COMPOSITE MATERIAL
FIRE FIGHTING RESEARCH
ARFF Working Group
October 8, 2010
Phoenix, AZ
Presented by:
Keith Bagot
Airport Safety Specialist
Airport Safety Technology R&D Section
John Hode
ARFF Research Specialist
SRA International, Inc.
Federal Aviation
Administration
Presentation Outline
• FAA Research Program Overview
• Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
• Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
• Development of Composite Material Live Fire Test
Protocol
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
2
FAA Research Program Overview
FAA HQ, Washington, DC
FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Tyndall AFB, Panama City, FL
Federal Aviation
Administration
3
FAA Research Program Overview
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
4
FAA Research Program Overview
Program Breakdown:
• ARFF Technologies
• Operation of New Large Aircraft (NLA)
• Advanced Composite Material Fire Fighting
-
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
5
FAA Research Program Overview
Past Projects:
- High Reach Extendable Turrets
- Aircraft Skin Penetrating Devices
- High Flow Multi-Position Bumper Turrets
- ARFF Vehicle Suspension Enhancements
- Drivers Enhanced Vision Systems
- Small Airport Fire Fighting Systems
- Halon Replacement Agent Evaluations
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
6
Advanced Composite Material Fire Fighting
Expanded Use of Composites
• Increased use of composites in commercial
aviation has been well established
– 12% in the B-777 (Maiden flight 1994)
– 25% in the A380 (Maiden flight 2005)
– 50% in both B-787 & A350 (Scheduled)
• A380, B-787 & A350 are the first to use composites
in pressurized fuselage skin
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
7
Advanced Composite Material Fire Fighting
Research Areas
•
Identify effective extinguishing agents.
•
Identify effective extinguishing methods.
•
Determine quantities of agent required.
•
Identify hazards associated airborne composite fibers.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
8
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
9
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
3 Types of Piercing Technologies
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
10
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Objectives
•
•
•
•
Provide guidance to ARFF departments to deal with the advanced
materials used on next generation aircraft.
Determine the force needed to penetrate fuselage sections
comprised of composites and compare to that of aluminum skins.
If required forces are greater, will that additional force have a
detrimental effect on ARFF equipment.
Determine range of offset angles that will be possible when
penetrating composites and compare to that of aluminum skins.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
11
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Phase 1: Small-Scale Laboratory
Characterization of Material
Penetration for Aluminum,
GLARE and CRFP (Drexel
University)
Phase 2: Full-Scale Test using
the Penetration Aircraft Skin
Trainer (PAST) Device (FAATC)
Phase 3: Full-Scale Test Using
NLA Mock-Up Fire Test Facility
(Tyndall Air Force Base)
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
12
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
• Test Matrix Developed
– Three Materials:
• Aluminum (Baseline)
• GLARE
• CFRP
–
–
–
–
Three Thickness’
Three Loading Rates
Two Angles of Penetration
Three Repetitions
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
13
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
14
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
15
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
16
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
17
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
18
ASPN Penetration/Retraction Process
Material deformation &
tip region penetration
Conical region penetration
Cylindrical region penetration
Retraction
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
19
ASPN Penetration and Retraction Forces
PP
NP
PR
NR
Airport Safety Technology Research
Federal
Aviation
Constant force is required to perforate aluminum panels after
initial
penetration 20
Administration
October 8, 2010
Increasing force is required to perforate CFRP and GLARE panels after initial penetration
Maximum Plate Penetration (PP) and Plate Retraction (PR )
Loads at 0.001 and 0.1 in/s
P
P
R
R
•
For Aluminum panels : Retraction load is higher than penetration load, caused by petals gripping
the panel upon retraction (due to elastic recovery)
Airport Safety Technology Research
• For GLARE and CFRP panels: Penetration load is higher than retractionFederal
load -Aviation
petals remain
21
Administration
October 8, 2010
deformed (due to local damage of composite plies)
Maximum Nozzle Penetration (NP) and
Nozzle Retraction (NR ) Loads at 0.001 and 0.1 in/s
P
P
R
R
•
For Aluminum panels : Retraction load is higher than penetration load, caused by petals gripping
the panel upon retraction (due to elastic recovery)
Airport Safety Technology Research
• For GLARE and CFRP panels: Penetration load is higher than retractionFederal
load -Aviation
petals remain
22
Administration
October 8, 2010
deformed (due to local damage of composite plies)
Petals Formation
Aluminum (Normal Penetration)
GLARE (Normal Penetration)
Aluminum (Oblique Penetration)
CRF (Normal Penetration)
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
23
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
24
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Purpose
• Increased use of composite
materials on aircraft
• Limited data available on
cutting performance of
current fire fighting tools on
composite materials
• Aim to establish a
reproducible and scientific
test method for assessing
the effectiveness of fire
service rescue saws and
blades on aircraft skin
materials
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
25
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Objectives
•
Create an objective test method by eliminating the human aspect of
testing
•
Design a test apparatus that facilitates testing of 4’X2’ panels of
aluminum, GLARE, and CFRP
•
Measure:
– Blade Wear
– Blade Temperature
– Blade Speed
– Plunge Force
– Axial Cut Force
– Cut Speed
•
Utilize computer software and data acquisition devices to monitor and
log data in real time
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
26
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Design Progression
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
27
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
28
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
29
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
30
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
31
Development of a Composite Material
Fire Test Protocol
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
32
Development of a Composite Material
Fire Test Protocol
What we knew before this testing…
ALUMINUM
CARBON/EPOXY
GLARE
Norm for ARFF
Unfamiliar to ARFF
Unfamiliar to ARFF
Melts at 660°C (1220°F)
Resin ignites
at 400°C (752°F)
Outer AL melts, glass
layers char
Burn-through in 60
seconds
Resists burn-through more
than 5 minutes
Resists burn-through over
5 minutes
Readily dissipates heat
Holds heat
May hold heat
Current Aircraft
B787 & A350
2 Sections of A380 skin
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
33
FedEx DC10-10F, Memphis, TN
18 December 2003
Aluminum skinned cargo flight
Traditionally, the focus is
on extinguishing the
external fuel fire, not the
fuselage.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
34
Representative Incident
Air China at Japan Naha Airport, August 19, 2007
4 minutes total
video
3 minutes tail
collapses
ARFF arrives
just after tail
collapse
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
35
Development of a Composite Material
Fire Test Protocol
External Fire Control Defined
• Extinguishment of the body of external fire
– Our question: Will the composite skin continue to burn after the
pool fire is extinguished, thereby requiring the fire service to
need more extinguishing agent in the initial attack?
• Cooling of the composite skin to below 300°F
– Our question: How fast does the composite skin cool on its own
and how much water and foam is needed to cool it faster?
• 300°F is recommended in the IFSTA ARFF textbook and by Air
Force T.O. 00-105E-9. (Same report used in both)
• Aircraft fuels all have auto ignition temperatures above 410°F.
This allows for some level of a safety factor.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
36
Creation of a Test Method
First objective:
Second objective:
• Determine if self-sustained
combustion or smoldering
will occur.
• Determine the time to
naturally cool below 300°F
(150°C)
Determine how much fire
agent is needed to extinguish
visible fire and cool the
material sufficiently to prevent
re-ignition.
Exposure times of Initial tests:
• 10, 5, 3, 2, & 1 minutes
– FAR Part 139 requires first due ARFF to arrive in 3 minutes.
– Actual response times can be longer or shorter.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
37
Initial Test Set-up
Color Video
FLIR
Color Video at
45 ° Front view
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
38
Initial Test Set-up
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
39
Test 10 Video
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
40
Initial Results
• Longer exposure times inflicted heavy damage on the panels.
– Longer exposures burned out much of the resin.
– Backside has “hard crunchy” feel.
– Edges however, seem to have most of the resin intact. Edge area
matched 1 inch overlap of Kaowool.
Test 6, 10 minute exposure
Front (fire side)
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Edge View
Back (non-fire side)
Federal Aviation
Administration
41
Panel Temperatures
Air Force Composite Fire Test 14
1600
TC 1
1200
TC 2
1000
TC 3
800
TC 4
600
TC 5
BURNER OFF
400
FLIR
200
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Air Force Composite Fire Test 16
Time (minutes)
900
Temperature (F)
Temperature (F)
1400
800
TC1
700
600
TC2
TC3
500
TC4
400
TC5
300
200
BURNER OFF
FLIR
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Time (minutes)
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
42
Other Test Configurations
• Tests 22 and 23
– The panel was cut into 4 pieces and stacked with ¾ inch
(76.2mm) spaces between.
– Thermocouples placed on top surface of each layer.
– Exposure time; 1 minute.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
43
Other Test Configurations
cont.
• This configuration not representative of an
intact fuselage as in the China Air fire.
• Measured temperatures in the vicinity of
1750°F (962°C).
• Wind (in Test 22) caused smoldering to last
52 seconds longer.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
44
Initial Findings
1. Post-exposure flaming
reduces quickly without
heat source
2. Off-gassing causes
pressurization inside the
panel causing swelling
3. Internal off-gassing can
suddenly and rapidly
escape
4. Off-gas/smoke is flammable
5. Longer exposures burn
away more resin binder
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
6. Smoldering can occur
7. Smoldering areas are hot
enough to cause re-ignition
8. Smoldering temperatures
can be near that of fuel fires
9. Presence of smoke requires
additional cooling
10. Insulated areas cooled much
more slowly than uninsulated
areas
Federal Aviation
Administration
45
Further Development of Fire Test Protocol
• Data from first series of tests was used to further modify the
protocol development.
• For example, larger panels and different heat sources were
utilized in this round of development.
• Larger test panels will be needed for the agent application
portion of the protocol.
• Lab scale testing conducted to identify burn characteristics.
• Testing was conducted by Hughes Associates Inc. (HAI).
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
46
Further Development of Fire Test Protocol
Lab scale tests
– ASTM E1354 Cone Calorimeter
• Data to support exterior fuselage flame propagation/spread modeling
– ASTM E1321 Lateral Flame Spread Testing (Lateral flame
spread)
– Thermal Decomposition Apparatus (TDA)
– Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA)
– Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
– Pyrolysis Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectroscopy (PYGC/MS)
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
47
Further Development of Fire Test Protocol
• Secondary test configuration (agent application to
be tested at this scale)
– Three different heat sources evaluated
• Propane fired area burner (2 sizes)
• Propane torch
• Radiant heater
– Sample panels are 4 feet wide by 6 feet tall
• Protection added to test rig to avoid edge effects.
– A representative backside insulation was used in several tests.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
48
Further Development of Fire Test Protocol
12 total tests conducted
Hood Calorimeter
• 9 with OSB
– 1 uninsulated
– 8 insulated
• 3 with CFRP
– 1 uninsulated
– 2 insulated
Test Panel
Non-Combustible
Mounting Wall
Water Suppression
System
Propane Burner
(Exposure Fire)
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
49
OSB Exposed to Large Area Burner
with Insulation Backing
Large Area Burner On
Burner Off – 0 seconds
Burner Off – 60 seconds
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Burner Off – 30 seconds
Burner Off – 100 seconds
Federal Aviation
Administration
50
CFRP Exposed to Torch Burner
with Insulation Backing
Torch Ignition
2.5 minutes after ignition
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
1 minute after ignition
1.5 minutes after ignition
4 minutes after ignition
Torches Out
15 seconds after
torches out
Federal Aviation
Administration
51
Findings
• Ignition occurred quickly into
exposure
• Vertical/Lateral flame spread only
occurred during exposure
• Post-exposure flaming reduced
quickly without heat source
• Jets of internal off-gassing
escaped near heat source from
the backside
• Generally, results are consistent
with small scale data
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
52
Test Conclusions
OSB vs. CFRP
• Both materials burn and
spread flame when
exposed to large fire
• Heat release rates and
ignition times similar
• The thicker OSB
contributed to longer
burning
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Large Scale Implications
• OSB can be used as a
surrogate for CFRP in
preliminary large scale
tests
• Flaming and combustion
does not appear to
continue after exposure
is removed
– Since there was no or very
little post exposure
combustion, no suppression
tests performed as planned
– Minimal agent for
suppression of intact
aircraft?
Federal Aviation
Administration
53
Qualifiers to Results
•
Need to check GLARE
– No significant surface burning
differences anticipated ( may be
better than CFRP)
EXAMPLE COMPLEX
GEOMETRY FIRE TEST
SETUP FOR CFRP
FLAMMABILITY
EVALUATION.
•
Verify /check CFRP for thicker
areas (longer potential burning
duration)
•
Evaluate edges/separations
–
–
–
–
Wing control surfaces
Engine nacelle
Stiffeners
Post crash debris scenario
Can a well established fire develop in
a post-crash environment?
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
54
Summary
• Carbon fiber composite has not shown flame spread and
quickly self-extinguish in the absence of an exposing fire.
• Carbon fiber can achieve very high temperatures depending
on configuration through radiation.
• Initial lab tests and fire tests show similar results and are
consistent.
• Smoke should be used as an indicator of hot spots that must
be further cooled.
• OSB can be used for large scale testing to establish
parameters to save very expensive carbon fiber for data
collection.
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
55
Questions or Comments?
FAA Technical Center
Airport Technology R&D Team
AJP-6311, Building 296
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405
Keith.Bagot@faa.gov 609-485-6383
John_Hode@sra.com 609-601-6800 x207
www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov
www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/aircraft_rescue_fire_fighting/index.cfm
Airport Safety Technology Research
October 8, 2010
Federal Aviation
Administration
56