Upload
miles-simco
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Federal AviationAdministrationCOMPOSITE MATERIAL
FIRE FIGHTING RESEARCH
ARFF Working Group October 8, 2010
Phoenix, AZ
Presented by:
Keith BagotAirport Safety Specialist
Airport Safety Technology R&D Section
John HodeARFF Research Specialist
SRA International, Inc.
Airport Safety Technology Research2Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research3Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
FAA Research Program Overview
FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ Tyndall AFB, Panama City, FL
FAA HQ, Washington, DC
Airport Safety Technology Research4Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
FAA Research Program Overview
Airport Safety Technology Research5Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
FAA Research Program Overview
Program Breakdown:Program Breakdown:
• ARFF Technologies
• Operation of New Large Aircraft (NLA)
• Advanced Composite Material Fire Fighting
-
Airport Safety Technology Research6Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
FAA Research Program Overview
Past Projects: 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 Research7Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research8Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research9Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research10Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
3 Types of Piercing Technologies
Airport Safety Technology Research11Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research12Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 (FAA-TC)
Phase 3: Full-Scale Test Using NLA Mock-Up Fire Test Facility (Tyndall Air Force Base)
Airport Safety Technology Research13Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research14Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research15Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research16Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing
Airport Safety Technology Research17Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Airport Safety Technology Research18Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Airport Safety Technology Research19Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
ASPN Penetration/Retraction ProcessMaterial deformation & tip region penetration
Conical region penetration
Cylindrical region penetration
Retraction
Airport Safety Technology Research20Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
ASPN Penetration and Retraction Forces
Constant force is required to perforate aluminum panels after initial penetrationIncreasing force is required to perforate CFRP and GLARE panels after initial penetration
PP NP
PR
NR
Airport Safety Technology Research21Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Maximum Plate Penetration (PP) and Plate Retraction (PR ) Loads at 0.001 and 0.1 in/s
PP
RR
• For Aluminum panels : Retraction load is higher than penetration load, caused by petals gripping the panel upon retraction (due to elastic recovery)
• For GLARE and CFRP panels: Penetration load is higher than retraction load - petals remain deformed (due to local damage of composite plies)
Airport Safety Technology Research22Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Maximum Nozzle Penetration (NP) and Nozzle Retraction (NR ) Loads at 0.001 and 0.1 in/s
PP
RR
• For Aluminum panels : Retraction load is higher than penetration load, caused by petals gripping the panel upon retraction (due to elastic recovery)
• For GLARE and CFRP panels: Penetration load is higher than retraction load - petals remain deformed (due to local damage of composite plies)
Airport Safety Technology Research23Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Petals FormationGLARE (Normal Penetration)Aluminum (Normal Penetration)
CRF (Normal Penetration)Aluminum (Oblique Penetration)
Airport Safety Technology Research24Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research25Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting ApparatusPurpose
• 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 Research26Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting ApparatusObjectives
• 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 Research27Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Design Progression
Airport Safety Technology Research28Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research29Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research30Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research31Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Composite Material Cutting Apparatus
Airport Safety Technology Research32Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Development of a Composite Material Fire Test Protocol
Airport Safety Technology Research33Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Development of a Composite Material Fire Test Protocol
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
What we knew before this testing…
Airport Safety Technology Research34Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research35Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Representative IncidentAir 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 Research36Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research37Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Creation of a Test Method
First objective: • Determine if self-sustained
combustion or smoldering will occur.
• Determine the time to naturally cool below 300°F (150°C)
Second objective: 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 Research38Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Initial Test Set-up
FLIR
Color Video
Color Video at 45 ° Front view
Airport Safety Technology Research39Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Initial Test Set-up
Airport Safety Technology Research40Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Test 10 Video
Airport Safety Technology Research41Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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) Back (non-fire side)Edge View
Airport Safety Technology Research42Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Panel Temperatures
Air Force Composite Fire Test 14
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (minutes)
Tem
per
atu
re (
F)
TC 1
TC 2
TC 3
TC 4
TC 5
BURNER OFF
FLIR
Air Force Composite Fire Test 16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (minutes)
Tem
pera
ture
(F)
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC4
TC5
BURNER OFF
FLIR
Airport Safety Technology Research43Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research44Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research45Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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
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
Airport Safety Technology Research46Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research47Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 (PY-GC/MS)
Airport Safety Technology Research48Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research49Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Further Development of Fire Test Protocol
12 total tests conducted
• 9 with OSB– 1 uninsulated– 8 insulated
• 3 with CFRP– 1 uninsulated– 2 insulated
Hood Calorimeter
Non-Combustible Mounting Wall
Propane Burner (Exposure Fire)
Water Suppression System
Test Panel
Hood Calorimeter
Non-Combustible Mounting Wall
Propane Burner (Exposure Fire)
Water Suppression System
Test Panel
Airport Safety Technology Research50Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Large Area Burner On Burner Off – 0 seconds Burner Off – 30 seconds
Burner Off – 60 seconds Burner Off – 100 seconds
OSB Exposed to Large Area Burnerwith Insulation Backing
Airport Safety Technology Research51Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Torch Ignition 1 minute after ignition 1.5 minutes after ignition
2.5 minutes after ignition 4 minutes after ignitionTorches Out
15 seconds after torches out
CFRP Exposed to Torch Burner with Insulation Backing
Airport Safety Technology Research52Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research53Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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
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?
Airport Safety Technology Research54Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Qualifiers to Results
• Need to check GLARE– No significant surface burning
differences anticipated ( may be better than CFRP)
• 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?
EXAMPLE COMPLEX GEOMETRY FIRE TEST
SETUP FOR CFRP FLAMMABILITY EVALUATION.
Airport Safety Technology Research55Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
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 Research56Federal Aviation
AdministrationOctober 8, 2010
Questions or Comments?
FAA Technical Center
Airport Technology R&D Team
AJP-6311, Building 296
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405
[email protected] 609-485-6383
[email protected] 609-601-6800 x207
www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov
www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/aircraft_rescue_fire_fighting/index.cfm