You are on page 1of 10

Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2018), 31(7): 1515–1524

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics


& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Experimental comparison between aircraft fuel


tank inerting processes using NEA and MIG
Lei SHAO a,b, Weihua LIU a, Chaoyue LI a, Shiyu FENG a,*, Chenchen WANG a,
Jun PAN c

a
Key Laboratory of Aircraft Environment Control and Life Support of MIIT, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
b
College of Aeronautics, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China
c
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace Power System, Nanjing Engineering Institute of Aircraft Systems, Nanjing
210016, China

Received 27 May 2017; revised 26 December 2017; accepted 1 February 2018


Available online 30 May 2018

KEYWORDS Abstract Fuel tank inerting technologies are able to reduce the fire risk by injection of inert gas
Dissolved oxygen; into the ullage or fuel, the former called ullage washing and the latter fuel scrubbing. The Green
Experiment; On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (GOBIGGS) is a novel technology based on flameless cat-
Fuel tanks; alytic combustion, and owning to its simple structure and high inerting efficiency, it has received a
Inert gases; lot of attentions. The inert gas in the GOBIGGS is mainly comprised of CO2, N2, and O2 (here-
Mixed Inert Gas (MIG); inafter, Mixed Inert Gas (MIG)), while that in the On-Board Inert Gas Generation System
Nitrogen-Enriched Air (OBIGGS), which is one of the most widely used fuel tank inerting technologies, is Nitrogen-
(NEA); Enriched Air (NEA). The solubility of CO2 is nearly 20 times higher than that of N2 in jet fuels,
Oxygen so the inerting capability and performance are definitely disparate if the inert gas is selected as
NEA or MIG. An inerting test bench was constructed to compare the inerting capabilities between
NEA and MIG. Experimental results reveal that, if ullage washing is adopted, the variations of oxy-
gen concentrations on the ullage and in the fuel are nearly identical no matter the inert gas is NEA
or MIG. However, the ullage and dissolved oxygen concentrations of MIG scrubbing are always
higher than those of NEA scrubbing.
Ó 2018 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shiyuf@nuaa.edu.cn (S. FENG).
Aircraft fuel tank ullage space is filled with explosive fuel–air
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.
mixtures, which is a serious threat to the safety of aircraft.1
On July 17, 1996, Trans World Airlines Flight 800
(TWA800), a Boeing model 747–131, exploded in flight shortly
Production and hosting by Elsevier after takeoff from the Kennedy International Airport in New
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.04.016
1000-9361 Ó 2018 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1516 L. SHAO et al.

York, and according to the National Transportation Safety reinjected into the fuel tank ullage, gradually reducing the
Board, this disaster was essentially caused by an explosion of oxygen concentration until it reaches below the LOC.
the flammable mixtures in the ullage. Since this accident, the Specifically, there are two methods for reducing the oxygen
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued numerous concentration by filling inert gas into the ullage space or fuel-
airworthiness directives, enacted comprehensive regulations to phase. The former is called ullage washing, and the latter fuel
correct potential ignition sources in fuel tanks, and conducted scrubbing. In the ullage washing process, inert gas is directly
research on methods that could eliminate or significantly injected into the fuel tank ullage to displace the existing ullage
reduce the exposure of aircraft to flammable vapors.2–4 Under gases and gases evolved from the fuel, and then the resulting
these circumstances, fuel tank inerting technology, which has mixture is vented overboard through a climb valve. The ullage
been widely employed by the US military, has attracted great washing approach is used more often in civil aircraft because
attention in civil aviation. of its high efficiency to decrease the ullage oxygen concentra-
Fuel tank inerting technology refers to the technical mea- tion. In the fuel scrubbing process, inert gas is introduced in
sure that maintains the ullage oxygen concentration below the form of a multitude of small bubbles at the bottom of
the Limiting Oxygen Concentration (LOC) that can support the fuel tank, and as the bubbles rise upward through the fuel,
combustion, and ensures the safety of the aircraft fuel tank. the dissolved oxygen is removed while the dissolved nitrogen is
Laboratory testing conducted by Stewart and Starkman added in the fuel. The fuel scrubbing approach is used more
showed that the LOC for combustion increased from less than often in military aircraft, because it can reduce the total oxy-
10% to over 13% between the sea level and 60000 ft (1 ft = gen in the fuel tank.15,19
0.3048 m).5 Live-fire testing has demonstrated that nitrogen Studies have been reported concerning aircraft fuel tank
inerting prevented catastrophic tank over pressures with an inerting systems that are mostly based on the OBIGGS, in
ullage oxygen concentration from 12% and 10% at the sea which the inert gas is NEA. For example, in the investigation
level for up to 23 mm High-Energy Incendiary (HEI) rounds.6 made by Burn and Cavage, a simple rectangular fuel tank was
Some military requirements for aircraft that may be exposed to employed to simulate a fuel tank in a commercial transport
combat need lower oxygen concentrations, so the US military airplane, and the ullage of the fuel tank was washed under
conducted fuel tank inerting tests and determined that the variable NEA oxygen concentration and flow rate.20 Cavage
LOC was 9% oxygen, which was based on the threat of small adopted a simulated fuel tank to study the relationship
arms fire up to 23 mm HEI rounds.7 Tests conducted by FAA between the quantity of NEA and fuel load during the fuel
for commercial aircraft have shown that the LOC from the sea scrubbing inerting process.21 Cai et al. performed an experi-
level to 12 km is approximately 12% O2.8 Therefore, for the mental study on a simulated fuel tank using nitrogen and
design of an aircraft inerting system, the LOCs for military NEA, and obtained the ullage and dissolved oxygen concen-
and civil aircraft are 9% and 12%, respectively. trations over time under different flow rates and fuel loads.22
Inert gases are mainly liquid/gas nitrogen, halon 1301, and However, in the GOBIGGS, the MIG contains CO2. CO2
Nitrogen-Enriched Air (NEA) that is produced by an Air readily dissolves in the fuel, and its solubility in the fuel is
Separation Module (ASM) based on Hollow-Fiber Membrane considerably higher than that of nitrogen or oxygen. The
(HFM) technology. However, the weight of a liquid/gas system solubility of different gases in the fuel differs greatly, and it
leads to a large fuel penalty, and halon 1301 is too costly for can be calculated using the Ostwald coefficient.23,24 This paper
full-time protection and can harm the environment. Therefore, calculates the Ostwald coefficients of oxygen, nitrogen, and
an On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) with carbon dioxide of 4 types of fuel at different temperatures,
ASMs is the most widely used aircraft fuel tank explosion sup- as illustrated in Fig. 1, and taking the RP-3 fuel as an example,
pression technology because of its light weight, simplicity, few the solubility of CO2 is approximately 20 times higher than
moving parts, and high reliability, which can provide full-time that of nitrogen at a temperature of 0 °C and a pressure of
inerting during entire flight, and has been widely adopted on 1 atm (1 atm = 101325 Pa). Therefore, the difference between
the A320, B747, C-5, C-17, and F22.9–13 solubility of gases may have a considerable effect on the gas
Although the OBIGGS is the most popular fuel tank inert- composition on the ullage during the inerting process. However,
ing technology, there are still some inherent disadvantages of
this technology, such as large amount of bleed air from the
engine, which leads to a large fuel penalty; the high-pressure
requirement of the inlet of the hollow fiber membrane, which
results in the incapability of its use in many aircraft (such as
helicopters); the small fiber membrane and pore size, which
cause blockages; the ozone in the bleed air, which degrades
the fiber membrane performance; and the displaced and dis-
charged fuel vapor, which pollutes the environment.14,15
The Green On-Board Inert Gas Generation System
(GOBIGGS) has attracted considerable attention in recent
years because of its simple process, closed-loop system, high
efficiency, compact size, and light weight.16–18 The basic prin-
ciple of the GOBIGGS is derived from the flameless combus-
tion of air and fuel vapor in the fuel tank ullage through a
catalytic reactor. After the water vapor is condensed and the
liquid water is removed in a separator, the remaining Mixed Fig. 1 Relationship between gas solubility of different fuels and
Inert Gas (MIG), which consists of CO2, N2, and O2, is temperature.
Experimental comparison between aircraft fuel tank inerting processes using NEA and MIG 1517

the current reported studies concerning the GOBIGGS are a dissolved oxygen concentration sensor (KDS-25B), a pres-
mostly focused on system design, and there are few studies sure transducer (HSTL-800), a thermostatic water bath (DC-
concerning the different inerting capabilities of NEA and MIG 8030), a condenser, and an oil separator. When measuring
during the ullage washing or fuel scrubbing inerting process. the ullage oxygen concentration, the gas is condensed and sep-
In essence, the dissolution of gas is not only related to the arated by the condenser and the oil separator, respectively,
solubility, but also related to the contact area between gas which reduces the influence of the fuel vapor on the O2 sensor
and fuel and the diffusion of gas in fuel. During ullage wash- to the minimum. The fuel loaded in the experiments is RP-3,
ing, because the state of fuel is relatively static, and the contact the ambient temperature and pressure are 20 °C and
area between gas and fuel is limited, so there may be a rela- 101 kPa, respectively, and the dissolved oxygen concentration
tively weak influence on the mass transfer. However, during in ambient conditions is approximately 2.25  10–3 mol/L.24
fuel scrubbing, tiny bubbles are directly mixed with fuel, and The experiments consisted of four parts: preparation of the
thus the contact area between gas and fuel is significantly inert gas, fuel scrubbing using air, ullage washing, and fuel
increased, which may enhance the mass transfer process. scrubbing.
Therefore, more related investigations are essential.
To evaluate the inerting capabilities of NEA and MIG, a (1) Preparation of the inert gas: Firstly, open the shut-off
simulated aircraft fuel tank inerting test bench has been estab- valves F2 and F3. Then, open the vacuum pump to evac-
lished, and experiments are divided into two approaches: uate the inert gas tank. After the pressure reading in the
ullage washing and fuel scrubbing. Experiments have been per- inert gas tank stabilizes, close the shut-off valve F2,
formed under different flow rates, fuel loads, and gas compo- open the shut-off valve F1, and then the inert gas tank
sitions. On this basis, this paper compares the inerting is filled with a specific proportion of CO2, O2, and N2
capabilities of NEA and MIG, and analyzes the variations of using the CO2/O2/N2 high-pressure gas cylinder, respec-
the ullage and dissolved oxygen concentrations for different tively. For example, firstly, the inert gas tank is filled
operation conditions. with 20 kPa O2, then filled with 76 kPa N2, and finally
filled with 304 kPa CO2; thus, the proportion the inert
2. Experimental systems and methods gas is 5% O2, 19% N2, and 76% CO2. Four types of
inert gas including NEA (5% O2, 95% N2), MIG-A
A schematic diagram of experimental apparatus is shown in (5% O2, 19% N2, 76% CO2), MIG-B (5% O2, 50%
Fig. 2, and an apparatus was constructed as shown in Fig. 3. N2, 45% CO2), and MIG-C (5% O2, 80% N2, 15%
The test bench consists of a fuel tank, a scrubber, a gas supply CO2), in which a 5% oxygen concentration is the most
system, and a measurement system. The transparent acrylic commonly used in an aircraft inerting system, were
fuel tank size is 250 mm  50 mm  180 mm (L  W  D) adopted in the experiments.
and its volume is 2.25 L. The gas supply system includes a (2) Fuel scrubbing using air: Firstly, close the shut-off valve
high-pressure CO2/O2/N2 cylinder, an air compressor, a pres- F5. Then, open the air compressor and use the pressure
sure regulator (IR2000-02), a throttle, and so on. The bottom regulator to adjust the outlet pressure in a safety value, to
of the fuel tank is installed with a microporous scrubber that is prevent system pressure overload. Next, open the valve
connected to the gas supply system. The measurement system F6 and use air to scrub the fuel until the ullage oxygen
includes an O2 sensor (MAX250B), a CO2 sensor (COZIR-W), concentration is approximately 21%, the dissolved

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.


1518 L. SHAO et al.

Fig. 3 Experimental apparatus.

oxygen concentration is approximately 2.25  10 mol/L,


–3
load and a flow rate of 0.1 L/min, and NEA (5% O2, 95% N2),
and the CO2 concentration on the ullage is less than MIG-A (5% O2, 19% N2, 76% CO2), 95% MIG-B (5% O2,
0.1%, which is the value corresponding to equilibrium 50% N2, 45% CO2), and 95% MIG-C (5% O2, 80% N2,
with the ambient. 15% CO2) were adopted for these tests, respectively. The vari-
(3) Ullage washing: After the parameter readings stabilize, ations of the ullage and dissolved oxygen concentrations over
the F3 and F4 shut-off valves are opened, and the flow time for different inert gases are presented in Fig. 4. The time
rate is controlled to a specified value by adjusting the required for the ullage oxygen concentration to decrease to 9%
throttle. Then, inert gas is directly introduced into the in this experiment is referred to as the inerting time in this
ullage to vent the ullage air out of the fuel tank, and paper. The inerting time can be used to evaluate the inerting
the outflow goes through the condenser and the oil sep- capabilities of different inert gases. During inerting processes,
arator and then flows into the O2/CO2 measurement the dissolved oxygen in the fuel is also an important parameter
device, while the experimental data is obtained through for determining the inerting capability, and thus, the relevant
the data logger LR8432. According to the above steps, experimental data is shown in Table 2.
ullage washing experiments were performed under dif- It is observed in Fig. 4 that the ullage and dissolved oxygen
ferent compositions of inert gas, flow rates of 0.1, 0.2, concentrations of different inert gases are nearly identical no
0.3, and 0.4 L/min, and fuel loads of 30%, 50%, and matter the inert gas is NEA or MIG. Table 2 shows that the
70%, respectively. inerting times of different inert gases are 1636, 1542, 1506,
(4) Fuel scrubbing: Open the shut-off valves F3 and F5, and and 1564 s, and the dissolved oxygen concentrations at the
use the throttle to adjust the flow rate to a specified inerting time are 2.122  10 3, 2.138  10 3, 2.128  10 3,
value. Then, the inert gas is broken into small bubbles and 2.140  10 3 mol/L; the data is very similar. The experi-
by a scrubber and mixed with the fuel; thus, the ullage mental results reveal that during the ullage washing process,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations will gradually when the inert gas has the same oxygen concentration, the
decrease. After recording the data, repeat the experi- variations of the oxygen concentrations on the ullage and in
ments under different compositions of inert gas, flow the fuel are nearly identical no matter the inert gas is NEA
rates of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 L/min, and fuel loads of or MIG. In essence, the mass transfer process is divided into
30%, 50%, and 70%, respectively. diffusion and convection; in the process of ullage washing,
the state of the fuel is relatively static, and the contact area
The parameters and accuracy of the instruments utilized in
between the gas and the fuel is limited, so the mass transfer
the experiments are shown in Table 1. The ullage and dissolved
mainly depends on diffusion. However, the diffusion process
oxygen concentration sensors are Clark electrode sensors,
is relatively slow. Thus, the dissolved oxygen slowly decreases
which have the characteristics of fast response and no influence
from 2.25  10 3 to 2.122  10 3 mol/L. Therefore, gas disso-
of CO2, and have been widely used in the petrochemical
lution is very small, and almost same amounts of inert gases
industry.25,26
are used to displace the ullage gases; thus the variations of
the ullage oxygen concentration are nearly identical.
3. Ullage washing
3.2. Flow rate
3.1. Inert gas composition
To compare the difference between ullage washing with differ-
To examine the phenomena of ullage washing using different ent volume flow rates of NEA and MIG-A, a series of tests was
inert gases, several inerting runs were conducted at a 50% fuel performed with four different volume flow rates at a fuel load
Experimental comparison between aircraft fuel tank inerting processes using NEA and MIG 1519

Table 1 Experimental equipment and parameters.


Equipment Manufacturer Model Range Precision
Water bath FDL DC-8030 –40 – 100 °C ±0.1 °C
Flow meter Senlod MF4003 0–2 L/min ±1.5%
CO2 sensor GSS COZIR-W (0–100)% Vol ±3%
Oxygen sensor MAXTEC MAX250B (0–100)% Vol ±1%
Pressure regulator SMC IR2000-02 0.01–0.8 MPa ±2.5%
Pressure transducer HuaKong HSTL-800 0–0.5 MPa ±0.1%
Dissolved oxygen sensor FIGARO KDS-25B 0–80  10 6 ±5%

Fig. 4 Comparison of oxygen concentrations over time for different gas compositions (ullage washing, fuel load: 50%,
flow rate: 0.1 L/min).

Table 2 Experimental data of ullage washing for different gas


respectively. The experimental results also reveal that under
compositions.
the same flow rate, when the inert gas has the same oxygen
Inert gas Ullage washing concentration, the variations of the oxygen concentrations
type on ullage and in fuel are nearly identical no matter the inert
Inerting Dissolved oxygen concentration at gas is NEA or MIG.
time (s) inerting time (10 3 mol/L)
NEA 1636 2.122
MIG-A 1542 2.138
3.3. Fuel load
MIG-B 1506 2.128
MIG-C 1564 2.140 The inerting capabilities of NEA and MIG-A washing were
investigated by experiments in this work with different fuel
loads. Fig. 6 presents the variations of the ullage and dissolved
of 50%, and the NEA (5% O2, 95% N2) and the MIG-A (5% oxygen concentrations over time for different fuel loads at a
O2, 19% N2, 76% CO2) were adopted in the experiments. flow rate of 0.1 L/min. A comparison of the experimental data
Fig. 5 illustrates the ullage and dissolved oxygen concentra- is shown in Table 4.
tions over time, and comparisons of the relevant experimental It can be seen in Fig. 6 that the variations of ullage oxygen
data are shown in Table 3. concentrations are almost the same between NEA and MIG-A
Fig. 5 shows that under the same operating conditions, the washing. As shown in Table 4, when using NEA washing, the
ullage and dissolved oxygen concentrations of NEA washing inerting times at 30%, 50%, and 70% fuel loads are 2048,
are almost the same as those of MIG-A washing. As shown 1636, and 1060 s, respectively. When using MIG-A washing,
in Table 3, the inerting times of N2 washing at four flow the inerting times at 30%, 50%, and 70% fuel loads are
rates are 1636, 784, 536, and 354 s, respectively, while those 2030, 1542, and 980 s, respectively, which indicates that the
of MIG-A washing are 1542, 736, 484, and 318 s, respectively. inerting times of NEA and MIG-A are both decreased with
The inerting times of NEA and MIG-A washing are both an increasing fuel load. Moreover, when the ullage of the fuel
decreased with an increase of the flow rate. Table 3 shows that tank is inerted to a 9% oxygen concentration, the dissolved
when the ullage of the fuel tank is inerted to a 9% oxygen oxygen concentrations of NEA washing for 30%, 50%,
concentration, the dissolved oxygen concentrations of NEA and 70% fuel loads are 2.030  10 3, 2.122  10 3, and
washing are 2.122  10 3, 2.112  10 3, 2.121  10 3, and 2.116  10 3 mol/L, respectively, and those of MIG-A wash-
2.116  10 3 mol/L, while those of MIG-A washing are ing are 2.058  10 3, 2.141  10 3, and 2.072  10 3 mol/L,
2.140  10 3, 2.160  10 3, 2.146  10 3, and 2.134  10 3 mol/L, respectively.
1520 L. SHAO et al.

Fig. 5 Comparison of oxygen concentrations over time for different flow rates (ullage washing, fuel load: 50%).

Table 3 Experimental data of ullage washing for different flow rates.


Flow rate (L/min) NEA washing MIG-A washing
Inerting time (s) Dissolved oxygen concentration Inerting time (s) Dissolved oxygen concentration
at inerting time (10 3 mol/L) at inerting time (10 3 mol/L)
0.1 1636 2.122 1542 2.140
0.2 784 2.112 736 2.160
0.3 536 2.121 484 2.146
0.4 354 2.116 318 2.134

4. Fuel scrubbing NEA scrubbing. As shown in Table 5, the inerting times of


four types of inert gases are 1590, 1620, 2030, and 2312 s,
4.1. Inert gas composition and the inerting time is increased with an increasing concentra-
tion of CO2. It is concluded from the experimental results that,
when the inert gas has a higher concentration of CO2, the rate
In this section, experiments of fuel scrubbing were performed
of decrease of the ullage oxygen concentration is reduced.
with different inert gases at a fuel load of 50% and a flow rate
When dissolved oxygen concentration reaches 0.781 
of 0.1 L/min. During the scrubbing process, an inert gas of a
10 3 mol/L, the inerting times of four types of inert gas are
5% oxygen concentration means that the dissolved oxygen
1354, 1440, 1826, and 2020 s, which are also increased with
concentration can be reduced to 0.563  10 3 mol/L, which
an increasing concentration of CO2. The main reason for those
can be calculated from the equilibrium theory by using the
phenomena could be that when the inert gas has a higher con-
Ostwald coefficient.23 Therefore, the time of the dissolved oxy-
centration of CO2, a greater amount of CO2 is dissolved into
gen concentration reaching 0.781  10 3 mol/L was adopted
the fuel, and the CO2 used to remove the dissolved oxygen is
in this paper to evaluate the effectiveness of fuel scrubbing,
insufficient, so as a consequence, a smaller amount of evolved
and thus comparisons of the experimental data are shown in
inert gases is used to displace the ullage gases. Therefore, under
Table 5.
the same operating condition, the ullage and dissolved oxygen
It can be seen in Fig. 7 that the ullage oxygen concentration
concentrations decrease more slowly when the inert gas has a
of MIG scrubbing decreases slowly, and the MIG-C, which
higher CO2 concentration.
has the lowest CO2 concentration, is almost the same as in
Experimental comparison between aircraft fuel tank inerting processes using NEA and MIG 1521

Fig. 6 Comparison of the oxygen concentrations over time for different fuel loads (ullage washing, flow rate: 0.1 L/min).

Table 4 Experimental data of ullage washing for different fuel loads.


Fuel load (%) NEA washing MIG-A washing
Inerting time (s) Dissolved oxygen concentration Inerting time (s) Dissolved oxygen concentration
at inerting time (10 3 mol/L) at inerting time (10 3 mol/L)
30 2048 2.030 2030 2.058
50 1636 2.122 1542 2.141
70 1060 2.116 980 2.072

an increase of the flow rate, while the inerting time of


Table 5 Experimental data of fuel scrubbing for different gas
MIG-A scrubbing is about 1.5 times that of NEA scrubbing.
compositions.
Moreover, the variation trend of the ullage oxygen
Inert Fuel scrubbing concentration has a considerable difference between NEA and
gas type MIG-A scrubbing. The ullage oxygen concentration of NEA
Inerting Time of dissolved oxygen concentration scrubbing decreases rapidly in the initial stage, but as the time
time (s) reaching 0.781  10 3 mol/L (s)
increases, the rate of decrease tends to be slow. However, the
NEA 1590 1354 ullage oxygen concentration of MIG-A scrubbing decreases
MIG-C 1620 1440 slowly in the initial stage, particularly at a small flow rate,
MIG-B 2030 1826 and the rate of decrease accelerates at first but then decelerates.
MIG-A 2312 2020
The main reason for this behavior could be that, when using
MIG-A to scrub the fuel, in the initial stage, a large amount
of CO2 is dissolved into the fuel, and the CO2 used to displace
4.2. Flow rate the ullage air is insufficient, so that the ullage oxygen concen-
tration decreases slowly; with an increase of the scrubbing
Fig. 8 gives the variations of the ullage and dissolved oxygen time, the fuel will be gradually saturated with CO2, which
concentrations with different volume flow rates using NEA induces more CO2 into the ullage of the fuel tank and acceler-
and MIG-A. Comparisons of the relevant experimental data ates the rate of decrease of the ullage oxygen concentration.
are shown in Table 6. Finally, because the oxygen concentration difference between
It is observed in Fig. 8 that the ullage and dissolved oxygen the ullage and the inert gas is decreased, the rate of decrease
concentrations of MIG-A scrubbing are significantly higher of the ullage oxygen concentration will gradually decelerate.
than those of NEA scrubbing. As shown in Table 6, the inert- The times of the dissolved oxygen concentration reaching
ing times of N2 scrubbing at four flow rates are 1590, 814, 528, 0.781  10 3 mol/L of NEA scrubbing are 1354, 780, 548,
and 372 s, respectively, while those of CO2 scrubbing at four and 410 s, respectively, while those of MIG-A scrubbing are
flow rates are 2312, 1214, 742, and 570 s, respectively. The 2020, 948, 716, and 568 s, respectively. These results reveal that
inerting times of NEA and MIG-A are both decreased with under fuel scrubbing, an increase in the flow rate will accelerate
1522 L. SHAO et al.

Fig. 7 Comparison of oxygen concentrations over time for different gas compositions (fuel scrubbing, fuel load: 50%,
flow rate: 0.1 L/min).

Fig. 8 Comparison of the oxygen concentrations over time for different flow rates (fuel scrubbing, fuel load: 50%).

Table 6 Experimental data of fuel scrubbing for different flow rates.


Flow rate (L/min) NEA scrubbing MIG-A scrubbing
Inerting time (s) Time of dissolved oxygen Inerting time (s) Time of dissolved oxygen
concentration reaching concentration reaching
0.781  10–3 mol/L (s) 0.781  10–3 mol/L (s)
0.1 1590 1354 2312 2020
0.2 814 780 1214 948
0.3 528 548 742 716
0.4 372 410 570 568

the decrease of the dissolved oxygen concentration. rate of 0.1 L/min, and a comparison of the experimental data
Besides, when dissolved oxygen concentration reaches is shown in Table 7.
0.781  10 3 mol/L, the time of MIG-A scrubbing is much When using NEA scrubbing, the inerting times at 30%,
longer than that of NEA scrubbing, which is mainly because 50%, and 70% fuel loads are 1988, 1590, and 1192 s, respec-
the large amount of CO2 dissolved into the fuel, and the tively, which indicates that the inerting time is decreased with
amount of CO2 used to remove the dissolved oxygen is much increasing the fuel load. When using MIG-A scrubbing, the
smaller than that of N2. inerting times at 30%, 50%, and 70% fuel loads are 2182,
2312, and 2454 s, respectively. Thus, the inerting time is
4.3. Fuel load increased with an increase of the fuel load, in contrast to that
of NEA scrubbing. The reason for this behavior could be that
Fig. 9 presents the variations of the ullage and dissolved oxy- when the fuel load increases, the volume of the ullage
gen concentrations over time for different fuel loads at a flow decreases, and thus the fuel tank is more easily inerted, which
Experimental comparison between aircraft fuel tank inerting processes using NEA and MIG 1523

Fig. 9 Comparison of the oxygen concentrations over time for different fuel loads (fuel scrubbing, flow rate: 0.1 L/min).

Table 7 Experimental data of fuel scrubbing for different fuel loads.


Fuel load (%) NEA scrubbing MIG-A scrubbing
Inerting time (s) Time of dissolved oxygen Inerting time (s) Time of dissolved oxygen
concentration reaching concentration reaching
0.781  10–3 mol/L (s) 0.781  10–3 mol/L (s)
30 1988 1134 2182 1674
50 1590 1354 2312 2020
70 1192 1694 2454 2404

decreases the inerting time, which in turn has a positive effect compositions. The results of a comparison between the uses of
on the inerting. On the other hand, an increase of the fuel MIG and NEA reveal the following:
quantity means that more gas could dissolve into the fuel, For ullage washing, the variations of the oxygen concentra-
and therefore, there is a negative effect that the dissolution tions on the ullage are nearly identical no matter the inert gas
effect increases the inerting time. This is a combined effect of is NEA or MIG, and the ullage washing inerting approach has
a larger fuel load having a greater amount of gas dissolve into a small effect on the dissolved oxygen concentration. The
the fuel and a smaller ullage to affect. For NEA scrubbing, due inerting times of NEA and MIG washing are both decreased
to the small solubility of N2 in the fuel, when the fuel load with increases of the flow rate and the fuel load.
increases, the inerting capability is mainly affected by the For fuel scrubbing, owning to the higher solubility of CO2
ullage, and the N2 dissolution effect can be negligible. There- in jet fuels, under the same operating condition, the ullage and
fore, the inerting time decreases with an increase of the fuel dissolved oxygen concentrations of MIG scrubbing are always
load. For MIG-A scrubbing, when the fuel load increases, higher than those of NEA scrubbing. The variation trend of
both effects are large due to a reduction of the ullage volume the ullage oxygen concentration has a considerable difference,
and the large solubility of CO2 in the fuel. However, from particularly at a small flow rate. The ullage and dissolved oxy-
the experimental data, the dissolution effect is obviously lar- gen concentrations decrease more slowly when the inert gas
ger, and thus the inerting time increases with an increase of has a higher CO2 concentration. The inerting time reduces with
the fuel load. an increase of the flow rate for either MIG or NEA scrubbing.
When the dissolved oxygen concentration reaches 0.781  For NEA scrubbing, the inerting time decreases with an
10 3 mol/L, the times of NEA scrubbing for 30%, 50%, and increase of the fuel load, while for MIG scrubbing, in contrast,
70% fuel loads are 1134, 1354, and 1694 s, respectively, and the inerting time increases with an increase of the fuel load.
those of MIG-A scrubbing are 1674, 2020, and 2404 s, respec-
tively. This indicates that when the fuel is scrubbed at a higher Acknowledgements
fuel load, the dissolved oxygen concentration will also be rela-
tively higher. The main reason for this is that when the fuel This work was supported by Funding of Jiangsu Innovation
load increases, the total quantity of dissolved oxygen in the Program for Graduate Education of China (No.
fuel increases too, but the capability of unit inert gas to dis- KYLX15_0231), Postgraduate Research & Practice Innova-
place dissolved oxygen is limited. tion Program of Jiangsu Province of China (No.
KYCX17_0279), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
5. Conclusions Central Universities, Aviation Industry Corporation of China
Technology Innovation Fund for Fundamental Research (No.
Experiments of aircraft fuel tank inerting processes have been 2014D60931R), and Funding of Ministry of Industry and
performed under different flow rates, fuel loads, and inert gas Information Technology for Civil Aircraft.
1524 L. SHAO et al.

References 14. Abramowitz A, Boris P. Characterization of an oxygen/nitrogen


permeable membrane system [Internet]. DOT/FAA/AR-95/91;
1. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). Fuel tank 1996 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/
harmonization working group final report [Internet]. 1998 [cited oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA308198.
2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ 15. Clodfelter RG, Anderson CL, Vannice WL. OBIGGS for fighter
EXECSUM.pdf. aircraft [Internet]. 1987 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from:
2. Federal Aviation Administration. Fuel tank flammability mini- https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/SAEOBIGGSPaper.pdf.
mization [Internet]. Advisory Circular No. 25.981-2A; 2008 [cited 16. Morris R, Miller J, Limaye S. Fuel deoxygenation and aircraft
2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ thermal management4th International Energy Conversion Engi-
systems/AC_25.981-2A.pdf. neering Conference and Exhibit (IECEC); 2006 Jun 26–29; San
3. Federal Aviation Administration. Fuel tank ignition source Diego, USA. p. 1–13.
prevention guidelines [Internet]. Advisory Circular No. 25.981- 17. Limaye S, Robertson S, Koeing D, Jung W. Development of a
1C; 2008 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: http://rgl.faa.gov/ ‘‘Green” on-board inert gas generation system [Internet]. 2007
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/
2e18582912a62df3862574cc00701c74/$FILE/AC%2025.981-1C. 2007conference/files/Fuel_Tank_Safety/ThursPM/LimayeGOBIGGS/
pdf. LimayeGOBIGGS-Pres.pdf.
4. Federal Aviation Administration. Fire protection: systems [Inter- 18. Walker S, Jung W, Robertson S. Demonstration of a novel
net]. Advisory Circular No. 25.869-1A; 2007 [cited 2017 May 24]. catalyst based green on board inert gas generation system
Available from: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ (GOBIGGS) for fuel tank inertingThe american helicopter society
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/cb062d61aebae766862573930067f578/ 69th annual forum; 2013 May 21-23; Phoenix, USA. Manas-
$FILE/AC%2025.869-1A.pdf. sas: AHS; 2013. p. 1–10.
5. Stewart PB, Starkman ES. Inerting conditions for aircraft fuel 19. Grenich AF, Tolle FF, Glenn GS, Yagle WJ. Design of on-board
tanks [Internet]. WADC Technical Report 55-418; 1955 [cited inert gas generation systems for military aircraftAIAA/AHS/
2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ ASEE aircraft design systems and operations meeting; 1984 Oct
systems/WADC_TR_55_418.pdf. 31–Nov 2; San Diego, USA. Reston: AIAA; 1984. p. 1–12.
6. Charles MP, Thomas H. A study of the blast and combustion 20. Burns M, Cavage WM. Inerting of a vented aircraft fuel tank test
over-pressure characteristics of the 23mm high explosive incendi- article with nitrogen-enriched air [Internet]. DOT/FAA/AR-01/6;
ary-tracer(HEI-T) [Internet]. 1980 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available 2001 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.
from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/systems/NWC_TP_7129.pdf. tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-6.pdf.
7. Anderson CL. Test and evaluation of halon 1301 and nitrogen 21. Cavage WM. The effect of fuel on an inert ullage in a commercial
inerting against 23mm HEI [Internet]. AFFDL-78-66; 1978 [cited transport airplane fuel tank [Internet]. DOT/FAA/AR-05/25; 2005
2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/
systems/AFFDL_TR_78_66.pdf. pdf/05-25.pdf.
8. Summer SM. Limiting oxygen concentration required to inert jet 22. Cai Y, Bu XQ, Lin GP, Sun B, Zeng Y, Li ZX. Experimental study
fuel vapors existing at reduced fuel tank pressures [Internet]. DOT/ of an aircraft fuel tank inerting system. Chin. J Aeronaut 2015;28
FAA/AR-TN02/79; 2002 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: (2):394–402.
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TN02-79.pdf. 23. Coordinating Research Council. Handbook of aviation fuel
9. Gann RG. Guidance for advanced fire suppression in aircraft. Fire properties—third edition. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of
Technol 2008;44(3):263–82. Automotive Engineers Publications Department; 2004. Report
10. Geffs T. Fuel tank inerting and fire fighting with liquid nitrogen. No.: AFRL-PR-WP-TR-2004-2127.
Fire Technol 1969;5(3):193–6. 24. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard
11. Cherry R, Warren K. A benefit analysis for nitrogen inerting of test method for estimation of solubility of gases in petroleum
aircraft fuel tanks against ground fire explosion [Internet]. DOT/ liquids. West Conshohocken: ASTM; 2002. Standard No.: ASTM
FAA/AR-99/73; 1999 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https:// D2779-92.
www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/99-73.pdf. 25. Birdi KS, Kleinitz W. Problems associated with dissolved atmo-
12. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). Fuel tank spheric oxygen in crude oil at production facilities. Oil Gas-Eur
inerting [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: Mag 1998;24(2):25–8.
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TG3.pdf. 26. Spadaccini LJ, Huang H. On-line fuel deoxygenation for coke
13. Cavage WM. The cost of implementing ground-based fuel tank suppressionProceedings of ASME TURBO EXPO; 2002 Jun 3–6;
inerting in the commercial fleet [Internet]. DOT/FAA/AR-00/19; Amsterdam, the Nethrlands. New York: ASME; 2002. p. 1–7.
2000 [cited 2017 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fire.
tc.faa.gov/pdf/00-19.pdf.

You might also like