Vertical Flame Propagation Design of Experiments

Vertical Flame Propagation Design of Experiments

Boeing Cargo Liner Sonic Burner Update Dan Slaton, Technical Fellow Boeing Commercial Airplanes International Aircraft Materials Fire Test Working Group Solothurn, Switzerland June 25, 2014 Acknowledgements Tim Salter FAA Tech Center Lyle Bennett Boeing Engineering Operations & Technology Tom Little Boeing Commercial Airplanes Copyright 2014 Boeing. All rights reserved. Agenda Background Boeing Park vs. Boeing Sonic Burner results Boeing Sonic Burner vs. Industry results Observations/Discussion Conclusions Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 2 Background FAA TC has developed Sonic burner (configuration & settings) for cargo liner testing per 14 CFR 25.855(c) New Park oil burners as described in 14 CFR 25 Appendix F, Part III & Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook can no longer be procured -> alternative to Park burners required. Overall FAA TC objectives: 1. Create alternative to Park oil burner which will produce test results sufficiently similar to Park oil burner. 2. Determine Sonic burner configuration and settings which enable reproducible results. Boeing keenly interested in both objectives Large volume of certification data collected using the Park oil burner. For a slight design change, need to ensure future results from Sonic burner are sufficiently similar to Park oil burner certification results. Need to ensure results from industry, including Boeing, are consistent and well-matched.

Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 3 Boeing Park vs. Boeing Sonic Burner Temperature profile (thermocouple rake data) Sonic avg: 1777F Park avg: 1734F Observations Coefficient of variation (CoV) = Std Dev/Mean Temperature profiles are inverted for Park and Sonic burners Temperature spread approximately equivalent for both burners (CoV ~1%) Difference of average temperatures between Park & Sonic: ~2.5% Maximum temperature difference: ~5% (90F) Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 4 Boeing Park vs. Boeing Sonic Burner Backside temperatures for FAA round robin test samples 3 material types Heavy woven fiberglass/epoxy cargo liner, light semi-rigid cargo liner, polyacrylonitrile (PAN) felt Significant temperature differences between Park and Sonic burner data Disclaimer: Park & Sonic data acquired on different days in different test cells Sonic burner consistently lower than Park burner Copyright 2009 Boeing.

rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 5 Boeing Park vs. Boeing Sonic Burner Burnthrough time comparison Run PAN felt to failure (burnthrough) -> record burnthrough time (seconds) Statistical Analysis (details in backup) Average burnthrough times for Park and Sonic are equivalent (ANOVA) Variances for Park and Sonic are equivalent (F-test) Caveat: Extremely small sample size -> more data needed to draw proper conclusion Boxplot of PAN Felt Burnthrough Time (sec) PAN Felt Burnthrough Time (sec) 420 NOTE: Because of Boeing test cell layout and burner height differences between Park and Sonic, BT time determination observations differ. Park: naked eye, Sonic: video monitor. Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 400 380 360 340 320 300 Park Sonic Burner Type 6 Boeing Sonic Burner vs. Industry Backside temperature comparison (round robin lab comparison)

Heavy woven fiberglass/epoxy cargo liner Boeing data lower than all other labs Fiberglass/Epoxy Cargo Liner FAA TC/Industry* Boeing *FAA TC/Industry data presented at March 2014 IAMFTWG T. Salter, Task Group Session on Revised Cargo Liner Test https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/materials.asp?meetID=36#pres Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 7 Boeing Sonic Burner vs. Industry Backside temperature comparison (round robin lab comparison) Semi-rigid white/tan cargo liner Boeing data lower than all other labs Semi-Rigid Cargo Liner FAA TC/Industry* Boeing *FAA TC/Industry data presented at March 2014 IAMFTWG T. Salter, Task Group Session on Revised Cargo Liner Test https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/materials.asp?meetID=36#pres Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 8 Boeing Sonic Burner vs. Industry PAN felt burnthrough time comparison (round robin lab comparison)

Boeing burnthrough time seems to be faster than all other labs! Boeing data are internally consistent Recall Boeing backside temperature results appear lowest across round robin labs Industry Round Robin PAN Felt Burnthrough Times Table adapted from FAA TC presentation, March 2014* *FAA TC/Industry data presented at March 2014 IAMFTWG T. Salter, Task Group Session on Revised Cargo Liner Test https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/materials.asp?meetID=36#pres Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 9 Boeing Sonic Burner vs. Industry PAN felt burnthrough time comparison (round robin lab comparison) Statistical analysis (details in backup) Clear that data from all labs cannot be considered equivalent Lab 3 is an outlier (both mean & std deviation); Lab 2 mean result also high Boeing & Labs 1, 4, 5 can be grouped as equivalent Although Boeing burnthrough times appear to be the lowest, limited data cannot statistically distinguish differences among Boeing and labs 1, 4, 5 Boxplot of BT Time (sec) 600 BT Time (sec) 550 Boeing & Labs 1, 4, 5 statistically indistinguishable 500 450 400 350 300 1 2 3

4 5 Boeing Lab Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 10 Observations & Discussion Round robin results Significant variations in experimental results across labs Backside temperatures: average temperatures can differ by up to ~150 deg F Burnthrough times: average BT times can differ by >4 minutes between 2 labs What are the causes of variation? Answers may require: Further analysis of existing data TC rake data (average temperatures, temperature profiles) Other parametersfuel T, air T, fuel pressures, air pressures, exhaust flow, relative humidity, Additional data collection Evaluation of input parameter tolerance range impacts Collection of data from larger sets of samples Collection of data from a wider range of materials Equivalent performance validation (Park vs. Sonic) Characterize how present materials/constructions perform for both burners Determine degree of similarity between Park and Sonic burners Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 11 Conclusion FAA has done significant development work on Sonic burner with quite good results to date

Still a variety of open issues related to Inter-lab matching of round robin results Validation of Sonic burner as a comparable test method to Park oil burner A new test method should not have a different safety basis Continued development work required Provide enhanced understanding of Sonic burner performance Provide clues to the variations seen in results to date Recommendation FAA TC & Industry Task Group should determine next steps and develop a plan to move forward on continued Sonic burner test methodology development Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 12 Questions? Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 13 Backup Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved

14 Statistical Analysis Boeing Park vs. Boeing Sonic Burner ANOVA Means Test: PAN Felt Burnthrough Time (sec) vs. Boeing Burner Type Conclusion: From limited data, PAN felt BT times for Boeing Park & Sonic burner statistically indistinguishable at 5% significance level Source Burner Type Error Total S = 25.58 Level Park Sonic N 3 5 DF 1 6 7 SS 3030 3925 6955 MS 3030 654 R-Sq = 43.57% Mean 374.00 333.80 StDev 36.51 17.74 F 4.63 P 0.075 Grouping Information Using Tukey Method

Burner Type Park Sonic R-Sq(adj) = 34.16% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev --------+---------+---------+---------+(-----------*-----------) (--------*---------) --------+---------+---------+---------+330 360 390 420 Pooled StDev = 25.58 N 3 5 Mean 374.00 333.80 Means that do not share a letter are significantly different. Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Burner Type Individual confidence level = 95.00% Burner Type = Park subtracted from: Burner Type Sonic Lower -85.90 Residual Plots for PAN Felt Burnthrough Time (sec) Versus Fits 40 90 20 50 10 1 -50 -25 0 Residual

25 0 -20 340 350 360 Fitted Value 20 1.0 0.5 0 Residual 3.98 0.224 Levene's Test Test Statistic P-Value Sonic 0 0 -20 -40 -20 Test Statistic P-Value Park 1.12 0.330 370 Burner Type 1.5 -40 -----+---------+---------+---------+---(-------------*------------) -----+---------+---------+---------+----70 -35 0 35

50 100 150 200 250 300 95% Bonferroni Confidence I ntervals for StDevs 350 Versus Order 40 Residual Frequency Histogram 2.0 0.0 Upper 5.50 F-Test -40 330 50 Center -40.20 PAN BT Time (Boeing Park vs. Boeing Sonic) Burner Type 99 Residual Percent Normal Probability Plot Grouping A A 20 40

Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved 1 2 3 4 5 6 Observation Order 7 8 Park Sonic 300 320 340 360 380 PAN Felt Burnthrough Time (sec) 400 420 15 Statistical Analysis Industry Round Robin PAN Felt Burnthrough Time Comparison ANOVA Means Test: PAN Felt Burnthrough Time (sec) vs. Lab Level 1 2 3 4

5 Boeing N 3 5 5 5 5 5 Conclusion: From limited data, PAN felt BT times for Boeing, Labs 1, 4 & 5 are statistically indistinguishable at 5% significance level* Mean 410.33 488.40 587.80 405.60 365.40 337.60 StDev 19.43 58.21 7.36 49.52 21.13 18.30 Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev --+---------+---------+---------+------(----*-----) (---*---) (---*----) (---*---) (---*---) (---*---) --+---------+---------+---------+------320 400 480 560 Pooled StDev = 35.33 Residual Plots for BT Time (sec) Versus Fits 80 90 40 Residual Percent

Normal Probability Plot 99 50 10 1 -80 -40 0 Residual 40 400 500 Fitted Value 600 Versus Order 80 Residual Frequency 40 6 4 0 -60 -40 -20 0 20 Residual 40 60 80 Copyright 2009 Boeing. rights

reserved. Copyright 2014 Boeing. AllAll rights reserved MS 41755 1248 R-Sq = 88.38% F 33.45 P 0.000 R-Sq(adj) = 85.74% Grouping Information Using Tukey Method Lab 3 2 1 4 5 Boeing N 5 5 3 5 5 5 Mean 587.80 488.40 410.33 405.60 365.40 337.60 Grouping A B B C C C C -80

Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Lab Individual confidence level = 99.50% *ANOVA assumptions are not satisfied for analysis which includes all labs. A valid ANOVA analysis arrives at the same conclusion if Lab 3 is omitted as an outlier. 0 -40 2 S = 35.33 SS 208776 27458 236235 -40 Histogram 8 DF 5 22 27 Means that do not share a letter are significantly different. 0 -80 80 Source Lab Error Total 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Observation Order 16

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Diapositive 1

    Diapositive 1

    En mai 1943, dans un pub 'The White Swan', à Coulsdon dans la banlieue sud de Londres, il compose avec son neveu, les paroles du Chant des Partisans, lequel deviendra le chant du ralliement de la Résistance. L'indépendance de l'État...
  • Titration is a common laboratory method of quantitative

    Titration is a common laboratory method of quantitative

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *...
  • Automatic Data Capture Devices & Methods

    Automatic Data Capture Devices & Methods

    Automatic Data Capture Devices & Methods. Prepared & Presented By: Fahad Ahmad Khan. ... MICR is mostly used by bank cheque-processing systems for input of printed items on the bottom of each cheque. ... a barcode reader consists of a...
  • Advanced Surgery in Colombia

    Advanced Surgery in Colombia

    ADVANCED SURGERY IN COLOMBIA YOUR HEALTH IN THE BEST HANDS. STAFF. JULIO ALBERTO GARCIA . MD General and laparoscopic surgeon, with high level training in advanced laparoscopic and bariatric surgery.
  • Boluses, basals and corrections - Getting the doses right

    Boluses, basals and corrections - Getting the doses right

    Boluses, basals and corrections - Getting the doses right. Stephen W. Ponder MD, FAAP, CDE. Scott & White Clinic. Temple, Round Rock and College Station
  • Presentación de PowerPoint

    Presentación de PowerPoint

    Herramientas Tecnológicas del SENA De Paseo por SOFIA PLUS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Solicitar Eventos Esto es...
  • The Circus Animals' Desertion

    The Circus Animals' Desertion

    The Circus Animals' Desertion was published in 1937-1938, only a year or two before he died. Fun fact: The body in Yeats' grave might actually be someone else. Similar to "The Second Coming", that was published during the gap between...
  • V1 - University of Surrey

    V1 - University of Surrey

    The science and engineering of the materials, devices and systems that lie at the heart of this revolution have been major research areas at the University of Surrey for several decades. The Institute contains about 100 people and has a...