Modeling Wing Tank Flammability Dhaval D Dadia Steven

Modeling Wing Tank Flammability Dhaval D. Dadia Steven Summer Federal Aviation Administration Atlantic City Airport, New Jersey Dr. Tobias Rossmann Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Piscataway, New Jersey

Motivation n Numerous accounts of wing tank explosions across the world n Current flammability models are for center wing tanks n The proposed regulation for wing tank safety are mostly based on center wing tank models n Models will predict ullage concentrations existing during typical ground and flight operations 2

Current Work n Flammable mixtures can be achieved in the wing tank n Experiments are being conducted to build flammability models for wing tanks n Current work involves n Predicting the influence of the surrounding temperatures on the characteristic fuel surface temperature n Creating a model that will predict flammability in wing tanks using heat transfer correlations 3

Overview n Single Thermocouple Method (STM) n Difference between Center Wing Tank and Wing Tank n Center Wing Tank Flammability Model n Heat and Mass Transfer Correlations n Experimental Results n Computational Results 4

Distillation Curve n Jet fuel is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons n Fuel composition is characterized by the number of alkane reference hydrocarbons n The approach reduces the number of components from over 300 down to 16 species (C 5 -C 20 alkanes) n Liquid compositions of different JP-8 samples with varying flashpoints are presented in terms of the mole fractions of C 5 -C 20 alkanes 5

Single Thermocouple Method Temperature vs THC n Uses Fuel Air Ratio (FAR) calculator by Ivor Thomas 6 n THC (% Propane) 5 4 n 3 2 n 1 0 0 20 40 14. 71 psi 60 80 Temperature (F) 13. 7 psi 11. 71 psi 100 9. 71 psi 120 Calculates fuel air ratio over a range of altitudes and temperatures All compounds with same carbon number were assigned together Fuel is segregated based on boiling points of alkane species respective of their carbon number 140 7. 71 psi 6

Single Thermocouple Method Temperature Vs. Scaled THC 45 Scaled THC (% Propane) 40 n At constant temperature the THC increases as the pressure decreases n Polynomial correlation between Scaled THC and temperature n Film temperature is calculated at a given pressure and THC 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Temperature (F) 14. 71 13. 71 11. 71 9. 71 7. 71 Film temp. 7

Center Wing Tank (CWT) n The CWT has thin layer of fuel at the bottom of the tank n 30% Mass Loading n The tank is heated from the bottom due to heat released from underneath the tank 8

Wing Tank (WT) n The WT is mostly filled with fuel n 80 % Mass Loading n The tank is heated from the top from an ambient heat source such as the Sun 9

Sorting Data n The data is sorted because of the difference in the driving force n The data is sorted into n Ascending Profile n n n The top surface is hotter than the fuel surface The ullage temperature governs the film temperature Descending Profile n n The fuel is hotter than the top surface The fuel temperature governs the film temperature 10

Correlations of Ullage Temperature with Film Temperature 120 n Ascending profile n Correlations between ullage temperature and fuel temperature n Ullage temperature is greater than liquid fuel temperature n Correlation coefficient 0. 89 115 Ullage Temperature 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Film Temperature Correlation Linear(Correlation) 11

Correlations of Ullage Temperature with Film Temperature 90 n Ascending profile n Correlating ullage temperature with film temperature n Liquid fuel temperature is greater than ullage temperature n Correlation coefficient 0. 976 85 Ullage Temperature 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Film Temperature #2 WT Ullage (°F) 12

Correlations n Descending profile 80 n Correlations between ullage temperature and fuel temperature 75 n Ullage temperature is greater than liquid fuel temperature 70 n Correlation coefficient 0. 41 Ullage Temperature Correlations of Ullage Temperature and Film Temperature 65 60 55 50 55 60 65 70 Film Temperature #2 WT Ullage (°F) 13

Correlations of Ullage Temperature with Film Temperature 35 n Descending profile n Correlations between ullage temperature and fuel temperature n Liquid fuel temperature is greater than ullage temperature n Correlation coefficient 0. 93 30 Ullage Temperature 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Film Temperature #2 WT Ullage (°F) 14

Summary of STM n Correlation works best when: n Liquid fuel temperature is larger than the ullage temperature n n Fuel temperature is the driving force During Ascending pressure profile n Vapor pressure remains constant 15

Base Model n Current CWT Model (Polymeropoulos 2004)* n Natural convection flow field between the heated floor and the unheated ceiling and sidewalls n Ullage gases are well mixed due to natural convection and mass transfer n n Liquid vaporization Vapor Condensation n Natural convection flow is in the turbulent regime * JET A VAPORIZATION IN A SIMULATED AIRCRAFT FUEL TANK, Polymeropoulos and Ochs 2004 16

Principal Assumptions n Well mixed gas and liquid phases n Buoyancy induced mixing n Quasi-steady transport using heat transfer correlations n The analogy between heat and mass transfer for estimating film coefficients for heat and mass transfer n The liquid fuel and wall temperatures are known from experiments 17

Computational Method n Inputs n n n The tank geometry Fuel loading Liquid fuel composition Tank pressure Liquid fuel, and tank wall temperatures as functions of time n Computes n n Equilibrium species concentrations of Jet A in a uniform temperature, constant pressure tank Temporal variation of vapor temperature and species concentration 18

CWT Model n Simulation using center wing tank flight test data n The calculated THC is in good agreement with the measured THC *Vaporization of JP-8 Jet Fuel in a Simulated Aircraft Fuel Tank under varying ambient conditions – Ochs 2006 19

CWT Correlations n Heat & Mass Transfer Correlations n Horizontal surface: n n n Vertical Surfaces Top surface: Lower surface of cooled plate Top of Fuel Layer: Upper Surface of heated plate Vertical Surface: n Laminar Forced Convection on a flat plate Horizontal Surface 20

Difference in Model Correlations n The CWT model differs from the WT model in the ascending and cruise conditions due to: n n n Percent load Ullage height Heat and mass transfer correlations Heat source Surface being heated 21

Experiments n Experiments were conducted n For 60% and 80% mass loadings n For equilibrium temperatures from 80°F to 100°F n For cruising altitudes of 25000 feet and 34000 feet 22

Experimental Equipment n Experiments conducted in an altitude chamber n Designed to simulate temperature and pressure similar to a flight profile n n Can simulate altitudes from sea level to 100, 000 feet Can simulate temperatures from -100˚F to +250˚F n NDIR gas analyzer used to measure the total hydrocarbon concentration 23

Experimental Setup n An aluminum fuel tank of dimensions 24”w x 24” d x 36” h was used n Access panels on top for thermocouple penetration, ullage sampling, vent, and the fill tube n Thermocouples measured surface, ullage, fuel surface and bulk fuel temperatures n The vent was equipped with a mass flow meter 24

Flight Profile n The following flight profile will be used in the altitude chamber n Cruise at 35000 feet n Total flight time is 2. 5 hours 25

Combination of Models 3 120000 2. 5 100000 80000 1. 5 60000 1 40000 0. 5 20000 THC (% Propane) 2 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 10000 Pressure (Pa) CWT model with WT dimensions n Simulation using flight test data n Using wing tank dimensions on a CWT flammability model n Shows that the CWT model works for wing tanks in descending pressure profiles Time (Seconds) Flight Profile Experimental Flight Test 26

Wing Tank Correlations n Heat & Mass Transfer correlations n Horizontal surface: (Ascending) n n n Vertical Surface Horizontal Surface (Cruise and Descending) n n n Top surface: Laminar Forced Convection on a flat plate Top of Fuel Layer: Laminar Forced Convection on a flat plate Top surface: Turbulent Forced Convection on a flat plate Top of Fuel Layer: Laminar Forced Convection on a flat plate Horizontal Surface Vertical Surface: n Laminar Forced Convection on a flat plate 27

Test Results Ascending Top Surface Heat Transfer Correlations 28

Test Results Cruise and Descending Top Surface Heat Transfer Correlations 29

Summary of Experimental Results n Laminar Forced Convection during ascent n Turbulent Forced Convection the rest of the flight n Shows ullage gases are well mixed in the ullage n High Reynolds number in the heat transfer cells in the ullage 30

Conclusion n Single Thermocouple method can calculate THC using data from a single thermocouple in the tank n The differences between the WT model and the CWT model: n n n Percent Load Ullage Height Heat and mass transfer correlations Heat Source Surface being heated n The CWT model cannot be applied in the ascending and cruise profiles, but can be applied in the descending profiles n Experiments will be conducted n n To confirm the state of the ullage To compare computed data to experimental data 31

Questions? 32