y/HX2 25.0 0.250 0.404 56.81 Supp6.8 (5/16/12)

B N Y/HX2 25.0 0.250 1.280 61.64 Supp6.9 (5/16/12); sequential burn

B N Y/HX2 12.5 0.125 0.191 20.39 Supp8.12 (5/18/12)

B N Y/HX2 32.5 0.325 0.593 74.26 Supp8.13 (5/18/12)

B N Y/HX2 50.0 0.500 3.527 78.80 Supp12.18 (6/7/12)

B N N 50.0 0.500 2.716 53.98 Supp14.21 (6/14/12); Initial P: 9 psi

B N N 25.0 0.250 0.706 94.44 Supp10.15 (5/22/12); Initial P: 6.5 psi

Fuel: SIBAL cloth

sequential burn; not considered for burn‐times

anomalous tests; not considered

radiometer dysfunctional

All tests had an initial pressure of about 11.7 psi (~ 0.8 atm) except where indicated in aqua color.  
NASA/TM—2013-216501 34 

Figure 37.—Burn-times for SIBAL cloth upward burns. 

Figure 38.—SIBAL cloth upward burn pressure effect. 

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

55.0

65.0

75.0

85.0

Single Single + Double

+ Triple

Single + Double

+ Triple + HX2

Full + HX2

Burn‐time (s)

Upward Burns

(SIBAL cloth)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Burn‐time (s)

Initial Pressure (psia)

Upburn Pressure Effect

(SIBAL cloth)
NASA/TM—2013-216501 35 

7.0 Closing Remarks 

Given the quantity of test parameters and variants, gathering as much information as possible from as 

few experiments as possible became an immediate challenge. By utilizing a DOE approach to optimize 

the test matrix, the experiments were structured in a systematic mathematical fashion to aid in producing 

the most relevant and useful data output. The supplemental set of tests was motivated by the need to 

address additional parameters that were omitted from the DOE matrix generation for various reasons. 

Future publications will further convey the data relationships, trends, and correlations derived from the 

two matrices. 

While recorded test details are captured in the test matrices listed in Appendix J, several details 

should be highlighted: 

 While running top ignition (downward burn) cheesecloth tests, it was common to see an ember fall 

from the flame front and land a fraction of the way down the length of the sample, thus causing an 

upward burn. Several of these cases were noted as being “anomalous” and in some cases were 

included in the DOE as repeat tests. 

 SIBAL tests with top ignition were attempted, but ignition could not be maintained. 

 Smoke generation was greater when burning SIBAL fuel than when burning cheesecloth. 

 Most of, if not all of, the tests that utilized the L2 heat exchanger were subject to smoke generation. A 

previously undisclosed protective coating was on the steel mesh and tended to smoke upon being 

heated beyond a certain (unknown) temperature. 

If further testing is ever pursued to complement what has already been done, additional points of 

interest and value to both engineering and research include: 

 Burning multi-layered fabric. 

 Varying igniter power to determine min and max igniter power limits for a given sample material and 

igniter wire type. 

 Examining additional starting pressure points. 

 Varying oxygen concentration. 

 Adding forced flow. 

 Utilizing a heat exchanger with a similar mass to the L2 heat exchanger but with no coating. 

 Filling the chamber with various materials with a variety of area/volume ratios placed at different 

locations to help characterize the heat transfer environment of the chamber for model validation 

purposes. 

References 

Kleinhenz, J., Ferkul, P., Pettegrew, R., Sacksteder, K., and T’ien, J.S. 2005. One-sided Spread 

Phenomena of a Thermally Thin Composite Cotton/Fiberglass Fabric. Fire and Materials, 29:27-37. 

NASA, 2011, Kleinhenz, J., Yuan, Z., An Experimental Study of Upward Burning Over Long Solid Fuels: 

Facility Development and Comparison, NASA Technical Memo, NASA/TM—2011-217024. 

 

NASA/TM—2013-216501 37 

Appendix A.—Experiment Operating Procedure 

 Test director to review details on burning sequence with the test team. 

 Verify igniter circuit with ohm meter. 

 Extend anemometers to 1 in. from fuel card plane. 

 Hook up igniter leads from fuel card to chamber feed through leads. 

 Only one igniter circuit should be hooked up on each panel. e.g., on panel #1 igniter 

circuit #1 top or igniter circuit #1 bottom should be hooked up, not both. 

 Verify that all TCs have been extended to their proper positions. 

For TC configuration A (without heat sink) TC6 is hooked to data channel 6. 

For TC configuration D (with heat sink) TC9 is hooked to data channel 6. 

 Turn ON all power supplies and TV monitors. 

 Prepare Agilent Data Logger. 

 Verify valid signals from thermocouples, anemometers, radiometers, and pressure transducers are 

being received by the data logger. 

 Have crane crew prepare the chamber cap for installation. 

 CONTINUOUS OPERATION REQUIRED BEYOND THIS POINT. 

 Remove camera caps. 

 Turn ON cameras: Open camera screens on HDR-CX110 cameras. Push ON buttons on HDR-XR160 

cameras. (Screens on HDR-XR160 cameras will be open if HDMI cables are hooked up.) 

 Verify that SD cards have been FORMATED to remove old video. 

 Verify cameras FOV and that they are set for HD video. Review camera setup instruction sheet for 

other settings. 

 KEEP A TIME LOG STARTING WITH THE TIME THE CAMERAS START RECORDING. 

 Push RECORD on all four cameras. RECORD TIME. 

 Install chamber cap. WATCH FOR CLEARANCE ON CAMERAS. 

 Pump chamber down to 11.7 psia 0.05 (~0.8 atmospheres) UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY 

TEST DIRECTOR. 

 Turn ON lights and verify camera views while chamber is pumping down. 

 Turn OFF lights 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 38 

 Push “PLAY” () on the data logger. 

 On the control box: 

 Igniter switch(s) for fuel panels to be burned ON 

 Igniter Enable ON 

 Confirm that all test team members are ready for the burn. 

 Push RED ON button and hold until ignition is visually confirmed using TV monitors. 

NOTE: If sequential burns are to be performed turn OFF igniter switch on first panel as soon as 

ignition is confirmed, then turn ON igniter switch for second fuel panel. Push RED ON button as 

soon as first panel burn is complete. Follow same procedure for additional panels. 

 Turn OFF lights at completion of burn. On short burns wait about one minute before turning lights 

off. 

 At completion of burn: 

 Wait for temperature/pressure to decay for 10 min. 

 Turn fan ON for 5 min. 

 Turn fan OFF and allow chamber air to settle for 5 min. 

Anemometer readings should be approaching zero. 

 STOP data logger () 

 Repeat above to burn additional panels. 

 After final burn: 

Turn OFF power supplies. 

 Purge chamber. 

 Remove chamber cap ASAP. 

 STOP cameras, download video, download data files, recharge batteries. 

 Vacuum chamber if necessary. 

 Refer to fuel card removal and installation procedures to replace the fuel card. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 39 

Appendix B.—Experimental Rig Dimensions and 

Diagnostic Instrumentation Locations 

The diagrams (Figs. 39 and 40) provide the overall experimental rack dimensions. Instrumentation 

locations relative to an XYZ coordinate system specified in Figure 41, are provided in Table 8. 

Figure 39.—Interior dimensions of the experimental frame (Top-view). 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 40 

Figure 40.—External dimensions of combustion tunnel. 

Figure 41.—Coordinate system used in Table 8. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 41 

TABLE 8.—DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUMENTATION LOCATIONS 

Item X coordinate Y coordinate Z coordinate

Camera HDR-XR160 Bottom +53 0 –20 

Camera HDR-XR160 Top +53 0 +30 

Camera HDR-CX110 Bottom –50 0 –20 

Camera HDR-CX110 Top –50 0 +30 

Radiometer 1 (Lower) +38.75 0 –20 

Radiometer 2 (Upper) +38.75 0 +30 

Anemometer 1 (Left) +4 –12.5 –67 

Anemometer 2 (Right) +4 +12.5 –67 

Thermocouple 1 +3 –37.5 +58 

Thermocouple 2 +3 –12.5 +58 

Thermocouple 3 +3 +37.5 +58 

Thermocouple 4 –3 –31.7 +58 

Thermocouple 5 –3 0 +58 

Thermocouple 6 (Configuration A) –3 +31.7 +58 

Thermocouple 6 (Configuration D) N/A N/A N/A 

Thermocouple 7 (Configuration A) 0 0 +160 

Thermocouple 7 (Configuration D) 0 –12.5 +160 

Thermocouple 8 +3 +12.5 +58 

Thermocouple 9 (Configuration D) 0 –12.5 +68 

Note: Thermocouple 9 read out is on 

Thermocouple 6 data channel in 

Configuration D. Coordinate unit is 

centimeters. 

 

Note: The support post used for mounting Thermocouple 7 is not shown in the dimensioned diagram. 

Appendix C.—As-Run Test Matrices 

C.1. DOE Test Matrix, As-Run 

The test matrix derived from the DOE is listed in Table 9. Unless otherwise stated in the matrix, the starting pressure fo

approximately 11.7 psi (0.8 atmosphere). The material burned for all DOE tests was 90 grade bleached cheesecloth. 

TABLE 9.—DOE TEST MATRIX, AS-RUN 

Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

m2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

1 1 12.5 0.125 T N N one sample Thermocouple Config1 2 37.5 0.375 B N N three sample 

simultaneous 

2 3 12.5 0.125 T Y N one sample Thermocouple Config

The gain on the radioadjusted before this temay not be of great vas a result. The gain wafter this test and the were back to reading during previous runs. 

2 4 12.5 0.375 B N N three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

3 5 37.5 0.375 T Y N three sample 

simultaneous 

Thermocouple Config

3 6 12.5 0.125 B Y N one sample 4 7 12.5 0.125 T N Y (L1) one sample Thermocouple Config

(TC7 was moved from in Configuration A, aone meter above the tsample card, to approabove the HX materiamaterial is approximathick (two 0.5 in. sheThe two aluminum hosheets weigh 380 g an

4 8 37.5 0.375 B Y Y (L1) three sample 

simultaneous 

NASA/TP—2013-216501 43
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

m2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

5 9 12.5 0.125 T N Y (L1) one sample Thermocouple Config

(TC7 was moved bacoriginal location and moved to its place—a2 in. above the HX m

5 10 12.5 0.375 B N Y (L1) three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

6 11 12.5 0.125 B N Y (L1) one sample Thermocouple Config6 12 37.5 0.375 T Y Y (L1) three sample 

simultaneous 

7 13 12.5 0.125 B N N one sample Thermocouple Config7 14 37.5 0.375 T N N three sample 

simultaneous 

8 15 12.5 0.125 T Y Y (L1) one sample Thermocouple Config

(This configuration is Configuration C, excesupport arm that TC6 was rotated to a positHX directly across fro

8 16 37.5 0.375 B N Y (L1) three sample 

simultaneous 

9 17 12.5 0.125 B Y Y (L1) one sample Thermocouple Config

During run 18, the ceshed a small ember wto halfway down the sample and caused a bburn of that sample arneed to be re-run due anomaly. 

9 18 37.5 0.375 T N Y (L1) three sample 

simultaneous 

10 19 12.5 0.125 B N N one sample Repeat of Test 

7, Run 13 on 04/24/2012. 

Thermocouple ConfigThis was the first test with the black cardsto

NASA/TP—2013-216501 44
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

m2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

10 20 12.5 0.375 T Y N three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

on the back side of thexperimental rig to prLED reflection in the camera view. 

11 21 12.5 0.125 B Y N one sample Repeat of Test 

3, Run 6 on 04/16/2012. 

Thermocouple ConfigDuring run 22, the ceshed a small ember w10 cm from the top of causing upward burniremoval of the samplTCs, 5 and 6, were slwhen the sample card were verified as still pfunctioning.) 

11 22 12.5 0.375 T N N three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

12 23 12.5 0.125 T Y N one sample Repeat of Test 

2, Run 3 on 04/10/2012. 

Thermocouple ConfigDuring run 23, the sasmall ember which fea couple centimeters of the sample causing burning. 

12 24 12.5 0.375 B Y N three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

13 25 12.5 0.125 B Y Y (L1) one sample Repeat of Test 

9, Run 17 on 04/30/2012. 

Thermocouple ConfigDuring rerun 18, the right (as viewed from cameras) shed a smalfell and hit about one distance from the top causing upward burni

13 26 37.5 0.375 T N Y (L1) three sample 

simultaneous 

Repeat of Test 9, Run 18 on 04/30/2012. 

14 27 12.5 0.125 B N Y (L1) one sample Repeat of Test 

6, Run 11 on 04/20/2012. 

Thermocouple Config

NASA/TP—2013-216501 45
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

m2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

14 28 12.5 0.375 B Y Y (L1) three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

15 29 12.5 0.125 T Y Y (L1) one sample Repeat of Test 

8, Run 15 on 04/26/2012. 

Thermocouple Config

15 30 12.5 0.375 T N Y (L1) three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

16 31 12.5 0.125 T N Y (L2) one sample Thermocouple Config

“New” heat exchange

16 32 12.5 0.375 B N Y (L2) three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

17 33 12.5 0.125 B N Y (L2) one sample Thermocouple Config

“New” heat exchange

17 34 37.5 0.375 T N Y (L2) three sample 

simultaneous 

18 35 12.5 0.125 B Y Y (L2) one sample Thermocouple Config

“New” heat exchange

18 36 37.5 0.375 B Y Y (L2) three sample 

simultaneous 

19 37 12.5 0.125 T Y Y (L2) one sample Thermocouple Config

“New” heat exchange

NASA/TP—2013-216501 46
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

m2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

19 38 12.5 0.375 T Y Y (L2) three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). 

20 39 12.5 0.375 T N N three sample 

series 

Start burning samples from left to right (as seen on HDRXR160 cameras/"front"cameras). Originally run on 5/3/2012 (Fill 11/Run22). 

Thermocouple Config

20 40 12.5 0.125 T Y N one sample Original run on 

4/10/2012 (Fill2/Run3) was fine, but the replicate run on 5/4/2012 (Fill 12/Run 23) was anomalous. 

21 41 37.5 0.375 T N Y (L1) three sample 

simultaneous 

Originally run on 4/30/2012 (Fill9/Run18); retest (Fill 13/Run 26) on 5/7/2012 was also anomalous. 

Thermocouple Config

NASA/TP—2013-216501 47
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

m2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

21 42 12.5 0.125 B N Y (L1) one sample Replicate of 

Fill 6/Run 11 on 4/20/2012 and Fill 14/Run 27 on 5/9/2012. 

22 43 37.5 0.375 T N N three sample 

simultaneous 

Repeat of "suspicious" Fill 7/Run 14 on 4/24/2012. 

Thermocouple Config

22 44 12.5 0.125 B N N one sample Replicate of 

Fill 7/Run 13 on 4/24/2012 and Fill 10/Run 19 on 5/2/2012. 

23 45 37.5 0.375 T Y N three sample 

simultaneous 

Repeat of "suspicious" Fill 3/Run 5 on 4/16/2012. 

Thermocouple Config

23 46 12.5 0.125 B N N one sample Replicate of 

Fill 7/Run 13 on 4/24/2012, Fill 10/Run 19 on 5/2/2012 and Fill 22/Run 44 on 6/1/2012. 

. NASA/TP—2013-216501 48
C.2 Supplementary Test Matrix, As-Run

The supplemental tests run in addition to the tests in the DOE matrix are listed in Table 10. Unless otherwise stated, the 

each run was approximately 11.7 psi (0.8 atmosphere). 

TABLE 10.—SUPPLEMENTARY TEST MATRIX, AS-RUN 

Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

M2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

*1 1 25 0.25 B N N two sample 

simultaneous 

cheesecloth Thermocouple Conf

*1 2 12.5 0.25 B N N two sample 

sequential 

cheesecloth 

2 3 50 0.5 T N N large sample cheesecloth Thermocouple Conf

15 cm igniter. 

3 4 50 0.5 B N N large sample cheesecloth Thermocouple Conf

15 cm igniter. 

4 5 50 0.5 B N N large sample cheesecloth Thermocouple Conf

Full bottom width ig

5 6 25 0.25 B N N two sample 

simultaneous 

SIBAL Thermocouple Conf

Run 2 failed to ignittop. The chamber waand the sample matereconfigured so the rre-executed. The retmaintain ignition ag

5 7 25 0.25 T N N two sample 

simultaneous 

SIBAL 

6 8 25 0.25 B N Y (L2) two sample 

simultaneous 

SIBAL Thermocouple Conf

The sampler closest of the sample holder finish burning after tsample even though ignited simultaneousburning was compleenclosure filled with which was expected happened due to the 

NASA/TP—2013-216501 49
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

M2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

6 9 12.5 0.25 B N Y (L2) two sample 

series 

 SIBAL the heat exchanger a

air flow. The smoke out during the quiescor during fan operatiin order to achieve mvisual data, the champumped down to appbefore Run 4 and air Once reasonable claachieved, Run 4 was The test enclosure fismoke a second time Run 4. 

7 10 37.5 0.375 B N N three sample 

simultaneous 

 SIBAL Thermocouple Conf

Smoke was not evidthe test, but after the completed and after was vented. When thremoved there was swithin the chamber. 

7 11 12.5 0.125 B N N one sample SIBAL 8 12 12.5 0.125 B N Y (L2) one sample SIBAL Thermocouple Conf

Before this test was heat exchanger paneheated with a flame the chamber in an atoff a suspected coatiwas thought to be cothe smoke generatioSIBAL testing. The made to burn one strhow much smoke wgenerated. The smokseem overly significsecond run burning 3 executed. The three produced less than oleast visually) the amsmoke created durinTest 2. 

8 13 37.5 0.375 B N Y (L2) three sample 

simultaneous 

SIBAL 

NASA/TP—2013-216501 50
Test/Fill 

number 

Run Width, 

cm 

Area, 

M2

Ignition 

location, 

Top/Bottom 

Quench 

blocks, 

Yes/No 

Heat 

exchanger, 

Yes/No 

Comments Test configurati

9 14 50 0.5 B N N large sample 

burn 

cheesecloth, 15 cm igniter, 6.5 psi (approx. 0.45 atm). 

Thermocouple Conf

10 15 25 0.25 B N N two sample 

simultaneous 

SIBAL, positions 3 and 4, 6.5 psi (approx. 0.45 atm). 

Thermocouple ConfSIBAL samples werfirst. The flame on thposition 3 seemed to and leave some mateHowever, the materihave burned without flame present becaumaterial that remain“disappeared”. 

10 16 25 0.25 B N N two sample 

simultaneous 

cheesecloth, positions 1 and 2 (approx. 0.45 atm). 

11 17 50 0.5 B N Y (L2) large sample cheesecloth, full 

width igniter, 11.7 psi (approx. 0.8 atm). 

Thermocouple Conf

12 18 50 0.5 B N Y (L2) large sample SIBAL, full width 

igniter, 11.7 psi (approx. 0.8atm) 

Thermocouple ConfDuring the experimeexchanger did a greaabsorbing the heat gthe burn and kept the down. However, oncneared burning compheat exchanger was the sample flame. It’was evident by the fvisible on the video the sudden jump in ppressure went above and popped the cham

13 19 25 0.25 B N N two sample 

simultaneous 

cheesecloth, 5 psi Thermocouple Conf

13 20 25 0.25 B N N two sample 

simultaneous 

cheesecloth, 9 psi 

*Note: While listed in the Supplementary Test Matrix, Test 1, Runs 1 and 2, were included in the DOE Response Model evaluation.NASA/TP—2013-216501 51

NASA/TM—2013-216501 53 

Appendix D.—Initial Experimental Rig Concept 

Figure 42 is the initial conceptual sketch of the experimental rig. This sketch provided the basis for 

the engineering drawings of the sample cards and the overall experiment structure. 

Figure 42.—Sketch of initial experimental rig concept. 

NASA/TM—2013-216501 55 

Appendix E.—Engineering Drawings 

The following engineering drawings, Figures 43 to 46, were produced for the fabrication of the 

thermocouple support plate, which was the bar used for mounting the thermocouples, and the three 

sample cards. Only two out of the three sample card designs that were fabricated were used for testing. 

Figure 43.—Thermocouple Support Plate Drawing. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 56 

Figure 44.—One slot, 50 by 100 cm, sample holder drawing. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 57 

Figure 45.—Three slot, 16.7 by 100 cm, sample holder drawing. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 58 

Figure 46.—Four slot, 12.5 by 100 cm, sample holder drawing. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 59 

Appendix F.—Sample Holder Installation Procedure 

 Position ladder to provide access to top of frame in the vacuum chamber. NOTE: Ladder may have to 

be repositioned for various phases of the sample holder (fuel card) installation. 

 Loosen pivot on upper thermocouple (#7) support arm and rotate arm 90 to provide clearance over 

center of the frame duct area. 

 Unscrew nut(s) on fitting(s) holding thermocouple(s) in center position and back thermocouple(s) out 

as far as possible, This is required to prevent clevis on fuel card from damaging thermocouples. 

 Position crane on EAST side of chamber. North/South position of crane from chamber lid removal 

should not be changed. 

 Verify proof dates on a clevis and sling to be used to install the fuel card. Fuel card will weigh from 

10 to 30 lb 

 Mount fuel card to crane using sling and clevis. Check with test director whether the fuel card igniters 

are to be at the top or bottom. Igniter connectors must be at EAST corner of fuel card. Clevis pin head 

must face away from the center thermocouple (normally NORTH). TAPE CLEVIS TO SLING TO 

PREVENT IT FROM FALLING OFF IN A LATER STEP. 

 Lift fuel card until card bottom is above the top of the frame. 

 A person needs to be on the ladder positioned next to the chamber such that they will not interfere 

with westward movement of the fuel card. 

 Slowly move the fuel card WEST while the person on the ladder guides the fuel card until it is 

centered over the frame. 

 Slowly lower the fuel card while guiding it into the channels on the frame. EXTREME CAUTION 

MUST BE EXERCISED DURING THIS OPERATION TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH THE 

THERMOCOUPLES BY THE FUEL CARD OR THE CLEVIS. 

 When the fuel card is seated CAREFULLY remove the pin from the clevis and lift the clevis clear of 

the frame. 

 Move center thermocouple(s) back into position and snug nut(s). 

CAUTION - OVER TIGHTENING NUTS MAY DAMAGE THE THERMOCOUPLE. 

 Re-center upper thermocouple (#7) over fuel card. 

 Connect igniter leads (1, 3, or 4 leads depending on fuel card being used) on EAST corner of fuel 

card. 

NASA/TM—2013-216501 61 

Appendix G.—Sample Holder Removal Procedure

 Position ladder to provide access to top of frame in the vacuum chamber. NOTE: Ladder may have to 

be repositioned for various phases of the sample holder (fuel card) removal. 

 Loosen pivot on upper thermocouple (#7) support arm and rotate arm 90 to provide clearance over 

center of the frame duct area. 

 Unscrew nut(s) on fitting(s) holding thermocouple(s) in center position and back thermocouple(s) out 

as far as possible, This is required to prevent clevis on fuel card from damaging thermocouples. 

 Disconnect igniter leads (1, 3, or 4 leads depending on fuel card being used) on EAST corner of fuel 

card. 

 Position crane on EAST side of chamber. North/South position of crane from chamber lid removal 

should not be changed. 

 Verify proof dates on a clevis and sling to be used to install the fuel card. Fuel card will weigh from 

10 to 30 lb 

 Mount sling and clevis on crane hook with clevis pin head facing away from center thermocouple. 

Remove clevis pin. TAPE CLEVIS TO SLING TO PREVENT IT FROM FALLING OFF IN A LATER 

STEP. 

 Move crane WEST to center lift sling/clevis over the fuel card. 

 A person needs to be on the ladder positioned next to the chamber to guide the clevis to the proper 

location and insert the pin. 

 Slowly lower the crane hook while the person on the ladder guides the clevis to the proper location. 

EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED DURING THIS OPERATION TO PREVENT 

CONTACT WITH THE THERMOCOUPLES BY THE CLEVIS. 

 When the clevis is in the proper location insert the pin through the clevis and hole in the upper center 

of the fuel card. 

 Slowly lift the fuel card with the crane while the person on the ladder guides the fuel card. When clear 

of the frame move the fuel card EAST and lower to floor level for removal from the clevis. 

 The center thermocouple(s) and the upper thermocouple can remain in their retracted positions until 

after another fuel card is installed. 

NASA/TM—2013-216501 63 

Appendix H.—Camera Settings 

Camera settings were adjusted to suit the needs of the video documentation and are captured in 

Tables 11 and 12. Several settings on the Sony HDR-CX110 cameras required resetting prior to each test 

and are highlighted in Table 12 accordingly. 

TABLE 11.—CAMERA SETTINGS FOR XR160 

SONY HDR-XR160

Select appropriate icon to make settings 

Shooting Mode 

Movie 

Camera/mic 

Manual Settings 

White Balance Outdoor 

Spot Meter Focus Manual 

Spot Meter Manual 

Spot Focus Manual 

Exposure Manual 

Focus .1m 

Low Lux ON 

Fader OFF 

Telemacro OFF 

Steady Shot Active 

Digital Zoom OFF 

Conversion Lense Wide Conversion 

Autobacklight OFF 

Smile Sensitivity Normal smile 

Built in Zoom Mic OFF 

Wind Noise Red: OFF 

Audio Mode 5.1 ch surround 

Mic Ref Level Normal 

Guideframe OFF 

Display Setting OFF 

Audio Level Display OFF 

Image Qual/Size 

Rec Mode Highest Qual FX 

Frame Rate 60i 

HD/STD Setting HD Quality 

XV Color ON 

Playback Function 

N/A 

Edit Function 

N/A 

Media Settings 

Media Select Memory Card 

Media Info N/A 

Forman N/A 

Repair img DFB N/A 

File Number Series 

 Essential Settings 

Always require reset before each test 

TABLE 12.—CAMERA SETTINGS FOR CX110 

SONY HDR-CX110

Choose “Select Others” on the Main Menu to make all 

appropriate settings 

Manual Settings 

Scene Selection Auto 

Fader N/A 

White Balance Outdoor 

Spot mtr/fcs Auto 

Spot Meter Auto 

Spot Focus Auto 

Exposure Auto 

Telemacro OFF 

Smthslow rec N/A 

Shooting Settings 

HD/STD set HD 

Record Mode HDFX 

Guideframe OFF 

Steady Shot Active 

Conversion Lense Wide Conversion 

Low Lux ON 

Face Detection OFF 

Priority Setting NA 

Smile Detection NA 

Smile Sensitivity NA 

Audio Rec Set 

Built in Zoom Mic OFF 

Mic Ref Level Normal 

Other rec set 

Digital zoom OFF 

Auto backlight OFF 

XV color ON 

Photo Settings 

Self Timer N/A 

Image Size 3.1m 

File No. Series 

Playback Settings 

N/A 

Edit Settings 

N/A 

Other Settings 

N/A 

Manage Media 

N/A 

General Settings 

Set Clock 

NASA/TM—2013-216501 65 

Appendix I.—Thermocouple Diagrams 

Throughout testing, several different iterations of thermocouple configurations were used in an effort 

to achieve a configuration suitable for capturing the temperature delta across the heat exchanger. The 

thermocouple diagrams can be referred to when evaluating the thermocouple data from a specific test fill 

and run. 

Thermocouple Configuration A—This is the standard thermocouple configuration used for all tests 

without a heat exchanger (Fig. 47). 

Thermocouple Configuration B—This configuration was used for the first test that utilized a heat 

exchanger. The thermocouple in the upper chamber was moved downward so that it was approximately 

2 in. above the heat exchanger (Fig. 47). 

Thermocouple Configuration C—This configuration resulted from the desire to maintain a 

temperature reading in the upper chamber volume. Thermocouple 6 was moved to a position less than 

2 in. from the top of the heat exchanger (Fig. 48). 

Thermocouple Configuration D—This configuration resulted from the desire to yield a temperature 

delta across the heat exchanger at a location centered above one of the four slotted sample cards. Notice 

that this configuration differs from “C” in that Thermocouple 6 is angled to be above the heat exchanger 

opposite Thermocouple 2 (Fig. 48). 

 Thermocouple Configuration A Thermocouple Configuration B 

Figure 47.—Thermocouple configurations A and B. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 66 

 Thermocouple Configuration C Thermocouple Configuration D 

Figure 48.—Thermocouple configurations C and D. 

 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 67 

Appendix J.—Agilent Data-Logger Instructions 

1) AT DATA LOGGER: If not already powered up, press the power button on the Agilent 34980A 

DAQ to power it up. Give the unit time to initialize before activating the software. 

2) AT COMPUTER: Activate the Agilent Bench-Link Pro Data Logger software. (Icon is near 

middle of desktop screen) 

3) The software will initialize itself and connect to the DAQ. Once up, select one of the last 4 tabs 

on the screen: 

QUICK GRAPH—Displays graphs and numeric values for the two radiometers and the igniter 

"on" signal (RAD_TOP, RAD_BOT, IGN_ACT) 

GRAPH 2—Displays graphs and numeric values for the two anemometers and the two pressure 

transducers (ANEM_1, ANEM_2, 0-20_PSIA, 0-25_PSIA) 

GRAPH 3—Displays graphs and numeric values for the first four thermocouples (TC1, TC2, 

TC3, TC4) 

GRAPH 4—Displays graphs and numeric values for the last four thermocouples (TC5, TC6, 

TC7, TC8) 

4) To initiate data logging, click the PLAY (arrow/triangle) button near top middle of the screen. 

Shortly after, clicking noises will be coming out of the DAQ and the screen display graphs will 

begin updating. Use the tabs to observe the desired output signals. 

5) To stop the logging process, simply click on the stop (square) button near the top middle of the 

screen. When logging is stopped, the data file is automatically exported to a comma-delimited file 

into the VF-13 AES Data folder. A shortcut link to this folder is located near the middle of the 

desktop screen. It is a .csv file that can be opened directly by Microsoft Excel. 

6) A thumbdrive can be used to off load the files. 

 
 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 69 

Appendix K.—Final DOE With Experimental and Response Model Delta P 

The experimental results for Delta P (calculated and verified) and the response model predicted 

Delta P can be found in Table 13. Dates in the comments section can be cross referenced with the as-run 

DOE test matrix. 

TABLE 13.—FINAL DOE WITH EXPERIMENTAL AND RESPONSE MODEL DELTA P 

NASA/TM—2013-216501 71 

Appendix L.—Tabulated Delta Pressure for DOE and 

Supplementary Matrices 

Pressure change data for both the DOE and Supplementary tests are tabulated in Table 14 with 

corresponding time durations which characterize time between ignition and the first time the pressure 

reaches its maximum for the run. Additional details are described below. 

 t_peak is defined as the first time the pressure reaches a maximum value during the run. (Several 

cases show pressure reaching same maximum value more than once.) 

 t_ignition is defined as the temperature at ignition. (Ignition can be determined from the raw data 

files as the time when column D, 1001<IGN_ACTIVE> (VDC), indicates its first non-zero 

reading.) 

 Fill/Runs highlighted in red text indicate the following: 

 F11R22 experienced an anomaly and was excluded based on the t_peak value being 100 s 

larger than that on the retest F20R39. 

 F9R18 and F13R26 experienced anomalies that also affected t_peak and created a secondary 

decay in pressure as compared to retest F21R41. 

 Replicate F12R23 experienced an anomaly that had a minimal effect as compared to F2R3 

and replicate F20R40 and was therefore included. 

TABLE 14.—EXPERIMENTAL DELTA PRESSURE FOR DOE AND SUPPLEMENTARY TESTS 

Fill(F)/Run(R) P(t_peak) - P(t_ignition) t_peak - t_ignition 

DOE Tests 

F1R1 0.129 176 

F1R2 1.369 9 

F2R3 0.130 204 

F2R4 1.051 25 

F3R5 0.275 190 

F3R6 0.394 10 

F4R7 0.129 205 

F4R8 0.935 9 

F5R9 0.130 207 

F5R10 0.860 28 

F6R11 0.334 9 

F6R12 0.281 193 

F7R13 0.442 9 

F7R14 0.337 169 

F8R15 0.118 206 

F8R16 1.065 10 

F9R17 0.294 11 

F9R18 0.315 107 

F10R19 0.415 11 

F10R20 0.149 744 

F11R21 0.366 9 

F11R22 0.161 709 

F12R23 0.105 223 

F12R24 0.859 26 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 72 

F13R25 0.294 11 

F13R26 0.313 172 

F14R27 0.329 9 

F14R28 0.759 27 

F15R29 0.116 188 

F15R30 0.164 677 

F16R31 0.084 228 

F16R32 0.202 83 

F17R33 0.097 7 

F17R34 0.278 242 

F18R35 0.070 7 

F18R36 0.205 8 

F19R37 0.091 240 

F19R38 0.140 752 

F20R39 0.164 597 

F20R40 0.113 203 

F21R41 0.307 211 

F21R42 0.334 9 

F22R43 0.294 233 

F22R44 0.434 9 

F23R45 0.275 164 

F23R46 0.431 9 

Supplemental Tests 

F1R1 0.921 10 

F1R2 0.797 17 

F2R3 0.418 198 

F3R4 1.293 20 

F4R5 1.776 12 

F5R6 1.611 28 

F5R7 

F6R8 0.402 66 

F6R9 1.280 78 

F7R10 2.398 28 

F7R11 0.704 29 

F8R12 0.191 87 

F8R13 0.592 56 

F9R14 0.959 23 

F10R15 0.706 38 

F10R16 0.679 14 

F11R17 0.326 8 

F12R18 3.527 42 

F13R19 0.541 17 

F13R20 0.800 11 

F14R21 2.719 30 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 73 

Appendix M.—Stills From Test Video Files 

The following still pictures (Figs. 49 to 55) were taken from the test video files. The various still 

pictures show tests with and without quench bars, top and bottom ignition, simultaneous and sequential 

burning, and cheesecloth and SIBAL material. The heat exchangers were mounted above the sample 

holders and were out of the field of view of the cameras. The video stills are all from the front cameras 

(the HDR-XR160 cameras). 

Figure 49.—Three sample cheesecloth, bottom simultaneous ignition, with quench bars. 

Figure 50.—Three sample cheesecloth, top simultaneous ignition, without quench bars. 
NASA/TM—2013-216501 74 

Figure 51.—Three sample cheesecloth, top simultaneous ignition, with quench bars. 

Figure 52.—Two sample SIBAL, bottom sequential ignition, without quench bars.