giatech airframe wire development
DESCRIPTION
A presentation on the development of airframe wire constructions in use todayTRANSCRIPT
Airframe Wire Development
22 Nov 2011
Engineering Driven Change
As aerospace engineers have responded to the performancerequirements of their customers, whether commercial or military, innovation in the design and manufacture ofhigh temperature, high performance insulation systems have been challenged to keep pace. Improvements in space and weight savings withoutsacrificing the thermal and mechanical performance of the wire has been one of the key challenges.
22 Nov 2011
• PVDF (1966)• Peek (1970’s)• ETFE (1970’s)• Polyimide (1972)• XL-ETFE (1978)• Composites (1993)• M22759/80A-/92A (1999)
Advances in Wire Technology
22 Nov 2011
Engineering Issues Leading to Composite Development
Prior to the introduction of earlier versions of the composite constructions in use now, most aircraft were wired with either a Polyimide (Kapton) or XLETFE insulation.
It was recognised that both of these insulation systems had shortcomings and two separate development programmes running concurrently led to the creation of the type of composite construction used extensively today.
22 Nov 2011
• Two Development Programmes– US Air Force CRAD – Wright Patterson AFB (1989-1991)
• Replacement for MIL-W-81381• Comparative Study of 14 Candidates
– SPI – McDonnell Douglas (1996-1999)• Hydrolytic Stability, Arc Propagation, UV Markability, Termination
Issues• Acceptance by US Navy, Air Force, Army• F/A-18EF, F-15, C-17, AH-64D
Composite Development
22 Nov 2011
Engineering Issues Leading to Composite Development
• ARC Resistance (performance)
• Hydrolytic Stability (performance)
• Flexibility (shop handling)
• Notch Propagation (performance)
• Smoke Generation (performance)
• Insulation Weight and size (performance)
• Mechanical Toughness (performance + shop handling)
• Laser Marking (performance + shop handling)
22 Nov 2011
Performance Comparison1974 1986 1999
M81381 M22759 M22759
Characteristic "Kapton" "XL-ETFE" "Composite"
Arc Resistance R G G
Hydrolytic Stability R G G
Flexibility R G G
Notch Propagation R Y G
Temperature Performance G Y G
Smoke Generation G R G
Insulation Weight G Y G
Mechanical Toughness G Y G
Laser Markability R G G
22 Nov 2011
MIL-W-22759 “Composite”
Tape 2, applied with 51-54% overlap
Thin Wall Insulation (Hook-Up)Tape 1 .45 mil FP / .65 mil PI / .1mil FPTape 2 2 mil Unsintered PTFETotal Nominal Thickness 5.8 mil
Normal Wall Insulation (Airframe)Tape 1 .5 mil FP / 1 mil PI / .5mil FPTape 2 2 mil Unsintered PTFETotal Nominal Thickness 7.6 mil
AbbreviationsFP = Fluorocarbon PolymerPI = Aromatic PolyimidePTFE = Polytetraflouroethylene
Tape 1, applied with 51-54% overlap
AdvantagesTemperature Performance (260C)Mechanical ToughnessHydrolytic StabilityArc ResistanceSmoke GenerationFlexibilityLow WeightLaser Markable
DisadvantagesMinor - Unique Blades
22 Nov 2011
SEAMLESSFirst choice for Airframe Wire today!
“The look of extrusion with toughness of tape wrap all rolled into one.”
22 Nov 2011
Remember these? • ARC Resistance (performance)
• Hydrolytic Stability (performance)
• Flexibility (shop handling)
• Notch Propagation (performance)
• Smoke Generation (performance)
• Insulation Weight and Size (performance)
• Mechanical Toughness (performance + shop handling)
• Laser Marking (performance + shop handling)
Lets see how SEAMLESS has raised the stakes!
22 Nov 2011
Wet Arc Resistance
• Reduces collateral damage and PTFE erosion
SEAMLESS
Standard composite Standard composite
22 Nov 2011
ELONGATION TO BREAK TREND PLOT FOR AGED DUPONT POLYIMIDE FILMS AGING PARAMETERS 200 DEGREES CELSIUS, 100 % RH - PARR BOMB
DUPONT HIGH PERFORMANCE MATERIALSJIM HEACOCK - PHIL LACOURT
FEBRUARY 2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60AGING TIME
(DAYS)
EL
ON
GA
TIO
N T
O B
RE
AK
(%
)
100HN
65T
100T
Hydrolysis Resistance
22 Nov 2011
Flexibility (Stiffness & Springback) CW SPI MDC97P0053
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
/44-22 vs /82-22 /33-26 vs /82-26
Material Tested
Sti
ffn
ess
(O
un
ces)
XL-ETFE
Composite
Flexibility
22 Nov 2011
Notch Propagation
Notch Propagation Results (Wright Laboratory Report "WL-TR-91-4066")
0
20
40
60
80
100
/43-22/86-22NEW
/43-22/86-22AGED
/44-22/92-22NEW
/44-22/92-22AGED
/33-26/82-26NEW
/33-26/82-26AGED
Cyc
les
to F
ail
ure
(6
6% N
otc
h D
ep
th)
XL-ETFE
Composite
22 Nov 2011
Temperature Rating
• Composites 260oC over NPC conductor
M22759/80-92 require a Thermal Indextest at rated temperature for 10,000 hours as a qualification test
22 Nov 2011
Smoke GenerationOptical Smoke Density (After 20 Minutes)
(Wright Laboratory Report "WL-TR-91-4066")
170.3
109.7
1.7 1.30
50
100
150
/43-22 vs /86-22 /44-22 vs /92-22
Op
tica
l S
mo
ke D
en
sity
(D
s)
XL-ETFE
Composite
SEAMLESS Advantage: WeightSeamless T Weight Reduction
(Compared to Tefzel)
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Wire Gage
Per
cen
t
Light Weight Seamless T Weight Reduction(Compared to Polyalkene)
0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Wire Gage
Per
cen
t
Note: Comparison of Typical Maximum Weights
THE TAKE AWAY:SEAMLESS weighs between 2 and 10% less than ETFE and 2
to 6% less than polyalkene insulated wires. With a customer BOM an exact weight savings can be calculated.
22 Nov 2011
SEAMLESS Advantage: Size
Cross linked ETFE SEAMLESS
Note: Comparison of Typical Maximum OD
26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 40.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Cross Sectional Area ReductionSEAMLESS Composite v. X-Linked ETFE
AWG Size
THE TAKE AWAY:SEAMLESS requires 15-20%less cross sectional area than
an equivalent ETFE wire bundle;economizing space and increasing
routing density.Looking at a 22 AWG example,
24 seamless wires can be routedin the same space as an equivalent
20 wire ETFE bundle.
22 Nov 2011
22 Nov 2011
Dynamic Cut Through Results (Thin Wall) (Wright Laboratory Report "WL-TR-91-4066")
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
23 70 150 200
Temperature (Celsius)
Cu
t T
hro
ug
h (
Po
un
ds)
M22759/44-22(NEW)
M22759/44-22(AGED)
M22759/92-22(NEW)
M22759/92-22(AGED)
Mechanical Toughness
22 Nov 2011
Dynamic Cut Through Results (Normal Wall) (Wright Laboratory Report "WL-TR-91-4066")
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0
23 70 150 200
Temperature (Celsius)
Cu
t T
hro
ug
h (
Po
un
ds)
M22759/43-22(NEW)
M22759/43-22(AGED)
M22759/86-22(NEW)
M22759/86-22(AGED)
Mechanical Toughness
22 Nov 2011
UV Laser Marking
66% Average contrast on white wire
SEAMLESS in use
The introduction of the Thermax SEAMLESS insulation system has clear advantages over other wire types but what about it’s use on the shop floor?
22 Nov 2011
SEAMLESS Assembly
No Edge
No edge lessens the likelihood of catching and the robust, tough surface is les likely to get scraped, scratched, or damaged
No Edge
• Faster installation• Less Rework• Less Scrap
THE TAKE AWAY:SEAMLESS pulls easily and seamed ridges do not catch
during installation.
22 Nov 2011
SEAMLESS Advantage: Assembly
SEAMLESSTechnology
Standard Composite Technology
THE TAKE AWAY:SEAMLESS strips cleanly minimizing assembly time
22 Nov 2011
SEAMLESS Advantage: Construction
THE TAKE AWAY:Layer –to-layer adhesion eliminates delamination and further
improves abrasion resistance.
THERMAX SEAMLESS Competitive Product
22 Nov 2011
22 Nov 2011
Conclusions
• Composite Construction Solved many Technical Issues
• Seamless PTFE Technology showed further improvements– Reduces Handling and Installation Damage– Improves UV markability/contrast.– Improves Resistance to Wet Arc Propagation
Making SEAMLESS the first choice for Airframe wire today!