RISK ASSESSMENT OF METAL VAPOR ARCING

• US 20080294357A1
• Filed: 05/21/2007
• Published: 11/27/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 05/21/2007
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: The Boeing Co.
• Original Assignee: The Boeing Co.
• Inventors: Leidecker, Henning W., Hill, Monika C.
• Granted Patent: US 7,577,534 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 702/57
• CPC Class Codes: G01R 31/001 Measuring interference from external sources to, or emission from, the device under test, e.g. EMC, EMI, EMP or ESD testing measuring electromagnetic fields G01R29/08; circuits for generating HV pulses in dielectric strength testing G01R31/14
• CPC Class Codes: G01R 31/008 on air- or spacecraft, railway rolling stock or sea-going vessels

Abstract

A method for assessing metal vapor arcing risk for a component is provided. The method comprises acquiring a s current variable value associated with an operation of the component; comparing the current variable value with a threshold value for the variable; evaluating compared variable data to determine the metal vapor arcing risk in the component; and generating a risk assessment status for the component.

Claims

1. A method for assessing metal vapor arcing risk for a component, comprising:

acquiring a current variable value associated with an operation of the component;

comparing the current variable value with a threshold value for the variable;

evaluating compared variable data to determine the metal vapor arcing risk in the component; and

generating a risk assessment status for the component.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the variable includes fuse-cutoff current, pressure conditions, power wattage and voltage potential of the component.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining metal vapor arcing risk includes monitoring structural and operational features of the component to evaluate if metal vapor arcing is eliminated by design of the component.

4. A method for assessing metal vapor arcing risk for a component comprising:

determining if the component is under high operating pressure or low operating pressure;

determining if a fuse-cutoff current is beyond a threshold value for the component, if the component is under low pressure; and

labeling the component as being at low risk for metal vapor arcing, if the fuse-cut off current is below the threshold value

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising:

determining if the voltage input for the component is beyond a threshold value, if the fuse-cut off current is beyond a threshold value;

determining if a component inductance can drive a threshold inductive voltage into component circuit, if the voltage input is below a threshold value; and

labeling the component as being at low risk for metal vapor arcing, if the component lacks inductance to drive a threshold inductive voltage into the component circuit.

6. The method of claim 5, further comprising:

determining if the component has structural or operational features eliminating shorting, if the component has inductance to drive a high voltage into the component circuit; and

labeling the component as being at low risk for metal vapor arcing, if the component has structural or operational features eliminating shorting.

7. The method of claim 6, further comprising:

determining if the component is a critical item, if the component does not have structural or operational features for eliminating shorting;

re-evaluating the structural or operational features of the component to evaluate if there is a rationale against shorting, if the component is a critical item; and

documenting the rationale, if the component has valid rationale against shorting.

8. The method of claim 7, further comprising:

labeling the component as being at high risk for metal vapor arcing, if there is no rationale against shorting.

9. The method of claim 7, further comprising:

determining if a power supply wattage is beyond a critical value, if the component is a critical item;

determining if the component is adjacent to a critical item or part of a critical item, if the power supply wattage is more than a critical value;

re-evaluating the structural or operational features of the component to assess if there is a valid rationale against shorting; and

documenting the rationale, if the component has valid rationale against shorting or labeling the component as being at high risk for metal vapor arcing, if there is no valid rationale against shorting.