international space station alpha trace contaminant control … · 2013-08-30 · nasa technical...
Post on 03-May-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NASA Technical Memorandum 108488
International Space Station AlphaTrace Contaminant Control SubassemblyLife Test Final ReportJ.D. TataraION Electronics ,, Huntsville, Alabama
and
J.L. Perry
Marshall Space Flight Center ,, MSFC, Alabama
National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMarshall Space Flight Center ° MSFC, Alabama 35812
March 1995
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19950019944 2020-05-03T19:13:16+00:00Z
SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
ACRONYMS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Test Background and Description
1.2 Report Format
1.2.1 Graph Descriptions
2.0 TEST SUMMARIES
2.1 Test Weeks 1-33
2,1.1 Performance (Weeks 1-33)
2.2 Test Weeks 34-47
2,2.1 Performance (Weeks 34-47)
2.3 Test Weeks 47-60
2.3.1 Performance (Weeks 47-60)
2.4 Test Weeks 61-72
2,4,1 Performance (Weeks (61-72)
2.5 Test Weeks 73-86
2.5,1 Performance (Weeks 73-86)
2.6 Test Weeks 86-99
2.6.1 Performance (Weeks 86-99)
2.7 Test Weeks 100-114
2.7.1 Performance (Weeks 100-114)
TEST CONCLUSIONS3.0
iii
PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT RIMED
iv
vi
1
1
4
4
5
6
14
15
22
23
30
31
38
39
46
47
54
55
62
63
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
1.0-13.0-13.0-2
Life Test Responsibilities
Sample Numbers and Corresponding DatesSample Numbers and Corresponding Dates
FIGURES
1.0-11.1 -1
2.1 -12.1 -22.1 -32.1-42.1 -5
2.1 -62.1.1 -12.2-12.2-22.2-32.2-42.2-52.2-62.2.1-12.3-12.3-22,3-32.3-42.3-52.3-62.3.1 -12.4-12.4-22.4-32.4-42.4-5
2,4-62,4.1 -1
2.5-12.5-22.5-32.5-4
2.5-52.5-62.5,1-1
TCCS Life Test Gantt ChartTCCS Schematic
JF02: Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateJF04: Methane Bleed Rate
JT03: Pre Oxidizer TemperatureJT04: Catalytic Oxidizer TemperatureJT05: Post Oxidizer TemperatureFT01: High Bay Temperature
Oxidation Efficiency (1 33 Summary)JF02: Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateJF04: Methane Bleed Rate
JT03: Pre Oxidizer TemperatureJT04: Catalytic Oxidizer TemperatureJT05: Post Oxidizer TemperatureFT01: High Bay Temperature
Oxidation Efficiency (34 - 47 Summary)JF02: Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateJF04: Methane Bleed Rate
JT03: Pre Oxidizer TemperatureJT04: Catalytic Oxidizer TemperatureJT05: Post Oxidizer TemperatureFT01: High Bay Temperature
Oxidation Efficiency (47 - 60 Summary)JF02: Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateJF04: Methane Bleed Rate
JT03: Pre Oxidizer Temperature
JT04: Catalytic Oxidizer TemperatureJT05: Post Oxidizer TemperatureFT01: High Bay Temperature
Oxidation Efficiency (61 72 Summary)JF02:JF04:JT03:JT04:JT05:FT01 :Oxidation
Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateMethane Bleed Rate
Pre Oxidizer TemperatureCatalytic Oxidizer TemperaturePost Oxidizer TemperatureHigh Bay Temperature
Efficiency (73 - 86 Summary)
PAGE
16465
PAGE
238910
11121314
1617181920212224252627
28293O323334353637384O41424344
4546
V
PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (continued)
FIGURES
2.6-1 JF02:2.6-2 JF04:2.6-3 JT03:2.6-4 JT04:2.6-5 JT05:
Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateMethane Bleed RatePre Oxidizer TemperatureCatalytic Oxidizer TemperaturePost Oxidizer Temperature
2.6-6 FT01: High Bay Temperature2.6.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (86 - 99 Summary)2.7-1 JF02: Oxidizer Low Leg Flow Rate2.7-2 JF04: Methane Bleed Rate2.7-3 JT03: Pre Oxidizer Temperature2.7-4 JT04: Catalytic Oxldizer Temperature2.7-5 JT05: Post Oxidizer Temperature2.7-6 FT01: High Bay Temperature2.7.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (100 - 114 Summary)3.0-1 Overall Oxidation Efficiency (Lab Analyses)3.0-2 Overall Oxidation Efficiency (In-line Analyzer)
PAGE
48495051525354565758596061626465
v±
ACCECLSSED62EL65ELTPFIDFT01GCHTCOIONISSAJF04JT03JT04JT05MDL
ppmvQCRTVSCATSSCFMSCIMTCCSTCD
ACRONYMS
Analytical Control CoordinatorEnvironmental Control and Life Support SystemsStructures and Dynamics Laboratory, Life Support Systems BranchSystems Analysis and Integration Laboratory, Development Test BranchECLSS Life Test ProgramFlame Ionization Detector
High Bay Temperature SensorGas ChromatographHigh Temperature Catalytic OxidizerION Electronics Inc.
International Space Station AlphaTCCS Lower Leg Flow Rate SensorPre Catalytic Oxidizer Temperature SensorCatalytic Oxidizer Temperature SensorPost Catalytic Oxidizer Temperature SensorMethod Detection Limit
Parts Per Million by VolumeQuality ControlRubber Sealant CompoundSystem Components Automated Test SystemStandard Cubic Feet per MinuteStandard Cubic Inches per MinuteTrace Contaminant Control SubassemblyThermal Conductivity Sensor
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Life TestProgram (ELTP) began with Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly (TCCS) LifeTesting on November 9, 1992, at 0745 (Figure 1.0-1). TCCS Life Testing endedsuccessfully on January 17, 1995. Test data and operator log book entries weregathered and evaluated daily by ION Electronics (ION) personnel. Weekly andquarterly reports were prepared to document test progress and were distributed toNASA ELTP Test Engineers (Table 1.0-1). Formal and informal review meetingswere held between representatives of ION, ED62, and EL65.
Table 1.0-1 Life Test Responsibilities
Subsystem ION ED62
TCCS Jim Tatara* Jay Perry*
* Overall Life test lead
EL65
Darlene Springer*
Dale Armstrong
The purpose of the test, as stated in the NASA document entitled Requirements forTrace Contaminant Control Subassembly High Temperature Catalytic Oxidizer LifeTesting (Revision A), was to "provide for the long duration operation of the ECLSSTCCS [High Temperature Catalytic Oxidizer] HTCO at normal operating conditions...[and thus].., to determine the useful life of ECLSS hardware for use on long durationmanned space missions. Specifically, the test was designed to demonstrate thermalstability of the catalyst." An investigation, separate from the Life Test, is looking at theeffects of catalyst poisoning, and recovery. A separate report will be issued uponcompletion of the study.
The following sections detail TCCS operation and stability. Graphs are included to aidin evaluating trend analyses and subsystem anomalies. This final report summarizesactivities through January 17, 1995 (Test Day 762).
1.1 Test Background and Description
A TCCS utilizing a 0.5% palladium on alumina catalyst (3.175 mm pellets) isscheduled for use on the ISSA for oxidizing trace organics in cabin air, yieldingprimarily C© 2 and H20. These products will be removed from the airstream, by other
ECLSS components, prior to the airstream's reentry into the cabin atmosphere. Theorganics to be oxidized will be introduced into the cabin as human metabolic products,and through off-gassing of materials used in ISSA construction.
TCCS Life Testing utilized hardware previously used during the Skylabprogram. The axial fan and the low leg blower were both refurbished by the vendorprior to the beginning of the test. The HTCO was fitted with additional thermocouplesto more efficiently monitor internal temperatures. The flight-like test hardware was theHTCO assembly, and the palladium on alumina catalyst found within the HTCOhousing. A TCCS simplified schematic is shown in Figure 1.1-1.
2
) ) _ i i
0
e-
ra_,1,mI-
Qm
m_
m
U.
AIR FM1
VACUUM
CONNECTIONEVACUUM
GAGE
DP1
......... Qw_
(JPO I )
,/FIXED K,
BV2
6
I !Regenerable Carbon
Bed (Unpacked)
AXIAL FAN T
BV1
CENTRIFUGAL
T
iOH Sorbent
Methane i'l Bed (,Inbleed
Port
(Life Test)
LEGEND (JP02)
4_) LiOHeS;rbent _!
(FT01)
(JF01) OUTLET
lFm
(JFO2)
DP = Differential Pressure Sensor
V = Valve
VV = Vacuum Valve
BV = Bleed Valve
( ) = Life Test Port Designations
MV = Manual Isolation Valve
T = Temperature Sensor
A = Current Meter
AS = High Temperature Shutoff
S = Sample Port
FCV = Flow Control Valve
FM = Flow Meter
F = Facility (ex. FT01 )
Figure 1.1-1 TCCS Schematic
In the TCCS catalyst Life Test, 3% methane in air was bled into an air stream inthe catalytic oxidizer lower leg (at JF04). This is just prior to the Lithium Hydroxide(LiOH) Presorbent Bed canister. The canister was used as a mixing chamber for thistest, and was otherwise inoperable. The air stream methane concentration, as it leftthe presorbent canister, was approximately 90 ppm. The air stream then entered theHTCO assembly (containing the palladium catalyst), where it passed through a heatexchanger, and then the catalyst bed. Within the bed, methane and other organiccontaminants were oxidized. The air stream containing the oxidation by-products thenleft the bed, passed again through the heat exchanger (cooling somewhat as it gaveup heat to the incoming air stream), and exited the assembly.
3
1.2 Report Format
Graphs were produced from data collected by the TCCS LabView software,which samples all TCCS sensors once every 60 seconds. The above subassemblyshutdowns are denoted by numbers in boxes on the following graphs (Sections 2.1- 2.8). For presentation purposes, the data set was reduced through averaging. First,the sixty second data were averaged to provide one sample point per hour. Fivehourly data points were then selected daily (six hour intervals beginning at midnight),and averaged to provide the daily data points shown in the graphs. This method ofdata reduction does not show detail, and should not be utilized for analyticalevaluation of subassembly performance. The method does, for the purposes of a lifetest, provide a means of reducing large data sets and accurately representing long-term subassembly stability.
Only selected TCCS sensors are presented in this report. The sensor dataanalysis will provide the information needed to evaluate the TCCS HTCO. Anadditional 14 temperature, dewpoint, and flow sensors provided TCCS Life Testingdata. This data is available in the TCCS LabView archive and in the System
Components Automated Text System (SCATS).
1.2.1 Graph Descriptions
JF02 data show the air flow, in Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (SCFM),through the TCCS low leg. The flow consistently remained around 2.7 SCFM, with notrend toward higher or lower flow rates. This suggests that the TCCS axial fan and thecentrifugal blower were both performing nominally throughout the test.
JF04 data show the methane bleed flow rate into the TCCS in Standard Cubic
Inches per Minute (SCIM). The rate, throughout the test, remained relatively stable at14.2 SCIM. The methane bled into the subassembly was approximately 3% in air, andthe actual concentration of each cylinder was certified by the vendor. The sensor wasmonitored as a control to ensure the desired levels of methane were introduced to the
test catalyst.
JT03 data show the temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit (°F), just prior to thecatalytic oxidizer catalyst bed. The oxidizer bed temperature was controlled at thispoint. The temperature at JT03 was relatively steady, at 720°F, throughout the test.
JT04 data show the temperature, in °F, within the catalytic oxidizer catalyst bed.A degradation in this temperature could suggest a degradation in the catalystefficiency. The temperature at JT04 was relatively steady, at 748 °F, throughout thetest.
4
JT05 data show the temperature just after the catalytic oxidizer catalyst bed in°F. As with JT04, it is anticipated that a reduction in this temperature would havesuggested a degradation in catalyst efficiency. The temperature at JT05 was relativelysteady, at 751 °F, throughout the test.
FT01 data show the test temperature, within the building 4755 high bay TCCSvicinity, in °F. The temperature was monitored to provide an inlet air baselinetemperature. The average highbay temperatures ranged from 65-85°F. Highbaytemperature was found to have minimal affect on internal TCCS temperatures.
2.0 TEST SUMMARIES
Graphical representations of data are presented in groups of test weeks. Thiswas done to facilitate final report preparation, by allowing the use of previouslyreduced data sets. In some instances, the report periods from one section to the nextwill overlap. This occurs since report periods often ended in the middle of a test week.It then became necessary to report the last week of a one report period as the firstweek of the next report period (causing duplication of some data). Such a methodensures that all relevant data are reported, and shows the data flow from one reportperiod to the next.
Analytical data (methane in air) is provided for all data sets. The data presentedfor the test period 1 - 33 is, however, suspect. This is because of a problem with theBoeing analytical method for methane in air. Early in the test, on several occasions,Quality Control (QC) samples for constituent gasses in air were submitted by theAnalytical Control Coordinator (ACC) to the Boeing laboratory. The samplescontained Methane at concentrations near, but above, the method detection limit of 3ppm v. Despite this, Boeing consistently returned results for these samples of <3 ppm vmethane. A verbal warning was issued by the ACC of a possible method problem.Independent analyses were performed on the QC samples to ensure sample integrity.The sample results showed that the QC samples were within acceptable limits. TheACC advised Boeing of a definite problem with the analytical method (ION TM July 16,1993). An investigation into the method resulted, and determined the actual methoddetection limit fell in the 40 ppm v range. A new method was developed with amethane in air detection limit of 5 ppm v. All Life Testing air samples (TCCS and4BMS) collected on or after 8/16/93 (test day 271 of TCCS Life Testing) were analyzedusing the corrected and verified method.
The initial method error occurred during its development. Detection limits, withthe detector being used (Thermal Conductivity Detector, TCD), were determined foreach individual air constituent (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, CarbonMonoxide, and Helium), in pure Helium (Helium was determined in Nitrogen). Whilethe detection limit determined was correct for Methane in Helium, the detection limitsdid not translate to an air matrix. In test samples, interference from Nitrogen, Oxygen,and moisture in the air resulted in a masking of the methane peak. In addition,electronic "cross talk" from the Gas Chromatograph (GC) used in the analysis resultedin false peaks. The method was redeveloped, using a more sophisticated FlameIonization Detector (FID). Constituent gas detection limits were determined, in an airmatrix, and the electronic "cross talk" problem was corrected. Subsequent QC on themethod, showed much increased accuracy, and methane detection limits very near 5ppmv.
The problem showed the importance of following proper AC requirements fortest methods. The AC Plan requires that all methods be submitted for approval, by theACC with the assistance of experts in the field. The method in question was notsubmitted for review prior to the test. The corrected method was submitted, reviewedby experts in GC analysis, and comments were submitted to Boeing by the ACC.
Following introduction of the new method, methane removal efficiencies for theTCCS catalytic oxidizer dropped. While earlier results showed methane levels at thecatalytic oxidizer outlet below 3 ppm v (possibly in error) the new method showed
methane values, at the same port, of around 8 ppm v. The higher values gave
5
calculated efficiency values in the range of 88-91%, depending on the inlet methaneconcentration. The average efficiency fell from the artificially high (95% +) recoveries oftest weeks 1 - 33, reported through the initial analytical method. Results for theerroneous method are included in this report for consistency. The method wasaccurate at Methane in Air concentrations above 45 ppmv.
2.1 Test Weeks 1 - 33
The TCCS performed well during the report period with no anomalies. Therewere 12 shutdowns during the period, but none were flight-like. A shutdown summary
follows:
1. (Monday, 11/30/92, 1345) - Scanner communication to the TCCScomputer was interrupted during sampling. The scanner was bumped by thesample cart. Communication was regained immediately after shutdown. Ascanner cover was installed to alleviate the possibility of a repeat incident.
2. (Thursday, 12/31/92, 1345) - A short duration TCCS shutdown occurreddue to a blown fuse in the TCCS power unit.
3. (Wednesday, 01106193, 0945) - The cable between the scanner and thecontrolling computer was inadvertently disconnected during a subsystemmodification. This caused the subsystem to shut down. Following the discovery
of the problem, the cable was reconnected, and the subsystem was broughtback on-line.
4. (Tuesday, 02/02/93, 1002) - The TCCS shut down during a subassemblyhardware modification. The inlet air flow was temporarily restricted during theinstallation of a dust filter at the TCCS air inlet. The restricted air flow sent the
subassembly into an orderly shutdown.
5. (Friday, 02/05/93, 1200) - The TCCS was temporarily brought down forsoftware maintenance.
6. (Friday, 03/05/93, 1455) - The subassembly was brought down for theweekend through an orderly shutdown. This was done because a weekendfacility power outage was scheduled. The subassembly was brought back on-line the following Monday.
7. (Saturday, 03/27/93, 1200) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown.
8. (Sunday, 04/04/93, 1230) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown.
9. (Tuesday, 04120/93, 2200) - A facility power interruption, caused byconstruction activity in the 4755 parking area, resulting in a TCCS shutdown.
10. (Tuesday, 05/04/93, 0925) - The subassembly was inadvertently shutdown due to operator error, and was immediately brought back on-line.
11. (Saturday, 06/26/93, 0148) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown.
12. (Monday, 06/28/93, 0828) - The subassembly was intentionally broughtdown for scanner modifications.
7
IAI_I_S
- II
o
O
om
Q
O
m.
ONm
m
xO
O
m_
!
Om.
m
8
1"=4
IAII_S
m
_(',4
E ;-g
=,- <:-
L_
- 1,1.
-- II
9
i
II
!
i!
B
- |
_ I _,- •
_=_ _kB
=
=-
II
10
F_
EE3
E_3
E_3
c_
jJ
"c¢_
=
I
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_
=.,__
_II
1
1110a_IiI
I--i_
0i
i
X0
i
i
Ill
0I,-
I
i
llL
11
_-7
!i-
0
W.
12
i
E_
,d"
.e
it
i z+_ de.q
m
_._ tL"-v._
= ___c_- ii
L_- F-_=_
13
2.1.1 Performance (Weeks 1 - 33)
The TCCS performed well through test week 33. Calculated Methane removalefficiencies were (though suspect - see Section 2.0) at or above 95% (Figure
2.1.1-1).
.=
i"
N m _ m N m m m gnO -,onO m • m m U m _ _ m m • mmI. I ........ 4 ...... --_l I # I ............ I .......................... -- ..............
PPM ('METHANE OUr RESULTS ARE AT ANALYTICAL DETECTION UMIT}
(SAMPLE HUMBER)METHANEIbl ,_- METHANEOUT -)<-" EFFICZENCY
14
Figure 2.1.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (1 - 33 Summary)
2.2 Test Weeks 34 - 47
The TCCS performed well during the period with no anomalies. There were 6shutdowns between weeks 34 and 47 (inclusive), but none were flight-like. Asummary follows:
1. (Saturday, 06/26/93, 0148) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown. This outage actually occurred during week 33 of testing, but carriedinto week 34 (Monday, 06/28/93, 0828), when the subassembly was restarted.
2. (Tuesday, 07/06/93, 1340) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown. The subassembly was restarted the same day.
3. (Thursday, 07/28/93, 0703) - A subassembly shutdown occurred due toan unscheduled facility power "brown out". The subassembly was restarted atapproximately 0730 of the same day.
4. (Monday, 08/02/93, 0457) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown. The subassembly was restarted at approximately 0600 on the sameday.
5. (Thursday, 08/05/93, 2310) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown. The subassembly was restarted at approximately 0600 on 08/06/93.
6. (Sunday, 09/26/93, 1300) - A facility power interruption caused a TCCSshutdown. The power outage was caused by a thunderstorm. Thesubassembly was allowed to remain down until the morning of 09/28/93 since asecond power outage was scheduled for the evening of 09/27/93. Thesubassembly was restarted at approximately 0600 on 09/28/93.
15
E_
r-;q1 i =
! i
i
ii i
_ 4
t_
m
--_q [,,f,,i
v
q_
q_
>-
- a
- ct_
-5
o_i,I
!ulin
"0m
x0
&i,?i,j
&
.0II
un
i1_
_ e4 _
f_,..f;3S
16
P
5_ i
: i, i
MIOS
m
e
!i :i:e
P'i
17
L_ t
I
' i i
i
i i
ql'
p
L
a
@
0I--
0N
m
0
p
0Iu
tO!
C_l
0i-
lL
18
aO
i
i
|
,-j
|
@L_
3
I
I.I.
>-
a
Ii
oF--
19
i !
' io
pq_
E@
E0
s-
O
NB
m
xO
0O.
_40I,-
!
ol
.e
i1_
_0
[_
F_
F_
B
m
m
.o.=
z
i !
- Od
m
_- I._
- )-
II
" o
21
2.2.1 Performance (Weeks 34 - 47)
The TCCS performed well during the test period.
summary of TCCS efficiency for the period.
Figure 2.2.1-1 gives a
ZLU0
UJ
=E_L
IO0
9O
8O
7O
8O
X
PISE:Bcr
_°4"
_0
4O
3O
20"
10-'PPM ,('METHANE OUl_ RESULTS ARE AT ANALYTICAL DETECTION LIMIT_
tn
(SAMPLE NUMBER)-I'- METHANE IN _ METHANE OUT -'X- EFFICIENCY
22
Figure 2.2.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (34 - 47 Summary)
2.3 Test Weeks 47 - 60
The TCCS performed well during the period with no anomalies. There werefour shutdowns and one data fluctuation between weeks 47 and 60 (inclusive), butnone were flight-like. A summary follows:
1. (Sunday, 09/26/93, Time NA) - A facility power interruption caused aTCCS shutdown. The power outage was caused by a thunderstorm. TheTCCS was allowed to remain down until day two of the following week(09/28/93) since a power outage was scheduled for day one of the week(09/27/93). The TCCS was brought back on-line at 0600 on 09/28/93.
2. (Friday, 10/15/93, 1315)- The TCCS was brought into an orderlyshutdown for a facility power outage scheduled for 10/15/93 at 1730. Fifteenminutes into the shutdown, the power outage was canceled, and the TCCS wasbrought back on-line.
3. (Friday, 10/22/93, 1330) - The TCCS was brought down, through anorderly shutdown, for a scheduled facility power outage (on 10/22/93 at 1730).The subassembly was brought back on-line on 10/25/93 at 0600.
4. (Monday, 12/20/93, Approximately 2000) - A facility power interruptioncaused a TCCS shutdown. The subassembly was brought back on-line on12/21/93 at 0730.
5. (Tuesday, 12/28/93, Approximately 1100)- The temperature atthermocouples JT03, JT04, and JT05, all within the HTCO, began dropping off.The temperature drop occurred over a two day period before stabilizing at732°F. This represents a temperature change of -15°F. Methane samples were
collected for the subassembly, and HTC© efficiency remained at 93% +(efficiency in fact increased to over 96% due to increased inlet methaneconcentrations and relatively stable outlet concentrations). The temperaturedrop was not a result of catalyst failure. It was theorized that a leak may havedeveloped in the HTC© causing a portion of the heat exchanger to bebypassed. Such a bypass would result in a loss of pre-heat potential, and loweroverall reactor temperature (see Section 2.4, #4, for resolution of theproblem).
23
I I
I_S
m
D
m
m
B
m
m
D
m
t_
n
D
m
D
D
B
Z
- I
-- a
__ ii
- b-
..J
m
xO
Ou_
O
m
24
1
I_I_S
oO
D
m
mB
D
m
B
D
m
B
n
B
B
a
-_..il
- b'-
z
r
0
m
@o
m
m0
m
0Z
0Ii.
3
n
25
_j_m
m
m
J
mm
m
B
D
m
m
m
m
s_
I
m_
m
B
m
m
- a
23
Eon_E@
i_
0N
m
m
x0QL.
a.
!
c')
QL_
i
_L
2B
oG
t
L_
oG
,mLp_
Lt%
m
m
QO
_ >-
- a
- Go)_ v'- C.)
I--
v-).q.
.e,4d
la@
E@
I--L_
CD_N
)¢0¢J
n
,4d
al¢.)
P.-,j
,q-|
¢t)
@lib
i
LL
27
+
L
0_
Q
I
II
0_ m
I--
E3
0
E0I--
0m
mX
O
w0L
P_
!
0
3
m
i1_
_-_D_C[
28
r_
7_
6 _k
o
In
-'_ f,O
I
@
z
- >.-- a
_. U"_" r..,0_ _,,- 0- I--
2g
2.3.1 Performance (Weeks 47 - 60)
The TCCS HTCO has performed well to date (through week 60 of testing).There have been no subassembly anomalies. Methane removal efficiencies for this
report period ranged between 91.89% and 96.55% (Figure 2.3.1-1) despite the dropin HTCO temperatures noted in Section 2.3 and resolved in Section 2.4.
Ziii0n"U.I
100
9O
8O
70
6O
_0
40
30
2O
10'
0 '
PPM
PPM ('METHANE OUT" RESULTS ARE AT ANALYTICAL DETECTION UMI'F}
(SAMPLE NUMBER}-'X-- METHANE IN -.Jb- METHANE OUT -Ii- EFFICIENCY
3O
Figure 2.3.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (47 - 60 Summary)
2.4 Test Weeks 61 - 72
The TCCS performed well during the report period with no anomalies. Therewere 4 shutdowns and 2 data fluctuations between test weeks 61 and 72 (inclusive),but none were flight-like. A summary follows:
1. (Tuesday through Saturday, 01/04/94-01/08/94) - A test was performed todetermine whether the HTCO catalyst was oxidizing methane in the TCCS airstream. At 1035 of 01/04/94, the methane inbleed to the HTCO was turned off,and the subassembly temperature was allowed to equilibrate. Byapproximately 1300 on 01/05/94, the HTCO temperature at JT04 (catalyst bed)had steadied at 710°F (an approximate drop of 21°F from the temperature withthe methane in-bleed on). At 1320 the methane in-bleed was resumed. Thetemperature slowly climbed to 735°F, fell off slightly to 721°F, and stabilized at721°F on 01/08/94. The rise in temperature, when the methane in-bleedresumed, showed that methane oxidation was indeed taking place.
2. (Tuesday, 01/10/94, 1540) - The TCCS was placed into an orderlyshutdown. The subassembly was brought down to allow for calibration andmaintenance. The subassembly was temporarily brought back on-line late inthe week, and was again brought down to allow for software modifications.
3. (Wednesday, 01/18/94, 0615) - The TCCS subassembly was broughtback on-line following a maintenance shutdown.
4. (Monday, 01/24/94, 0930) - The TCCS was brought down when an airleak around the HTCO heater power inlet was discovered. A plug of RTVsealant broke away allowing air to pass around the heater power lead. Theleak was repaired using high temperature RTV sealant, and an additionalthermocouple was installed to monitor the temperature at the new joint. TheTCCS was brought back on-line at 0725 on 01/27/94, and HTCO temperaturesquickly stabilized at the levels noted in 1993 (prior to the development of theleak). It is believed that the second temperature drop noted in #1 above wasthe result of the original plug falling out of place when the HTCO re-heated andexpanded.
5. (Saturday, 2/12/94, Approximately 1200) - The sudden drop in the JT04and Delta T curves is the result of a correction to the JT04 calibration curve
originally installed. The method originally used in thermocouple calibration wasincorrect, and resulted in high values at the upper end of the temperature range.The calibration was corrected, and a new baseline was established. Themistake had minimal effect on the test.
6. (Wednesday, 2/16/94, Approximately 0600) - The methane bleed wasturned off, and the heater controller set-point was increased to 700°F. This wasdone to determine if the previous temperature reading could be achieved withthe new (corrected) thermocouple readings (see #5 above). This was done withthe methane off to simultaneously determine the baseline temperature for zeropercent oxidation efficiency. The methane in-bleed resumed on Thursday,02/17/94, and HTC© temperature increased to the desired level (Approximately
748°F).
31
32
c_c_
{gn"3=0
m
IL
OD@
...I
3=0
..Ilib
QN
m
"0aml
)(0
,,o,llm
@ill
i
u_
\
_IDS
B
m
B
B
B
m
m
E
B
z
- >-
-_ (_--_ II
- 0
0m
"Uo0
m
m@
0
0U.
_L!
_T
0L
m
33
L_
i
i
.o
it
o
.-j
¢rj|
_r
@L.
:I
i
[L
34
_P
E_
F_
F_
E_Lt_ v'_
o
Q
Eoi--!.-
@N
m
"0m
x0
c_
m
m411
oI-
_r
oim
mm
LL.
35
36
Lrl
[_]
r-_
[zl
\
\
,J
)
_O
..1S'-_IO£_CI
v_
D
B
m
B
B
0_...._
£
-<_- II
- 0
£
i
Lo3
E0n_IE@l-IB@
mm
mx
O
w0
n_
!
o
n
IL
E_\
_D
0lira
un
_g
n
ii
c_
3"7
2.4.1 Performance (Weeks 61-72)
The TCCS HTCO has performed well to date (through week 72 of testing).There have been no subassembly anomalies. Methane removal efficiencies for this
report period range between 98.22 and 102.60 percent (Figure 2.4.1-1) based oncalculations from in-line CO 2 monitoring. Results for this period are not based on
methane analyses due to a temporary loss of laboratory support (expired contract).
6OO
57'3
475-
42_,"
EFFICIENCY _ >_,...,-"J"_
_-
<_ PPM C02
110
53
-100
-9O
_0 LU
-70
-6O
(SAMPLE NUMBER)
--BII- EFFICIENCY -6- CO2 OUT _ CO2 IN
38Figure 2.4.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (61 - 72 Summary)
2.5 Test Weeks 73 - 86
The TCCS performed well during the report period with no anomalies. There were9 shutdowns between test weeks 73 and 86 (inclusive), but none were flight-like. A
summary follows:
1. (Friday, 4/1/94, Approximately 1800) - A facility power outage caused theTCCS to shutdown. The subassembly was brought back on-line on 4/4/94.
2. (Friday, 4/8/94, Approximately 1700) - The LabView software stoppedfunctioning for unknown reasons. The program was restarted on 4/11/94.
3. (Tuesday, 6/7/94, 0607)- The TCCS was placed into an orderlyshutdown to accommodate a scheduled power outage. The subassembly was
restarted on 6/8/94.
4. (Wednesday, 6/22/94, 1403) - A thunderstorm caused a facility power
outage resulting in a TCCS shutdown. The subassembly was immediatelybrought back on-line.
5. (Saturday, 6/25/94, 1300) - A thunderstorm caused a facility poweroutage resulting in a TCCS shutdown. The subassembly was brought back on-line on 6/27/94.
6. (Monday, 6/27/94, 0735) - The subassembly was inadvertently shut downduring the warm-up process (following the 6/25/94 shutdown), when the low legflow was adjusted to below the minimum allowable of 2 scfm. The subassemblywas immediately brought back on-line.
7. (Wednesday, 6/29/94, 0633) - A facility power outage caused a TCCSshutdown. The subassembly was brought back on-line on 4/4/94.
8. (Wednesday, 6/29/94, 0837) - A thunderstorm caused a facility poweroutage resulting in a TCCS shutdown. The subassembly was immediatelybrought back on-line.
9. (Saturday, 7/2/94, Approximately 1200) - The TCCS shut down due to a
facility power outage. The subassembly was brought back on-line on 7/5/94.
39
f_
i
I
)
(
t
m
D
B
m
n
m
0
m
30
i
LL
Q0
,u,I
Oni
n__
0
"0J
x0oe
0u_
@L_
3
0nmB
LL
40
!
! I
1 I
II
I
I,_IIDS
z_
m
m
z_
B
_z
i
- ¢4)
o
m
"uo4)
m
m
0cm
,0,,,I
0
0!1_-,j
!
0
IL
41
F_r_-i
F_
6
m
|
I
i °z
- .o
-t'_ Irk
>-
II
0
42
i
.4S'H_OHG
B
--OO
m
m
--CO
--aO
ED
-XO
II
OL_
On_EO
L.
ON
XO
m
B
m
mU
0
-)
!
0L_
48
_L_
F_
_F;7
F_
F_
! ! i
II
oo
_[_-_D_Q
r_qF_q
_q
_-q
.4 S'_r'd DI_Cl
--<30
i +.!
i+ :_ ¢D
|
- 3
- I,I,,
B
- 0
-e_ I--
45
2.5.1 Performance (Weeks 73 - 86)
The TCCS HTCO has performed well to date (through test week 86). There wereno subassembly anomalies. Methane removal efficiencies for this report period rangebetween 95.64 and 103.00 percent (Figure 2.5.1-1) based on calculations from in-line CO 2 monitoring.
6OO
47'J
% 19_FICIDICY -->
J"x
<-- PPM
425
11111
(SAMPLE NUMBER]
-,_ ANAL CO2-1N _ ANAL CO_-OUT ,-_ ANAL % EFF
46
Flgure 2.5.1-1 Oxidatlon Efflclency (73 - 86 Summary)
2.6 Test Weeks 86 - 99
The TCCS performed well during the report period with no anomalies. Therewere 8 shutdowns between test weeks 86 and 99 (inclusive), but none were flight-like.
A summary follows:
1. (Monday, 6/25194, Approximately 1300) - A facility power outage causedthe TCCS to shut down during the weekend. On 6/27/94, at approximately0732, the subassembly was brought back on-line.
2. (Monday, 6/27/94, Approximately 0733) - The subassembly shut downdue to a mis-adjustment of the low leg flow rate (JF02). On 6127194, atapproximately 0735, the subassembly was brought back on-line.
3. (Wednesday, 6/29194, 0633) - A facility power outage caused the TCCSto shut down. The subassembly was brought back on-line on 6129/94 at
approximately 0645.
4. (Wednesday, 6/29/94, 0837) - A thunderstorm caused a facility poweroutage resulting in a TCCS shutdown. The subassembly was immediatelybrought back on-line.
5. (Saturday, 7/2/94, Approximately 1200) - The TCCS was shut down dueto a facility power outage. The subassembly was brought back on-line atapproximately 0600 on 7/5/94.
6. (Thursday, 8/25/94, 1159) - The TCCS shut down due to a facility poweroutage. The subassembly was brought back on-line at approximately 1600 thesame day.
7. (Friday, 8/26/94, 0750)- The TCCS shut down due to a facility poweroutage. The subassembly was brought back on-line at approximately 1600 thesame day.
8. (Friday, 9/9/94, 1305) -The TCCS shut down for unknown reasons.Evidence suggests the computer was inadvertently re-booted during aninspection. The subassembly was brought back on-line at 1328.
47
c_
B
o
,-j
0-- im
- mz_ ,_-
m
B
II
- CS_
48
v-4
4_
IAIIDS
m
m
z_
z_
n
m
z
_v-o
z_
Bm_
n
- O_- >.z- a
Z r_-Z 0
n
z_
0
0e
Q
a
0
0I,I.
!
0
OIm
I,I.
49
J
E_
i '|-_' 2"
!
-_ ell- •_ am
z_ ,-'r
--o0
,,<- D
U
- cO
(3
.4"S"_'a'_TO_(I
',el"
5O
o
--_ "o
v-q
- •
3
_ I.I.
O)
51
r_7
F_7
b',.
;Z
z_
:i
I
- ._- a'_ II
QL_
E@
E0I-2.--
o,,a
x0
0n.
0
-5
@L.
3
52
iIt
(,q
t
z_
a
53
2.6.1 Performance (Weeks 86 - 99)
The TCCS HTCO performed well during this period with no subassemblyanomalies. Methane removal efficiencies range between 90.0 and 99.4 percent
(Figure 2.6.1-1) based on calculations from laboratory methane analyses.
12.0-
=i
110-
100
90
8O
70-
60-
5O
40-
30"
20-
10-
0
PERCENT pF_t_.FM1.-'P ,4,
PPM
PPM (LABORATORY METHANE DETECTION UMIT - 3 PPM)
LAB CH4 IN
(SAMPLE NUMBER)
-IB- LAB C_4OUT _ LAB _ OX -..4-- C'O2 ANALYZER _ OX
Figure 2.6.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (86 - 99 Summary)
54
2.7 Test Weeks 100 - 114
The TCCS performed well during the report period with no anomalies. Therewere two shutdowns between test weeks 100 and 114 (inclusive), but none wereflight-like. A summary follows:
1. (Friday, 10/14/94, 1100) - The TCCS shut down due to a facility poweroutage. The subassembly was brought back on-line at approximately 1900.
2. (Saturday, 12/3/94, 1030) - The TCCS shut down due to a facility poweroutage. The subassembly was brought back on-line at approximately 1200.
55
D
p_
wF"4
mm
Z_
D
__..4
_F..4
ml-._
_r..4
m
DF"4
- a
_- II
I_I_IDS
o
m
om
u_
o
O
ONm
X
o
O
|
e_
e
m
_L
B6
I
,8
I'_IIDS
i#%--F"q
__F...a
D_...4_v..4
o__..4
_ .o
_ u_
D_,,,q
- 0
57
]
w,r--I
L--
w_
- _ °- I.,-
|
- IL
m
-,. II- 0')
,q-
58
ao
I
i
_ Lr_L_
mVmO
m
B
n
_Vml
BT_I
m
BlJt
B
mV'_
B
m
mVml
__1m4
__lUl
m
m
D_mO
B
B
°im
mv-_
m
B
_lml
m
m
B
_lml
_v._l
t
m
a
E_V
Zore4
@eLl=@l-iB@
mm
mmu
x0
m
4:0I-
|
m
[L
59
B
D
B
D
@
3
_ I.I.
--8m
w
m
E°-" II
80
Dr-,4
_m4
_v-.4
vml
mm
n
B_
_1,--o
B
B_
- |__lwq
- •
m
m_mq
m
I
m
61
2.7.1 Performance (Weeks 100 - 114)
The TCCS HTCO has performed well during the period with no anomalies.Methane removal efficiencies, for this report period, are reflected in Figure 2.7.1-1.The results are based on calculations from in-line C02 monitoring and laboratory
methane analyses.
120
II0-
I00-
90-
80-
30-
2O
10
0
PERCENT
"P" PERCENT I_ L. ,i.X ................ )_ ............. _"_[- ............................... _ X
PPM/LABORATORY METHANE DETECTION LIMn" - 3 PPM)
(SAMPLE NUMBER)
LAB C_4 IN -am- LAB CH4 OUT -X- LAB % OX
Figure 2.7.1-1 Oxidation Efficiency (100 - 114 Summary)
62
3.0 TEST CONCLUSIONS
Figure 3.0-1 shows the overall oxidation efficiency of the HTCO catalyst sincethe beginning of the test. The graph is based on results gathered from the Boeinganalytical laboratory. Table 3.0-1 gives sample dates corresponding to the X-axissample place holders. Table 3.0-1 is specific to Figure 3.0-1 and should not beused to define sample dates for any other figures found in this report. Data collectedprior to April 18, 1994, is suspect, due to method error, and was not included in thegraph (see Section 2.0 for details, and Section 2.1 for the removed data).
In the data presented, the catalyst's Oxidation Efficiency (calculated) is limitedby the Method Detection Limit (MDL) for methane in air since:
% Oxidation Efficiency =
(Methane In) - (Methane Out)
Methane In
<--Restricted by MDL
X 100
Based on this equation, the higher the MDL, the lower the %Oxidation Efficiency.Were the MDL nearer zero, the %Oxidation Efficiency would be nearer 100%(assuming the actual "Methane Out" value is appreciably lower than the presentdetection limit of 3 ppmv).
Figure 3.0-2 shows the overall oxidation efficiency of the HTCO catalyst sincethe beginning of the test. The graph is based on results gathered from the in-line CO2analyzer. Table 3.0-2 gives sample dates corresponding to the X-axis sample placeholders. Table 3.0-2 is specific to Figure 3.0-2 and should not be used to definesample dates for any other figures found in this report.
Life Testing of the TCCS has provided some very useful information. Above all,the test has shown that the HTCO catalyst life is much longer than previouslyestimated. While the ISSA logistics plan calls for catalyst replacement every 180 days,the Life Test has shown that, under non-poisoning conditions, the catalyst can remaineffective in excess of two years. This represents tremendous cost savings in aprogram that is presently burdened with cost restrictions. In addition preliminarycatalyst poisoning test results have shown that a poisoned catalyst of this type canrecover to a usable extent with increased heat, and exposure to a nonpoisoningatmosphere. This study is ongoing, and final results will be published under separatecover.
63
120
106-
80-
Pl
_J
PERCENT-I_
-160
"140
PPM ....:-,m
t FOR CORRI_PONOING
SAMPLE DATE
I 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 15 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 492 4 6 $ 10 12 14 16 15 20 22 z4 26 2.$ 30 32 34 36 34 40 42 44 46 4_
SEETABLE3.0-1 (S_VJPL_NUMBER)
-6O
-4O
-2O
'0
METHANE IN --_-METHANE OUT-X-- EFFICIENCY
Figure 3.0-1 Overall Oxidation Efficiency (Lab Analyses)
Table 3.0-1 Sample Numbers and Corresponding Dates
SAMPLE SAMPLE! SAMPLE SAMPLE
NUMBER DATE NUMBER DATE
1 4/18/94
2 4/20/94
3 4/22/'94
4 4125194
5 4/27/94
6 4/29/94
7 5/2/94
8 5/4/94
9 5/6/94
10 5/9/94
11 5/11/94
12 5/13/94
13 5t16/94
14 5/18/94
15 5/23/94
16 5/27/94
17 6/1/94
18 6/3/94
19 6/6t94
2O 6/10194
21 6/13/94
22 6/15/94
23 6/17/94
24 6/22/94
25 6/24/94
26 6/29/94
SAMPLE SAMPLE
NUMBER DATE
27 7/8/94
28 7/11/94
29 7/13/94
30 7/15/94
31 7/18/94
32 7/20/94
33 7/22/94
34 7/25194
35 8/1/94
38 8/8/94
37 8/15/94
38 8/23/94
39 8/30/94
SAMPLE SAMPLE
NUMBER DATE
40 9/6/94
41 9/15/94
42 9/20/94
43 9/27/94
44 10/4/94
45 10/11/94
46 10/18/94
47 10/31/94
48 11/7/94
49 1/12/95
64
120
,so,,-
z
2o-
Figure 3.0-2 Overall Oxidation Efficiency (In-line Analyzer)
Table 3.0-2 Sample Numbers and Corresponding Dates
SAMPLE SAMPLE
NUMBER DATE
1 2/17/94
2 2/22/94
3 3/1/944 3/"7/94
5 3/14/94
6 3/21/94
7 3/28/94
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
NUMBER DATE NUMBER DATE
8 4/4/94
9 4/1 2/94
10 4125194
11 5/9/94
12 5/23/94
13 6/21/94
14 7/6/94
15 7128/94
16 8122/94
17 9/21/94
18 10/7/94
19 10111/94
20 12/20/94
21 1/12/95
65
APPROVAL
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION ALPHATRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL
SUBASSEMBLY LIFE TEST
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by: J.D. Tatara and J.L. Perry
The information in this document has been reviewed for technical content.Review of any information concerning Department of Defense or nuclear energyactivities or programs has been made by the MSFC Security Classification Officer.This document, in it's entirety, has been determined to be unclassified.
R.D. _/egrichChief, Thermal and Life Support Division
J
Date
J.C. B_
Director, Structures and Dynamics Laboratory
Date
6 _'LI.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1995-633-109/ 20035
I Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public report ng burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the tim e for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering .
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection (:Winformation. Send comments reg ard*ng th,s burden estirna_ or ,a_y otharl_SvP_C_Ofhth_vco_tcti(_ In_O;n_l_n,including suggestions tor reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarlefs Services, D=rectorate for Informabon vperat=on$ ana _epoRs, l_= o ,Je Terson u ig ), ....
VA 22202-4302 r and to the Office of Manacjement and Bud_lel, Paperwork Reduction Ptoiect I0704-01881r Washington t DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 12"REPORTDATEMarch1995 13'REPORTTYPEANDDATESCOVEREDTechnicalMemorandum
4.TITLEAND SUBTITLE
InternationalSpace Station Alpha Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly Life
Test FinalReport
B. AUTHOR(S)
J.D. Tatar,_and J.L. Perry
7.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)AND ADORESS(ES)
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama 35812
g. SPONSORINCVMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C. 20546
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
NASA TM - 108488
I1. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES
Prepared by Structures and Dynamics Laboratory, Science and Engineering Directorate
*ION Electronics, Huntsville, AL
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified- Unlimited
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum200 words)
The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Life Test Program (ELTP) began with Trace
Contaminant Control Subassembly (TCCS) Life Testing on November 9, 1992, at 0745. The purpose of
the test, as stated in the NASA document Requirements for Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly Nigh
Temperature Catalytic Oxidizer Life Testing (Revision A), was to "provide for the long duration operation of
the ECLSS TCCS [High Temperature Catalytic Oxidizer] HTCO at normal operating conditions... [and
thus].., to determine the useful life of ECLSS hardware for use on long duration manned space missions."
Specifically, the test was designed to demonstrate thermal stability of the HTCO catalyst. The report
details TCCS stability throughout the test. Graphs are included to aid in evaluating trends and subsystem
anomalies. The report summarizes activities through the final day of testing, January 17, 1995 (Test Day
762)°
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Life Test, ECLSS, Trace Contaminant Control, TCCS, Environmental
Control, Catalyst, Catalytic Oxidizer, Space Station
i7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION tg. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
71
, 16. PRICE CODE
NTIS
20. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACT
Unlimited
Standard Fo¢rn 298 (Ray. 2-89)
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18
top related