International Space Station Alpha Trace Contaminant Control … · 2013-08-30 · NASA Technical Memorandum 108488 International Space Station Alpha Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly

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)


2.3.1 Performance (Weeks 47-60)


2,4,1 Performance (Weeks (61-72)


2.5,1 Performance (Weeks 73-86)





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


Oxidation Efficiency (34 - 47 Summary)JF02: Oxidizer Low Leg Flow RateJF04: Methane Bleed Rate


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)


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


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



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


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



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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

International Space Station Alpha Trace Contaminant Control … · 2013-08-30 · NASA Technical Memorandum 108488 International Space Station Alpha Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly