Upload
hanhi
View
232
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fuel System Field Performance Using Particle Counters
Presented by: Matt [email protected]:+44 7530 464984
2
Pass/Fail Limits
Contaminant limit
Location
Contaminant limit
Authority CommentsWater Particulate
Refinery production Clear and bright 1,0 mg/l DEF STAN. 91-91,JIG AFQRJOS
No quantitative limit for water
Clear and bright ASTM D 1655
Distribution system Clear and bright
0,5 mg/l Kinder Morgan pipeline
1,0 mg/l MIL-DTL-83133(JP8/JP8+100) US Air Force
1,0 mg/l MIL-DTL-5624 (JP4/JP5) US Navy
Airportinto-storage 2,2 mg/l Canadian GSB 3.23-2005
Into-plane
Clear and bright
IATA Guidance Material
After-fuelling check
30 ppm 1,0 mg/lRejection limit for monthly equipment check
Clear and bright 0,44 mg/l Canadian GSB 3.23-2012
15 ppm (maximum allowable)
A2, B2, and G2 (Dry)A3, B3, and G3 (wet)0,5 mg/l
ATA 103Colorimetric interpretation of a gravimetric membrane
3
How can we effectively ensure in field performance qualified filters and systems?• Current technology limitations -
• Monthly Millipore & AquaGlo – Spot Check/Sporadic contamination in clean systems
• Lab work required – Delay in obtaining results• Sampling integrity issues – 1 lt or 5 lt? Time?• Burst membranes• Subjective testing, lack of real definition• Negative results• Poor repeatabilitySo:
• Is particle counting a solution? • Can we correlate with existing methods?
Gravimetric ReviewAdvantages of APC technology – or – Disadvantages of current methods
Current Method Limitations:
The eye can only detect particles >40 microns (30 micron(c)) unless present in very large amounts.
Gravimetric is not available in real time and sometimes is erratic and is non-informative in terms of condition monitoring.
Filtration time requires a laboratory environment.
Nobody knows where the current contamination limits come from – where is the technical justification?
Control Membrane, C
Working Membrane, W
1 USG Sample
Or at least record the volumethat does go through
GRAVIMETRIC
Both are1mg/l !!!!
Or are they?
0.5mg/l
4
5
EI-1581 Element Test Procedure
Test Description Contamination Loading
Flow Rate
Time Run Test Intervals Comments
Stop/Start 4 second Cycle - 1-2 close, 1-2 Open
Media Migration Clean Fuel 3 GPM 30 mins 30 Element ConditioningLow Water Conditioning 100 ppm Water 30 GPM 30 mins 5 10 20 30 Element Wetting
Solids Addition 19mg/lt A1/RIO (90/10) 30 GPM 75 mins 15 30 45 60 75 Solids Loading
Low Water Test 100 ppm Water 30 GPM 150 mins 2 5 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 Wetting prior to HighWater Test
3% Water 30 GPM 30 mins 2 5 10 20 30 High Water Test
Tests Run Comments
D2276 Gravimetric Test taken either side of Stop/Start. Avg result
D3240 AquaGlo Test taken after resuming steady flowIP564 - Particle Count
APC taken during stop/start. Avg of 3 tests
Test performed on:Filter AFilter BFilter C
6
Filter ATEST
SEQUENCETIME
(DOWNSTREAM) CHANNEL COUNTS/mL ISO CODES 4 channel code 2276 RESULTS AQUAGLO (DOWNSTREAM)
Solid
s Cap
acity
4.3
.2.6
15 MIN
4 12.3 11
11/9/4/01st) -0.55mg/L 2nd) 0.00mg/L
Average -.275mg/LN/A
6 4.7 914 0.1 430 0.0 0
45 MIN
4 9.7 10
10/9/6/01st) 0.00mg/L 2nd) -0.05mg/L
Average -0.025mg/LN/A
6 3.7 914 0.4 630 0.0 0
60 MIN
4 5.1 10
10/8/0/01st) 0.00mg/L 2nd) 0.05mg/L
Average 0.025mg/LN/A
6 1.6 814 0.0 030 0.0 0
Low
Wat
er 4
.3.2
.7.1
15 MIN
4 18.0 11
4/6/14/0 N/A 16 6.6 1014 0.4 630 0.0 0
30 MIN (Upstream)
4 82782.5 99
99/99/21/14 N/A 16 60001.3 9914 12167.6 2130 93.2 14
135 MIN
4 25.2 12
4/6/14/4 N/A 1.56 10.0 1014 1.1 730 0.1 4
7
Field Data – Major International Airport
MF
FWS
Airport storage
To Hydrant/Refueller
FWS
0.10.31.213.3779.92172.0
>30µ(c)>25µ(c)>21µ(c)>14µ(c)>6µ(c)>4µ(c)
0.22.85.617.2300.4745.6
>30µ(c)>25µ(c)>21µ(c)>14µ(c)>6µ(c)>4µ(c)
0.00.00.00.111.454.6
>30µ(c)>25µ(c)>21µ(c)>14µ(c)>6µ(c)>4µ(c)
0.00.00.10.131.1225.8
>30µ(c)>25µ(c)>21µ(c)>14µ(c)>6µ(c)>4µ(c)
0.00.00.00.91.78.5
>30µ(c)>25µ(c)>21µ(c)>14µ(c)>6µ(c)>4µ(c)
0.10.20.51.112.557.1
>30µ(c)>25µ(c)>21µ(c)>14µ(c)>6µ(c)>4µ(c)
ISO CODE
18/17/11
17/15/11
13/11/00
15/12/00
10/08/07
13/11/07
β = 2.6 = 66% efficient
β = 13 = 93% efficient
β = 26 = 96% efficient
17
8
Spider Plate Alignment…can lift elements off their seats!
9
KAF – Supreme System Summary
Maximum Particle Count Test Data - KAF
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Coun
ts P
er/m
l
>4µ
>6µ
>14µ
>21µ
>25µ
>30µ
Fuel Delivery @ FARP, Into Aircraft - Rotary Wing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Coun
ts Pe
r/ml
>4µ
>6µ
>14µ
>21µ
>25µ
>30µ
Truck Download
Post DoD Download
Filter
MBFI Storage Bladder
Post DoD Upload Filter
Post API Upload Filter
Delivery Refueller
Sump
FARP Storage FARP Upload
• >48,000 counts Download
• Continual product cleanliness from receipt to delivery
• As low as 1 count >4µ Per/ml as upload into Aircraft
• 99.9% reduction in solid contamination
• World class system performance and cleanliness
• Particle Counting will only help maintain and improve system efficiency and performance
10
Tank Storage settling? Is it good to go NOW!
11
Ship Off-loading
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
0 10 20 30 40Average Micron (C)
% Volum
e Distrib
ution
Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4Test 5Test 6Test 7
Laboratory & Field Data – Major International Airport>4µ >6µ >14µ >21µ >25µ >30µ
Test 1 81058.3 62127.1 17817.6 6066.2 2477.4 474.2
Test 2 87834.5 74763.0 35454.1 18044.4 10277.7 3651.9
Test 3 51383.4 32796.9 4424.8 1213.4 440.5 81.1
Test 4 1593.3 422.7 9.6 1.7 0.5 0.1Test 5 1226.1 261.5 2.4 0.4 0.1 0.1Test 6 1085.7 210.9 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
Test 7 1037.9 198.7 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
First 3 measurements represent fuel from a previous cargo followed by a regular clean delivery, thus demonstrating the range of fuel cleanliness being experienced at this particular location.
12
Proposed Limits!
13
Do our systems meet these specifications and should we continue to rely on Gravimetric?
14
Acknowledgements
• Joel Schmitigal – US ARMY TARDEC• Gary Bessee – SwRI• Dr Anthony Kitson-Smith, CloudsNet
Thank You! Questions?