Fuel Tank Inerting - Vent System
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Tank Inerting - Vent System
Can anyone help with providing a schematic of a Fuel Tank Venting system on an Aircraft which has been fitted with gas inerting? I understand that the vent system has been modified/re-designed to ensure that Nitrogen is not lost through the vent sysyem?
bizdev
bizdev
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep - and I am aware that BA's new 777's are fitted with the system. I have got schematics of the supply side (Nitrogen generation) but not of the new venting arrangement.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: CGK to HKG
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tank Venting
I do not have much data on the B777 venting layout but it is only the centre tank that has the system fitted.
An extract from the AMM suggests that this tank is closed off to venting except during refueling for fuel expansion.
The Nitrogen generation is in fact an oxygen reduction system that increases the percentage of nitrogen in a given volume.
TW
An extract from the AMM suggests that this tank is closed off to venting except during refueling for fuel expansion.
The cross vent check valve opens during overfuel conditions to relieve fuel tank pressure. The cross vent check valve is normally closed to prevent ambient air from going into the center tank.
The cross vent check valve opens during overfuel conditions to relieve fuel tank pressure. The cross vent check valve is normally closed to prevent ambient air from going into the center tank.
The cross vent check valve opens during overfuel conditions to relieve fuel tank pressure. The cross vent check valve is normally closed to prevent ambient air from going into the center tank.
The Nitrogen Generation System (NGS) reduces the oxygen content of the air mixture in the center tank to a level which will not support combustion.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have access to any specific information per type or design. However, the AMM statements regarding the cross vent check valve and ambient air are a bit baffling, and perhaps even mis-stated by the Boeing tech writers. More information on the center tank venting design may be necessary.
While climbing, the tank must be able to vent overboard to maintain ambient pressure. If you seal it up, there will be a serious problem with structure in fairly short order. Likewise, during descent, it must be able to draw air in so that ambient pressure can be maintained. Finally, as the fuel volume decreases, air must be introduced to fill the volume.
Unless the design concepts have changed, (and I haven't been involved with this for a number of years), the nitrogen is introduced in order to reduce the oxygen content to around 10 to 15%, which pretty well negates combustion. The problem with the nitrogen supply is that one needs to have enough to replenish the ullage during the climb/descent dynamics. This was one reason the military nitrogen systems that we first looked at were considered inadequate, as they provided nitrogen only during the short periods of combat exposure, not during a long haul flight.
I can see a system which is closed while the pressure differential between tank ullage and outside is static, such as on the ramp. But in the end, there is no way to really trap the nitrogen throughout the flight regime without introducing the enormous problems associated with a pressure vessel as a fuel tank...
While climbing, the tank must be able to vent overboard to maintain ambient pressure. If you seal it up, there will be a serious problem with structure in fairly short order. Likewise, during descent, it must be able to draw air in so that ambient pressure can be maintained. Finally, as the fuel volume decreases, air must be introduced to fill the volume.
Unless the design concepts have changed, (and I haven't been involved with this for a number of years), the nitrogen is introduced in order to reduce the oxygen content to around 10 to 15%, which pretty well negates combustion. The problem with the nitrogen supply is that one needs to have enough to replenish the ullage during the climb/descent dynamics. This was one reason the military nitrogen systems that we first looked at were considered inadequate, as they provided nitrogen only during the short periods of combat exposure, not during a long haul flight.
I can see a system which is closed while the pressure differential between tank ullage and outside is static, such as on the ramp. But in the end, there is no way to really trap the nitrogen throughout the flight regime without introducing the enormous problems associated with a pressure vessel as a fuel tank...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current systems, well, at least the one fitted on 737s since around 2006, constantly generates nitrogen, or rather reduces O2 out of normal bleed air and vents that into the center tank. So you do not need to carry nitrogen, there is more than enough in normal air.
Sadly i don't have any access to the AMM as i'm just a pilot and we don't get that usually. So i cannot post any schematics about that system here. Just know there is a panel in the wheel which shows a green, amber and red light, green means operational, amber degraded or temporarily serviceable, red u/s. Oh, and a placard warning that with the system operational there might be a low oxygen content in there and one should be cautious.
What we get in documentation is only:
Sadly i don't have any access to the AMM as i'm just a pilot and we don't get that usually. So i cannot post any schematics about that system here. Just know there is a panel in the wheel which shows a green, amber and red light, green means operational, amber degraded or temporarily serviceable, red u/s. Oh, and a placard warning that with the system operational there might be a low oxygen content in there and one should be cautious.
What we get in documentation is only:
Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)
The NGS converts bleed air to nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) during all phases of
flight. The NEA is delivered to the center fuel tank to reduce flammability of the tank. The operation of the NGS is transparent to the flight crew; it does not require any flight crew action to operate the system, nor are there any flight deck indications. The NGS automatically starts operating after take-off and runs continuously through climb, cruise, descent, landing and during taxi for a short period of time. The NGS shuts down after a specified period of time or when bleed pressure is no longer available. The NGS also automatically shuts down during the following non-normal flight conditions:
• Aircraft on the ground and not in test mode
• Either engine is not running in flight
• Fire or smoke detection in the cargo or main deck areas
• Left air conditioning pack overheat
• Center tank refueling valve is open
The fuel tanks are primarily protected by precluding ignition sources; hence
dispatch with the NGS inoperative is acceptable under MEL procedures. The NGS has an operability indicator located in the main wheel well adjacent to
the APU fire control panel.
The NGS converts bleed air to nitrogen-enriched air (NEA) during all phases of
flight. The NEA is delivered to the center fuel tank to reduce flammability of the tank. The operation of the NGS is transparent to the flight crew; it does not require any flight crew action to operate the system, nor are there any flight deck indications. The NGS automatically starts operating after take-off and runs continuously through climb, cruise, descent, landing and during taxi for a short period of time. The NGS shuts down after a specified period of time or when bleed pressure is no longer available. The NGS also automatically shuts down during the following non-normal flight conditions:
• Aircraft on the ground and not in test mode
• Either engine is not running in flight
• Fire or smoke detection in the cargo or main deck areas
• Left air conditioning pack overheat
• Center tank refueling valve is open
The fuel tanks are primarily protected by precluding ignition sources; hence
dispatch with the NGS inoperative is acceptable under MEL procedures. The NGS has an operability indicator located in the main wheel well adjacent to
the APU fire control panel.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vent System
I do not know the changes that have been made to the vent syste. My understanding is that it impedes the airflow from one wing tip to the other. Vent is necessary for the vented fuel tank to allow one cfm of ullage mixture to veent out when one cfm of NEA is supplied to the fuel tank. If there wasw not one the fuel tank will get pressurized and structural damage may occur.
I think a better system is a inerting system that does not use an inert gas. This is described in SAE aper 2009-01-3134. It cn be downloadedfrom SAE website. It requires no modification of the vent system and does not discharge hydo carbon laden ullage gas. There are other advantagess too. I strongly suggest review of the paper "Method and System for fuel tank inerting without an inert gas."
I think a better system is a inerting system that does not use an inert gas. This is described in SAE aper 2009-01-3134. It cn be downloadedfrom SAE website. It requires no modification of the vent system and does not discharge hydo carbon laden ullage gas. There are other advantagess too. I strongly suggest review of the paper "Method and System for fuel tank inerting without an inert gas."
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel tank Inerting- Vent System
In a vented fuel tank the vent has to be open at all times.
1. To discharge hydrocarbon laden ullage gas when the inerting system i operating. A cubic feet of ullage mixture has to vent out for each cubic feet of NEA supplied to the tank.
2. To discharge ullage moxture during climb to depressurize the tank so the tank remains at the same pressure as outside ambient
3. To repressurizethe tank during descent when the outside pressure increases.
I can not think any instant or reason when the vent will not be allowed to do its intended job; vent ullage mixture out or to allow outside air in.
I think the vent modification is to minimize flow through the tanks from one wing tip vent to the other.
Hope the above helps.
1. To discharge hydrocarbon laden ullage gas when the inerting system i operating. A cubic feet of ullage mixture has to vent out for each cubic feet of NEA supplied to the tank.
2. To discharge ullage moxture during climb to depressurize the tank so the tank remains at the same pressure as outside ambient
3. To repressurizethe tank during descent when the outside pressure increases.
I can not think any instant or reason when the vent will not be allowed to do its intended job; vent ullage mixture out or to allow outside air in.
I think the vent modification is to minimize flow through the tanks from one wing tip vent to the other.
Hope the above helps.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Automobiles of ancient age used exhaust to pressurize the fuel tank, as they didn't have reliable fuel pumps. It had the side benefit of rendering the ullage non flammable. I have such a system in my Model T Ford, which is my daily driver.
Would routing exhaust into the main cabin be practical for starving a fire in a freighter, such as the UPS 747 out of Dubai?
GB
Would routing exhaust into the main cabin be practical for starving a fire in a freighter, such as the UPS 747 out of Dubai?
GB
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would routing exhaust into the main cabin be practical for starving a fire in a freighter, such as the UPS 747 out of Dubai?
I cannot give specific figures but in the case of Concorde, there was sufficient oxygen in the exhaust gas to enable the reheat to be used.
The Concorde fuel tanks were pressurised at altitude. I am wondering if the Concorde had still been flying today whether the FAA would have wanted/insisted it to have an NGS fitted.
Last edited by keel beam; 29th Sep 2010 at 06:15. Reason: additional info
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inerting a Freighter or Cargo airplane
You are right the compartments of a freighter can be inerted by using a gas that has low concentration of oxygen. It can be any gas or a mixture of gases. Engine exhaust would qualify. If engine exhaust is used then the exhaust will require some sort of treatment to ensure that it does not react with the materials of construction of the freighter and also with the cargo. You will not need much of this gas as there is no requirement of any minimum ventilation. However note that you will not be able to carry animal cargo (pigs, chicken, etc.) in an inerted compartment. Also, precautions will be necessary during cargo loading and unloading. Low oxygen content atmosphere can create asphyxiation hazard.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply, PE. Is there a level of O2 content that would not asphyxiate, but yet not support combustion? Yeh, I know the processes are the same, but at different rates. Seems worthwhile for the package carriers to study.
GB
GB
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not the oxygen concentration that determines when hypoxic conditions may occur. It is oxygen partial pressure. At 10,000 feet altitude some people brcome hypoxic at oxygen concentration of 21%. I do not think you can carry animals in conditions (oxygen concentrations) that are necessary for fire suppression. Operators loose a lot of animals when the halon fire suppression system is discharged. Halon concentration is very low (3-4%) for fire suppresion.
For a true package transporter it may be worthwhile to have the cargo compartment unpressurized. This may not be good for some electrical or electronic equipment or for cargo that is temperature or altitude sensitive.
For a true package transporter it may be worthwhile to have the cargo compartment unpressurized. This may not be good for some electrical or electronic equipment or for cargo that is temperature or altitude sensitive.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flammability Reduction System is far superior than a Fuel Tank inerting system. It is based on the principle that lean fuel air mixtures do not ignite. The fuel air mixture can be rendered lean by several methods. Cooling the ullage mixture outside the fuel tank to condense out fuel vapors is a very simple method. The condensed fuel is returned back to the fuel tank and the chilled ullage mixture is returned back to the fuel tank. The cooling can be done by an inexpensive air cooler. Cold ambient air in flight helps maintain the fuel tank non-flammable. The fuel burn penalty of the system is low, the weight is low and it is safer than a nitrogen system. No vent system modification is necessary and the system does not exhaust out hydrocarbon vapors that may be carciogenic. Suggest you read about it on SAE web site, "Method and system for making a fuel tank inert without an inert gas."
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NGS Operation
Very interesting.
Sitting in the cockpit you have no idea what the system is doing and what is the state of the fuel tank.
What good is this system?
It pollutes outside air with fuel vapors as it exhausts ullage gases.
Please tell me why one would select such a system for one's airplane or one's fleet. I have failed to find one good reason. It is NOT required by law. Other methods, better and cheaper, are available.
If you know of a good reason, PLEASE POST
Sitting in the cockpit you have no idea what the system is doing and what is the state of the fuel tank.
What good is this system?
It pollutes outside air with fuel vapors as it exhausts ullage gases.
Please tell me why one would select such a system for one's airplane or one's fleet. I have failed to find one good reason. It is NOT required by law. Other methods, better and cheaper, are available.
If you know of a good reason, PLEASE POST
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes Honeywell a whole load of money with extortionately priced consumable items in the system.
Want to replace those clogged Air Seperation Modules each D check , just bend over here and insert wallet.
Maybe a cynical view but the system is in the MEL as 120 days allowable INOP at the moment which really says it's not that important to the safety of the aircraft.
Someone is making a whole lot of money out of forcing this system through.
Want to replace those clogged Air Seperation Modules each D check , just bend over here and insert wallet.
Maybe a cynical view but the system is in the MEL as 120 days allowable INOP at the moment which really says it's not that important to the safety of the aircraft.
Someone is making a whole lot of money out of forcing this system through.