Heat Flux Study and Flame Propagation Evaluation of ......Heat Flux SummaryHeat Flux Summary Bunsen...
Transcript of Heat Flux Study and Flame Propagation Evaluation of ......Heat Flux SummaryHeat Flux Summary Bunsen...
Heat Flux Study and Flame Propagation Evaluation of Composite MaterialsEvaluation of Composite Materials
Daniel SlatonTechnical Fellow
Boeing Commercial Airplanesg C pFlammability & Airworthiness
Ricardo Andrade AguilarRicardo Andrade AguilarBoeing Commercial Airplanes
Flammability & Airworthiness
FAA Fire Test Working GroupToulouse, FranceJ 20 21 2012
1
June 20-21, 2012
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Test Method Development OverviewTest Method Development OverviewThe FAA is developing new proposed requirements for non accessible areas FAATC task groups arenon-accessible areas. FAATC task groups are developing new test methods for evaluating flame propagation.
This presentation describes research evaluating the behavior of common materials used in the inaccessible areas under three different test methods:
F Bl k• Foam Block• Radiant Panel• Meeker Burner
The goal of this evaluation was compare test methods and determine if there is correlation.
Summary of test results and recommendations are
2
Summary of test results and recommendations are presented.
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
AgendaAgenda
Heat Flux Study Heat Flux Study Material Test Matrix Foam Block Testing
1. Foam Block Rig 2. Test Results3. Photos4 Conclusions/Observations4. Conclusions/Observations
Radiant Panel Testing 1. Insulation Test Method (25.856(a))2. Ducting Test Method (low heat flux)2. Ducting Test Method (low heat flux)3. 30 degree orientation4. Conclusions/Observations
Meeker Burner Study
3
Final Remarks
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Heat Flux from Foam BlockHeat Flux from Foam Block Calorimeter 1 Reference: FAA Presentation:
Development of a Flame Propagation Test Method forPropagation Test Method for Structural Composite Materials in Inaccessible Areas, 10/19/11.
Calorimeter 1 (60sec)Calorimeter 1 (60sec)
Peak Heat Flux= 55 Kw/m^2
4
Peak Heat Flux= 55 Kw/m 21 Minute Total Heat Flux= 36 Kw-min/min^2
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Heat Flux from Meeker and Bunsen BurnerHeat Flux from Meeker and Bunsen Burner
• Calorimeter range: 0-12 w/cm^2
• Conversion Factor: .605 Mv/w/cm^2 + 6%
• Calorimeter location: 1” from base
Temp 1" above burner= 2265F + 50
Meeker:
burner 2265F + 50Heat Flux= 113 kw/m^2
Temp 1" above burner= 1800F
Bunsen Burner:
5
Heat Flux= 74 kw/m^2
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Time to Reach Foam Block Heat FluxTime to Reach Foam Block Heat Flux
6Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Heat Flux Comparison for 60 Seconds:Heat Flux Comparison for 60 Seconds:Total Heat Flux for 60 Seconds
112
100
120
7480
min
/m^2
)
3640
60
tal H
eat
Flux
(Kw
-m
+ ????
1720
Tot
radiant
Flame15 sec
7
0Foam Block Bunsen Burner Meker Radiant Panel
radiant heat
Meeker
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Heat Flux SummaryHeat Flux Summary
Bunsen and Meeker burner can reach the same heat flux as the foam block in less time. Bunsen and Meeker burner tests can generate higher heat flux at a
localized area compared to FB. Using a Meeker burner shows potential as a more stringent test
method and better represents the intermediate scale foam block orientation.
Simpler test for airplane certification- Simpler test for airplane certification- Enhances safety due to higher heat flux
8Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Test Method ComparisonTest Method Comparison
ARAC Goals Current Foam New New Horiz.ARAC Goals CurrentBunsenBurner
Foam Block
New Bunsen Burner
New Meeker Burner
Horiz. RadiantPanel
Enhance Safety: * Greater Application* Larger Ignition/Fuel Source
Simple Test Method 3 1 3 3 2
Fire Threat Correlation* Method & requirements define
correlation potential? ? ?
1 Large samples, configuration specific, many part configurations, variation in foam2 Variation from calibration, complex heat flux/pilot flame contribution, non‐representative test samples, 3 Easy to setup and repeat, accommodates unique sample constructions
highly
p
9
highly
somewhat
no
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Material Test MatrixMaterial Test MatrixCategory Description
063 Aluminum Sheet.063 Aluminum Sheet.036 Aluminum Sheet.5" Marinite Board.036"-.072" Structural Bondend Al5lb Nomex core, Low density12lb Nomex core High density
Controls
12lb Nomex core, High density7lb Kevlar core, High density5lb Kevlar core, Low density9lb Kevlar core, High density6lb Alum core, Low density
Floor Panels
8.5lb Alum core, High density5lb Nomex core, Low density.013 Rigid, FR Plastic Sheeting.045 Rigid, FR Plastic Sheeting.070 Rigid, FR Plastic Sheetingg , g.070 Rigid, FR Plastic Sheeting .013 Rigid Woven FG.050 Rigid Woven FG.070 Rigid Woven FG027 Rigid Woven FG
Cargo Liner
10
.027 Rigid Woven FG14.0 ± 1.0 oz.yd^2, Flexible32.0 ± 3.0 oz/yd^2, Flexible
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Material Test Matrix (continued)Material Test Matrix (continued)250F Polyester fiberglass fabrica. 4 ply (.036")b 8 ply ( 072")b. 8 ply (.072 )c. 12 ply (.120")250F cure epoxy fiberglassa. 4 ply (.044")b. 8 ply (.095")c, 12 ply (.135")250F cure epoxy fiberglass, FRa. 4 ply (.030")b. 14 ply (.105")c, 24 ply (.180")250F cure epoxy carbon fabric
4 l ( 036")
Composite Laminates
a. 4 ply (.036")b. 10 ply (.090")c, 16 ply (.145")350F cure epoxy fiberglass a. 4 ply (.018")b. 14 ply (.065")b. 14 ply (.065 )c, 24 ply (.106)a. Fiberglass/Crushed Coreb. Carbon Fiber/Crushed CorePhenolic HC/foil dec 0.35 Phenolic FR HC 0.35
Sidewall - Crushed Core
11
Phenolic HC 0.35Phenolic HC 0.375Phenolic HC 0.47 Phenolic HC/foil dec 0.5
Stowbins/closets
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block TestingFoam Block Testing• Built according to FAA Specs Test Data Recorded:
B l th• 30 degrees from horizontal.
• Polyurethane Foam with 10cc of heptane
8 Th l diff l i
• Burn length • Maximum Temperature• “Smoke Time”
• 8 Thermocouples at different locations.
Front edge of shroud
12FAA Rig
Boeing Rig
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Results: Burn LengthFoam Block Results: Burn LengthThese results represent the burn
434445464748
length results of one sample per configuration.
323334353637383940414243
Edge of Shroud
212223242526272829303132
urn
Leng
ht (i
n)
Polyester Fiberglass laminate
350F Cure Epoxy FG laminate
250F Cure Epoxy Carbon Fabric Laminate
250F Cure Epoxy FG FR Laminate
250 F Cure Epoxy FG Laminate
Cargo liner
Sidewalls/Stowage/Closets Floor Panels
101112131415161718192021Bu
0123456789
10
Base Line
13Could not read burn length Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Results: Smoke TimeFoam Block Results: Smoke Time480 250 F Cure
Epoxy FG
Smoke Time: 713sec
360
420
250FP l t
350F Cure Epoxy FG
250F Cure Epoxy Cabon Fabric
250F Cure Epoxy FG FR
Baseline
Floor Panels
me
(sec
)
240
300
250F Polyester FG
FR
Cargoliner
Sidewall/Stowage/Closets
Smok
e Ti
m
120
180
0
60
14
Note: Smoke time is def ined as the time when all eight thermocouples reached Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Results:Max TemperatureFoam Block Results:Max Temperature
1500 0
1600.0350F Cure Epoxy FG
250F Cure Epoxy
250 F Cure Epoxy FG
Floor Panels
1100 0
1200.0
1300.0
1400.0
1500.0
250F Polyester FG
Epoxy Cabon Fabric 250F Cure
Epoxy FG FR
Epoxy FG
Cargo Liner
Baseline Sidewalls/Stowage/Closets
800.0
900.0
1000.0
1100.0
Deg
rees
F
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
15Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Temperature ProfilesFoam Block Temperature Profiles Foam Block Results Polyester Fiberglass Laminate
140012 Ply8 Ply4ply
1400.063 AluminumMarinite BoardAluminum Skin
Temperature Profiles for Foam Block Rig Testing "Controls"
600
800
1000
1200
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
4ply
600
800
1000
1200Aluminum Skin
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
0
200
400
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (sec)
T
0
200
400
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (seconds) Time (sec)( )
350 Cure Epoxy Fiberglass Laminate
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
24 Ply14 ply4 ply
1000
1200
1400
250F Cure Epoxy Fiber Glass Laminate
12 Ply
8 ply
4 Ply
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
400
600
800
1000
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
16
0
100
200
300
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (sec)
0
200
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (sec)
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Test Results: Observations
General Testing- Smoke time and max temperature results had significant variation –unable to draw any
conclusions
Laminates:- Burn length beyond flame impingement varied from 0”- 9”g y p g- Thickness pattern : Thickest laminates generate the lowest burn length and thinnest laminates
record the highest burn length. - Polyester Fiberglass laminates record the highest burn lengths.
Cargo Liners:Cargo Liners:- Burn length beyond flame impingement varied from 0” to 7”- Maximum Temperatures ranged from 550F to 1100F
Sidewalls/Storage/Closets:- Burn length beyond flame impingement varied from 4” to 13”- All panels recorded similar maximum temperatures from 1080F to 1290F- Honeycomb core did not present any signs of char.
Floor Panels:
17
Floor Panels:- Burn length beyond flame impingement varied from 3” to 13.5”- Maximum temperatures recorded ranged from 950F to 1450F
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Post test PhotosFoam Block Post-test Photos
18
250F cure epoxy carbon fabric 4 ply 350 Epoxy Fiber Glass 4 ply250F Cure Epoxy Fiberglass 14 ply
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Post test PhotosFoam Block Post-test Photos
cut off area
19
Floor Panel 12lb nomex core, 4plies of uniglass tape.
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Post test PhotosFoam Block Post-test Photos
20
0.25” Honeycomb/ phenolic prepreg
0.10” Side Wall Crushed Core - Test Face
0.10” Side Wall Crushed Core - back
0.25” Honeycomb/ phenolic prepreg
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block Post test PhotosFoam Block Post-test Photos
Rigid Cargo Liner, t = 0.013”- Test side
Rigid Cargo Liner (front side). Specimen still in test fixture. Tedlar
l d ff d i th t t
Rigid Cargo Liner, t = 0.013”- Test side
21
pealed off during the test.
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
R di t P l T ti S Insulation RP Method - 25 856 (a)
Radiant Panel Testing Summary Insulation RP Method - 25.856 (a) Ducting Test Method 30 degree orientation 30 degree orientation Conclusions/Observations
22Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test SpecsRadiant Panel Test SpecsRequirements
Radiant Panel Test Specimen Orientation
Radiant Heat Source (W/cm^2)
Heat Soaked Time (sec)
Pilot Flame Time (sec)
Burn Length(in)
After Flame Time (sec)
Test Per 25.856 (a) Horizontal 1.7 0 15 2 3Ducting Method Horizontal 1.3 60 15 2 4530 Degree Method 30degrees 1.7 60 15 N/A N/A
23Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test Results Floor Panels Burn LengthFloor Panels - Burn Length
5Standard Test
4
4.5 Low Heat Test30 Degree Test
Full length 18"
3
3.5
gth
(in)
Full length 18"
1 5
2
2.5
Bur
n Le
ng
0 5
1
1.5
24
0
0.5
8.5lb Alum core, HD 6lb Alum core, 2 LD 9lb Kevlar core, HD 5lb Kevlar core, LD 7lb Kevlar core, HD 5lb Nomex core, LD 12lb Nomex core, HD
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test Results Fl P l E ti i hi TiFloor Panels – Extinguishing Time
60Standard Test
60 S d
45
50
55 Low Heat Test30 Degree Test
60+ Seconds
35
40
(sec
onds
)
20
25
30
Extin
guis
hing
Tim
e (
5
10
15
E
25
08.5lb Alum core, HD 6lb Alum core, 2 LD 9lb Kevlar core, HD 5lb Kevlar core, LD 7lb Kevlar core, HD 5lb Nomex core, LD 12lb Nomex core, HD
00 0
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Floor Panel Test Result Observations:Floor Panel Test Result Observations:30 Degree Orientation Test Method:- Nomex core panels recorded a full burn length for the 30 degree test. All other
panels recorded burn length less than 2”. Unclear how skin layup is involved with the results.
- Nomex core panels had extinguishing times above 45secs for the 30 degree- Nomex core panels had extinguishing times above 45secs for the 30 degree tests. Unclear how skin layup is involved with the results.
- During the 30 degree test we witnessed skin delamination during preheat. This test configuration is very stringent in terms of heat flux evenly across the entire g y g ypanel surface
Ducting Test Method:- After flames for ducting method were generally the shortestg g y25.856(a) Test Method:- 25.856 (a) test obtained longer after flame time for aluminum core panels.
26Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test ResultsC Li B L thCargo Liners - Burn Length
7Standard Test
L H t T t
6
Low Heat Test
30 Degree Test
11”
4
5
th (i
nche
s)
2
3
Bur
n Le
ngt
1
27
0.070", Rigid FRPlastic Sheeting
.045" Rigid FR Plastic Sheeting
.013", Rigid FRPlastic Sheeting
.050" Rigid Woven FG
.013", Rigid Woven FG
Flexible 14.0 ±1.0oz/yd2
Flexible 32.0 ± 3.0 oz/yd2
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test Results C Li E ti i hi TiCargo Liners – Extinguishing Time
28
30Standard Test
Low Heat Test
22
24
26
2830 Degree Test
117 sec
56 sec
16
18
20
Tim
e (s
ec)
10
12
14
Extin
guis
ing
4
6
8
28
0
2
.070", Rigid FRPlastic Sheeting
.045" Rigid FR Plastic Sheeting
.013", Rigid FRPlastic Sheeting
.050" Rigid Woven FG
.013", Rigid Woven FG
Flexible 14.0 ±1.0oz/yd2
Flexible 32.0 ± 3.0 oz/yd2
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Cargo Liners Test Result ObservationsCargo Liners Test Result Observations- Generally good flame propagation resistance for cargo liner materials. - Burn length for rigid fine weave recorded the highest burn lengths and after
flame time (this was observed at the thinnest thickness of .013” but not thicker configuration at .050”).
- Due to unique products (resin and reinforcement differences) it is difficult to- Due to unique products (resin and reinforcement differences) it is difficult to draw firm conclusions comparing the three different test methods.
29Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test ResultsH b P l B L thHoneycomb Panels – Burn Length
3Standard Test
Low Heat Test
2.5
30 Degree Testing
1.5
2
gth
(inch
es)
1
Burn
Len
g
0.5
30
0Phenolic HC/foil dec
0.35" Phenolic FR HC
0.35" Phenolic HC
0.35" Phenolic HC
0.375"Phenolic HC
0.47" PhenolicHC/foil dec
0.5"
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test Results H b P l E ti i hi TiHoneycomb Panels – Extinguishing Time
4Standard Test
3
3.5
Low Heat Test
30 Degree Testing
2.5
(sec
onds
)
1.5
2
ngui
sing
Tim
e (
0.5
1Exti
31
0Phenolic HC/foil
dec 0.35" Phenolic FR HC
0.35" Phenolic HC
0.35" Phenolic HC
0.375"Phenolic HC
0.47" PhenolicHC/foil dec
0.5"Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Honeycomb Panel Test Result ObservationsObservations
- Burn length results were all below 2’’ for all panels and test methods- After flame time was below 4 seconds for all panels and test methods
Note: Only tested one ply skins with different core thicknesses. All phenolic prepregs.
32Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test ResultsC it L i t B L thComposite Laminates - Burn Length
4
Standard Test
3
Low Heat Test30 Degree Testing
th
2
Bur
n Le
ng
1
0
Note: bars off the chart represent a burn lengths of above 10" to full burn Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test ResultsC it L i t E ti i hi TiComposite Laminates – Extinguishing Time
464850
343638404244
Standard Test
Low Heat Testec)
22242628303234 Low Heat Test
30 Degree Testing
hing
Tim
e (s
e
10121416182022
Ext
ingu
ish
All values off02468
10
34
All values off the chart extinguished after 60 +sec
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Composite Laminate Test Result ObservationsObservations- Burn length using 25.856(a) tests was very similar ranging from .5” to 2”.- Burn length using the ducting method gave burn lengths below 2” for all but one
4 ply sample. - 30 degree test method gave the highest burn lengths and after flame times- 4 out 5 “4ply” laminates tested by the 30 degree method recorded values from
11” to full length.- Polyester FR laminates had very low extinguishing times for all three test
methods and all three thicknessesmethods and all three thicknesses.- In general, the thinner the laminate the higher the burn length and extinguishing
time.Specific resin system will influence how thickness influences test results- Specific resin system will influence how thickness influences test results.
35Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel Test Photos:Radiant Panel Test Photos:
25.856 (a)
4ply 250F Epoxy Fib l
4ply Polyester FR Fiberglass
4ply Epoxy Carbon
Ducting
Fiberglass Fiberglass
Ducting Method
36
12 ply 250F Epoxy Fiberglass
Rigid Cargo Liner Phenolic Honeycomb, t = 0.35”
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Radiant Panel PhotosRadiant Panel Photos
30 degree Test Method
4ply 250F Epoxy Fiberglass
8ply 250F Epoxy Fiberglass
8ply Polyester FR Fiberglass
4ply 250F Epoxy Carbon
250F
37Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Foam Block & Radiant Panel TestG l C l i / Ob tiGeneral Conclusions/ Observations- Different flame dynamics
Foam Block: Unstable flame and heat loss (no radiant heat source)Radiant Panel: Constant flame & radiant heat source.
- Different flame orientationsFoam block: Applies heat directly underneath.Radiant Panel Tests applies the flame to the top of the test co pon at an angleRadiant Panel: Tests applies the flame to the top of the test coupon at an angle.
- Visibility/Witnessing Foam Block: Test configuration does not allow to visually witness the test. Therefore, there is no way to identify after flame time. Temperature profiles provides some qualitative indication of continued combustion of the test sample.Radiant Panel: Can witness the entire testing without any visual constrains.
- Test results:Foam block: Difficult to read burn lengths for floor panels and stowage bins/closet panels.g p g pRadiant Panel: Easy to observe flame propagation.Both tests can only be compared by using burn length results not extinguishing times.
- Conclusion:No clear correlation of testing results between RP tests and Foam Block test
38
No clear correlation of testing results between RP tests and Foam Block test.
For laminates, a correlation does not exist. Due to the low number of samples tested, repeatability in the test methods have not been determined.
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Meeker Burner Test StudyMeeker Burner Test Study
Meeker Burner has a wider opening and hotterMeeker Burner has a wider opening and hotter flame than the Bunsen burner. It can generate a heat output of 3.5kWh and flame
temperatures of 2250°F + 50S l l t d t 30d f h i t l Sample located at 30degrees from horizontal. Flame applied to test specimen for 30 seconds.
39Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Initial Meeker Test StudyInitial Meeker Test Study
.045" Rigid Cargo Liner A
.070" Rigid Cargo Liner B
.065” 14 ply 350F cure Epoxy Fiberglass
.018” 4 ply 350F cure Epoxy Fiberglassp y p y g
.030” 4 ply Epoxy FR Fiberglass
.036” 4 ply Polyester FR Fiberglass
.044” 4ply 250F cure Epoxy Fiberglass
.50” Fiberglass Epoxy Floor Panel, 12lb Nomex.50 Fiberglass Epoxy Floor Panel, 12lb Nomex
40Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Meeker Test Results: Burn LengthMeeker Test Results: Burn Length
10
8
10
6
Leng
th (i
n)
4
Bur
n L
2
41
0.045" Rigid .070" Rigid 350F cure e/fg
14ply350F cure e/fg
4plyEpoxy FR 4 ply Polyester 4 ply 250F cure e/fg
4ply12lb Nomex,
HD,
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Meeker Test Results: After Flame TimeMeeker Test Results: After Flame Time
55
60
45
50
)
Extinguished after 90 sec
30
35
40
uish
ing
Tim
e (s
ec)
15
20
25
Extin
gu
5
10
42
0.045" Rigid
BMS 8-2.070" Rigid
BMS 8-2350F cure e/fg
14plyBMS 8-139
350F cure e/fg4ply
BMS 8-139
Epoxy FR 4 plyBMS 8-151
Polyester 4 plyBMS 8-80
250F cure e/fg4ply8-79
12lb Nomex,HD,
BMS 4-17
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Observations/PhotosObservations/Photos
43
350 F Epoxy Fiber Glass 14 ply 250 Epoxy FR Fiber Glass 4 ply .070 Rigid , FR Plastic Sheeting
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Meeker Temperature ProfilesMeeker Temperature ProfilesAluminum Base Line
2000Chan 1Chan 2Chan 3Chan 4
1800
2000
.07" Rigid FR Plastic Sheeting
Chan 1
Chan 2
Chan 3
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
Chan 4
0
200
400
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
0
200
400
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)( )
1600
1800
2000
350F Epoxi Fiber Glass 14 ply
Chan 1
Chan 2
Chan 3
Chan 42000
2500
350 Epoxi Fiber Glass 4 Ply
Chan 1
Chan 2
Chan 3
Chan 4
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
1000
1500
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
44
0
200
400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time(sec)
0
500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (sec)
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Meeker Burner ObservationsMeeker Burner Observations Additional Testing needs to be done to draw any conclusions about similarity
to foam block or radiant panel resultsto foam block or radiant panel results. Limited testing indicates closer correlation to Foam Block test method than
radiant panel. Holding fixtures and test enclosures need more development Need to develop Holding fixtures and test enclosures need more development. Need to develop
a way to control air/gas mixture. Meeker burner allows for easy observation of ignition, propagation and after
flame time. Recommended Next steps:
1. Further Meeker burner evaluations to standardize burner test setup.2. Evaluate additional laminates (different thicknesses and quantities) to understand
repeatability. 3. Evaluate and compare samples in other flame propagation test methods (e.g. Vertical RP)
45Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Final RemarksFinal Remarks Using the radiant panel at a 30 degree orientation is not representative of the
intermediate scale foam block.intermediate scale foam block. 25.856(a) & ducting test methods need further work to understand the viability
and correlation to intermediate scale foam block. The combination of heat flux from the radiant panel and pilot flame needs to be better understood in any RP test configurationtest configuration. Challenges of Radiant Panel Test Methods
- Calibration- Test complexityTest complexity- Test configuration limits ability to test complicated part designs (more adaptability to
parts using meeker).- Multiple configurations and test setups/requirements (Not material universal)
Using a Meeker burner shows potential as a more stringent test method and better represents the intermediate scale foam block orientation.
- Simpler Test for airplane certification- Enhances safety due to higher heat flux (comparative to FB)
46
Enhances safety due to higher heat flux (comparative to FB)- Supports ARAC goals
Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.
H t Fl d Fl P ti E l tiHeat Flux and Flame Propagation Evaluation
Thank You!