Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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. 4 Comparison of oxygen concentrations over time for different gas compositions (ullage washing, fuel load: 50%,
flow rate: 0.1 L/min).
Fig. 5 Comparison of oxygen concentrations over time for different flow rates (ullage washing, fuel load: 50%).
Fig. 6 Comparison of the oxygen concentrations over time for different fuel loads (ullage washing, flow rate: 0.1 L/min).
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%).
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).
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.