Fuel Tank Flammability
Completed Research
Intrinsically Safe Current Limit Study for Aircraft
Fuel Tank Electronics
This technical note describes research performed to
determine the ignition hazard presented by small fragments
of superfine steel wool that contact energized direct
current wires in aircraft fuel tanks. Several different
methods of shorting a circuit with steel wool were explored.
An ignitable mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, and argon,
calibrated to have a minimum ignition energy of 200
micro Joules, was used as an ignition detection technique.
The electrical currents at the ignition threshold were
recorded to determine safe maximum allowable current
limits for fuel tank electronics. The lowest current
found to ignite the flammable mixture was 99 milliamps
(mA); the lowest current found to ignite a steel wool
wad in air only was 45 mA.
Download the Technical Note
(DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/37)
Evaluation of Fuel Tank Flammability and the FAA
Inerting System on the NASA 747 SCA
Extensive development and analysis has illustrated that
fuel tank inerting could, potentially, be cost-effective
if air separation modules, based on hollow-fiber membrane
technology, could be packaged and used in an efficient
way. To illustrate this, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) has developed a prototype onboard inert gas generation
system that uses aircraft bleed air to generate nitrogen-enriched
air (NEA) at varying flows and purities during a commercial
airplane flight cycle. A series of ground and flight
tests were performed, in conjunction with National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) aircraft operations
personnel, designed to evaluate the FAA inerting system
used in conjunction with a compartmentalized center
wing tank (CWT). Additionally, the flammability of both
the CWT and one inboard wing fuel tank was measured.
The system was mounted on a Boeing 747, operated by
NASA, and used to inert the aircraft CWT during testing.
The inerting system, CWT, and the number 2 main wing
tanks were instrumented to analyze the system performance,
fuel tank inerting, and flammability.
The results of the testing indicated that the FAA prototype
inerting system operated as expected. Using a variable-flow
methodology allowed a greater amount of NEA to be generated
on descent when compared to the simple dual-flow methodology,
but it had no measurable effect on the resulting average
ullage oxygen concentration after each test, while improving
inert gas distribution by decreasing the worst bay oxygen
concentration when three similar tests were compared.
The highest average ullage oxygen concentration observed
on any flight test correlates directly with the worst
bay oxygen concentration, illustrating the importance
of maintaining a low average ullage oxygen concentration
in good inert gas distribution. Oxygen diffusion between
the bays of the tank was relatively rapid, and overnight
dispersion of the ullage oxygen concentration was measured
to be very small. Flammability measurements showed trends
very similar to what was expected based on both experimental
and computer model data. The equilibrium data agreed
favorably with data from both the Fuel Air Ratio Calculator
and the Condensation Model, while transient data trends
matched closely with the Condensation Model with some
discrepancies in total hydrocarbon concentration magnitude
at altitude.
Download the Final Report (DOT/FAA/AR-04/41)
Limiting Oxygen Concentration Required to Inert
Jet Fuel Vapors at Reduced Fuel Tank Pressures
A simulated aircraft fuel tank containing JP-8 fuel
of an amount equivalent to a mass loading of approximately
4.5 kg/m3 was used to determine the limiting oxygen
concentration (LOC) at pressures corresponding to altitudes
ranging from 0 to 38 kft. In addition, the peak pressure
rise was measured at various altitudes (pressures) due
to ignition occurring at O2 levels approximately 1%
to 1.5% above the LOC.
A wide range of ignition sources were used throughout the testing. An oil burner transformer connected to an analog timer provided a low power arc of both short (0.1 second) and long durations (1 second), a spark igniter taken from a J-57 engine provided a very short duration (175 mseconds) high powered spark, and a heated metal block was used as a hot surface ignition source. These varied capabilities allowed for an evaluation of the variation in the LOC due to a specific type of ignition source.
From these tests, it was determined that the LOC at
sea level through 10 kft is approximately 12% O2, while
exhibiting a linear increase from 12% at 10 kft to approximately
14.5% at 40 kft. Tests with various sparks/arcs as ignition
sources at sea level showed little variation in results,
with the LOC ranging from 12.0% to 12.8%. Also, a heated
surface capable of igniting a fuel air mixture proved
insufficient for ignition in a tank inerted to just
14%. Peak pressures resulting from ignition at oxygen
concentrations 1% to 1.5% above LOC values decreased
as the altitude was increased to 30 kft, while the duration
to reach the peak pressure increased.
Download the Final Report (DOT/FAA/AR-04/8)
Mass Loading Effects on Fuel Vapor Concentrations
Experiments were performed within a simulated fuel tank
approximately 1/20 the size of a typical B-747
center wing fuel tank (CWT). The vapors generated
within the ullage of this tank were analyzed under
different mass loadings in an effort to determine
the effects of the mass loading and fuel distribution.
It was determined from these tests that in order
to have a substantial effect on the flammability
of the vapor within the CWT, the mass loading would
have to be somewhere between 0.08 and 0.15 kg/m3.
A Substantial effect was defined as a minimum 20%
decrease in the maximum hydrocarbon count when
compared to the average of all tests conducted
with larger mass loadings. In addition, it was
found that while the distribution of the fuel has
no effect on the peak flammability (vapor composition)
that is reached, it does have a significant effect
on how long it takes to reach the final state.
The less dispersed the liquid fuel is, the longer
it will take the vapor to reach its maximum flammability
point.
Download the Technical Note
(DOT/FAA/AR-TN99/65)
Cold Ambient Temperature Effects on Heated Fuel
Tank Vapor Concentrations
Experiments were conducted within a simulated aircraft
center wing fuel tank (CWT) to qualitatively analyze
the effects of decreased ambient temperatures, such
as might occur at increased altitudes, on the vapor
concentrations found in a typical CWT ullage. A small
quantity of fuel in the CWT test article was heated
to 125°F for two hours, corresponding to a temperature
approximately 10°F above the flashpoint of the fuel.
The tests were conducted at sea level, however, the
wall temperature of the tank was cooled to a temperature
corresponding to a pre-determined altitude. From these
tests, it was determined that the ambient temperature
does indeed have a significant effect on the vapor concentrations
formed in the fuel tank ullage at small fuel mass loadings.
As the ambient temperature is decreased, the rate of
decrease in the fuel-air ratio increases.
Download the Technical Note
(DOT/FAA/AR-TN99-93)
A Review of the Flammability Hazard of Jet A Fuel
Vapor in Civil Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
A Fuel Flammability Task Group, made up of recognized
fuel and combustion specialists, was formed to investigate
the flammability and explosiveness of fuel within an
aircraft fuel tank. The task group reviewed all available
reports on the subject and met and discussed the data
with technical experts from Boeing Commercial Airplane
Co., California Institute of Technology, and the National
Transportation Safety Board. A report was published
by the task group which includes jet fuel definitions
and specifications, jet fuel flammability data, influences
of various factors on fuel flammability, and predictive
analyses and models for flammability. The report discusses
the impact of this knowledge on the needs for in-flight
fuel fire prevention.
Download the Final Report
(DOT/FAA/AR-98/26)
For information contact:
Steve Summer
Phone: (609) 485-4138
Fax: (609) 485-5785