Updated Experimental Investigation of the NexGen and ......NexGen or Propane burner. • When heat flux is matched, burn-through time with the NexGen burner closely matches that of

Updated Experimental Investigation of the

NexGen and Propane Burner

Fire Test Center

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

May 10th, 2017

Samir Tambe, Ryan Hasselbeck, and San-Mou Jeng

Project Overview

● Project Objective:

– Quantify the effect of fuel flow rate on burn-through and back side temperature

– Draw comparisons between the NexGen and Propane burner, for various test

article sizes and test conditions.

● Previously Presented Work

– Effect of Burner setup and calibration TC size

– Sensitivity of Burner to air and fuel flow rates and temperatures

– Effect of burner orientation on performance

– Comparison of fire test results between NexGen and Gas burners

● Recent Developments

– Study of Flame Retention Heads (FRH) and Delavan fuel nozzles

– Burner sensitivity to operating conditions

– Burner sensitivity to assembly tolerances

– Sensitivity to inclination and test set-up

– Study of ignitorless stator configuration, comparison with FRH configuration

Effect of Fuel Flow Rate on Burn-Through

and Back Side Temperature

Overview

• Two fuel nozzles tested:

• Delevan, 80 Degree, Type W, 2.5 GPH

• Delevan, 80 Degree, Type W, 2.0 GPH

• Two nozzles were used to reach a larger range of fuel flow rates (1.75 – 2.8 gph)

than is achievable from one nozzle alone.

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

50 70 90 110 130

Flo

w R

ate

(gp

h)

Fuel Pressure (psi)

Flow Rate vs Pressure - 2.0 vs 2.5 GPH Nozzle

2.0 GPH Nozzle

2.5 GPH Nozzle

2.5 GPH Nozzle – Flow Rate Variation

• Temperature decreases, as expected, with

a decreasing fuel flow rate.

• Burn-Through time increases with a

decreasing fuel flow rate, as expected. The

trend is not linear.

1755 1847 1897 1917 2011 2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tim

e (s

ec)

1" Temperature vs Fuel Flow Rate - 2.5 GPH Nozzle

2.00 gph

2.15 gph

2.25 gph

2.50 gph

2.70 gph

2.80 gph

515

280237

160140 121

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tim

e (s

ec)

Burn Through Time vs Fuel Flow Rate -2.5 GPH Nozzle

2.00 gph

2.15 gph

2.25 gph

2.50 gph

2.70 gph

2.80 gph

0

500

1000

1500

0 60 120

Tem

per

atu

re (

F)

Test Time (s)

2.50 GPH Nozzle Comparison, Various Flow Rates

2.0 GPH

2.15 GPH

2.25 GPH

2.5 GPH

2.7 GPH

2.8 GPH

2.0 GPH Nozzle – Flow Rate Variation

• Temperature decreases, as expected, with

a decreasing fuel flow rate.

• Burn-Through time increases with a

decreasing fuel flow rate, as expected. The

trend is not linear.

1830 1867 1905 1950

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tim

e (s

ec)

1" Temperature vs Fuel Flow Rate - 2.0 GPH Nozzle

1.75 gph

2.00 gph

2.15 gph

2.25 gph

670

355

257212

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Tim

e (s

ec)

Burn Through Time vs Fuel Flow Rate - 2.0 GPH Nozzle

1.75 gph

2.00 gph

2.15 gph

2.25 gph

0

500

1000

1500

0 60 120

Tem

per

atu

re (

F)

Test Time (s)

2.0 GPH Nozzle Comparison, Various Flow Rates

1.75 GPH

2.0 GPH

2.15 GPH

2.25 GPH

2.5 vs 2.0 GPH Nozzle Comparison

• Fuel pressure of different nozzles has an

observable effect on performance,

regardless if flow rates are equivalent.

355

515

0

75

150

225

300

375

450

525

600

Tim

e (s

ec)

Burn Through Time -- 2.0 GPH Flow

2.0 GPH Nozzle

2.5 GPH Nozzle

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Tim

e (s

ec)

1" Temperature -- 2.0 GPH Flow

2.0 GPH Nozzle

2.5 GPH Nozzle

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 120 240

Tem

per

atu

re (

F)

Test Time (s)

Backside Temperature -- 2.0 GPH Flow

2.0 gph nozzle

2.5 gph nozzle

2.0 GPH nozzle operated at 116 psi

2.5 GPH nozzle operated at 65 psi

2.5 vs 2.0 GPH Nozzle Comparison

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tim

e (s

ec)

1" Temperature -- 2.25 GPH Flow

2.0 GPH Nozzle

2.5 GPH Nozzle

212

237

0

75

150

225

300

Tim

e (s

ec)

Burn Through Time -- 2.25 GPH Flow

2.0 GPH Nozzle

2.5 GPH Nozzle

• This effect of fuel pressure is repeatable

over a range of fuel flow rates.0

500

1000

1500

0 120 240

Tem

per

atu

re (

F)

Test Time (s)

Backside Temperature -- 2.25 GPH Flow

2.0 gph nozzle

2.5 gph nozzle

2.0 GPH nozzle operated at 142 psi

2.5 GPH nozzle operated at 86 psi

Side Study: Burner Cone Age

• Burner operated at same fuel pressure and

flow rate.

• As a burner cone is ‘broken in’, the fuel flow

required to reach 2000 degrees decreases

some.

145 146

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tim

e (s

ec)

Burn Through Time vs Burner Cone

Old Cone

New Cone

2048 1971

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tim

e (s

ec)

1" Temperature vs Burner Cone

Old Cone

New Cone

14.2 13.9

0

5

10

15

Tim

e (s

ec)

1" Heat Flux vs Burner Cone

Old Cone

New Cone

Summary

• Burner performance is highly dependent on fuel flow rate. Calibration

temperature, back-side temperature rise, and burn-through time are all impacted

by fuel flow rate, though the impact is not linear.

• Fuel nozzles of different flow ratings will not perform equivalently, when operated

at equivalent fuel flow rates.

• Though burn-through times are not effected by the cone alone, the calibration of

the burner (rather, the fuel input required to achieve 2000 F) will depend on the

age of the cone.

• Note: A burn-through time of 5 minutes was achieved at fuel flow input of 2.15

GPH (2.5 GPH Nozzle).

NexGen and Propane Comparison

Overview of Set-Up

NexGen Burner: Panel Set-Up

8x8x0.125” 12x12x0.125”

24x24x0.125”

Propane Burner: Panel Set-Up

8x8x0.125” 24x24x0.125”

12x12x0.125”

Burnthrough Results

8” Panels

Burnthrough Comparison

Burner Temperature (F) Heat Flux (BTU/ft*s) Burnthrough (s)

Propane 2067 9.8 295

NexGen (55 psi) 1712 9.7 445

NexGen (100 psi) 1910 13.4 147

8" Panels

• Flame is fully able to wrap

around panel, for both the

NexGen and Propane

burners.

• When heat flux is

matched, NexGen burner

takes significantly longer

for burnthrough. Likely an

effect of gravity (panel is

horizontal for vertical

propane burner, vs vertical

panel for horizontal

NexGen).

295 445 147

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Bu

rnth

rou

gh T

ime

(s)

Propane NexGen (55 psi) NexGen (100 psi)

8” Panels

Propane Burner NexGen Burner

55 psiNexGen Burner

100 psi

12” Panels

Burnthrough Comparison• Flame is unable to wrap

around for either

NexGen or Propane

burner.

• When heat flux is

matched, NexGen

burner takes

significantly longer for

burnthrough, as with the

8” panels.

• Burnthrough time with

the NexGen burner

does not increase

linearly with increasing

fuel pressure.

445 908 174 1430

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Bu

rnth

rou

gh T

ime

(s)

Propane NexGen (55 psi) NexGen (85 psi) NexGen (100 psi)

Burner Temperature (F) Heat Flux (BTU/ft*s) Burnthrough (s)

Propane 2057 9.6 445

NexGen (55 psi) 1696 9.7 908

NexGen (100 psi) 1909 12.3 143

NexGen (85 psi) 1850 11.5 174

12" Panels

12” Panels

NexGen Burner

55 psi

Propane BurnerNexGen Burner

100 psi

24” Panels

Burnthrough Comparison

• Flame is unable to wrap

around for either

NexGen or Propane

burner.

• When heat flux is

matched, burn-through

time with the NexGen

burner closely matches

that of the propane

burner. 464 438 120

0

100

200

300

400

500

Bu

rnth

rou

gh T

ime

(s)

24" Panel Comparison

Propane NexGen (55 psi) NexGen (100 psi)

Burner Temperature (F) Heat Flux (BTU/ft*s) Burnthrough (s)

Propane 2069 9.8 464

NexGen (55 psi) 1717 9.2 438

NexGen (100 psi) 1934 12.7 120

24" Panels

24” Panels

Propane Burner

NexGen Burner

Vertical NexGen vs Propane Burner

Comparison

Vertical NexGen Burner Set-Up

Panels were suspended 4” above the burner cone and

sandwiched around the edges, exactly as they were using the

propane burner.

Burn-Through Results

295 171 445 174 464 125

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Burner Comparison - Vertical Orientation

Propane

NexGen

8" Panels 12" Panels 24" Panels

• Temperature and Heat

Flux were matched

between both burners

as closely as was

possible.

• For all test article sizes,

the NexGen burner

yielded significantly

lower burn-through

times.

• Note: for both burners,

the flame was able to

wrap around the 8”

panels. Burner (Vertical) Temperature (F) Heat Flux (BTU/ft*s) Burn-Through (s)

Propane 2067 9.8 295

NexGen 1981 10.8 171

Propane 2057 9.6 445

NexGen 2014 10.7 174

Propane 2069 9.8 464

NexGen 1993 10.8 125

8" Panels

12" Panels

24" Panels

Post Test Pictures

8x8x0.125”12x12x0.125”24x24x0.125”

Summary

• With the larger 24x24” panels, when the heat flux is closely matched, the

burn-through performance of both burners is nearly equivalent.

• With both burners operated vertically, and at similar calibration results, the

NexGen burner is more severe than the propane burner.