Slide 1

NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Presented to: IAMFTWG, Toulouse, France By: Robert I. Ochs Date: June 20-21 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing Slide 2 IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Objectives Perform comparative burnthrough testing to determine the effect of various parameters on test results Use picture frame sample holder and PAN material to determine burnthrough performance Test results will help to determine which parameters are most critical when specifying the burner in the new workbook 2 Slide 3 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Establish Baseline Dataset 3.43% Standard Deviation 3.17% Standard Deviation 3 Slide 4 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Test 1: Location of sonic choke Standard Configuration 4 Slide 5 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France 5 Relocated Choke Slide 6 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France 6 Slide 7 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Burnthrough TimeRepeatability 7 Slide 8 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Test Series 1 - Summary The choke was relocated approximately 6 from the burner and a curved, flexible hose was added between the muffler and the burner Test results indicate no noticeable deviation from the baseline configuration 8 Slide 9 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Test Series 2 Burner Cones Objective is to determine which cone parameters have an effect on burnthrough time Thickness Flange Material Age Besides the baseline cone, three additional cones were tested (all new) Baseline Cone: 0.06 thickness with recessed flange Cone #1: 0.048 thickness 18 gauge 310 Stainless Steel Cone #2: 0.061 thickness 321h Stainless Steel Cone #3: Same as Cone #1 with 1 flange welded on exit plane 9 Slide 10 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cones Cone #1Cone #2Cone #3 10 Slide 11 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cone Surface Temperature Measurement 11 TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 Slide 12 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France FLIR Imaging 12 Slide 13 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Fuel Nozzle Spray Cone Angle 13 Slide 14 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cone and Flame Temperature 14 Slide 15 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Insulated Cone 15 Slide 16 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Insulated Cone 16 Slide 17 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cone Surface Temperature Comparison 17 Un-Insulated Cone Insulated Cone Slide 18 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Flame Temperature Comparison 18 Un-Insulated Cone Insulated Cone Slide 19 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Burnthrough Times 19 Slide 20 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Summary - Insulated Cone Insulating the cone increases the average flame temperature by about 85F Insulation increased the cone surface temperatures by 500-600F The insulated cone burned through the PAN material significantly quicker than the un-insulated cone 8579: 92 sec. quicker 8611: 92 sec. quicker Cone insulation used as an extreme example to determine how heat loss from cone can affect burnthrough results 20 Slide 21 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #1 0.048 thickness 18 gauge 310 Stainless Steel 21 Slide 22 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #1 0.048 thickness 18 gauge 310 Stainless Steel 22 Baseline Cone Cone #1 Slide 23 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #1 0.048 thickness 18 gauge 310 Stainless Steel 23 Slide 24 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #2 0.061 thickness 321h Stainless Steel 24 Slide 25 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #2 0.061 thickness 321h Stainless Steel 25 Baseline Cone Cone #2 Slide 26 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #2 0.061 thickness 321h Stainless Steel 26 Slide 27 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #3 Same as Cone #1 with 1 flange welded on exit plane 27 Slide 28 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #3 Same as Cone #1 with 1 flange welded on exit plane 28 Baseline Cone Cone #3 Slide 29 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Installed Cone #3 Same as Cone #1 with 1 flange welded on exit plane 29 Slide 30 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cones #1 vs. #3 Effect of Flange 30 Slide 31 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cones #1 vs. #2 Effect of Thickness 31 Slide 32 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Average % Change from Baseline 32 Slide 33 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Cone Comparison - Summary All cases tested reduced the burnthrough time of both 8579 and 8611 from the baseline case In order of impact on burnthrough severity Insulating outer cone surface to prevent heat loss 1 flange on end of cone Slightly thicker cone material New cone 33 Slide 34 NexGen Burner Comparative Testing IAMFTWG, June 20-21, 2012, Toulouse, France Re-run Baseline Tests 244 5% 231.8