1. Federal Aviation Administration 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.

2. Airport Safety Technology Research 2 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

3. Airport Safety Technology Research 3 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 FAA Research Program Overview FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ Tyndall AFB, Panama City, FL FAA HQ, Washington, DC

4. Airport Safety Technology Research 4 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 FAA Research Program Overview

5. Airport Safety Technology Research 5 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 FAA Research Program Overview Program Breakdown: ARFF Technologies Operation of New Large Aircraft (NLA) Advanced Composite Material Fire Fighting -

6. Airport Safety Technology Research 6 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 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

7. Airport Safety Technology Research 7 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

8. Airport Safety Technology Research 8 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

9. Airport Safety Technology Research 9 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing

10. Airport Safety Technology Research 10 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing 3 Types of Piercing Technologies

11. Airport Safety Technology Research 11 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

12. Airport Safety Technology Research 12 Federal Aviation Administration October 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)

13. Airport Safety Technology Research 13 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

14. Airport Safety Technology Research 14 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing

15. Airport Safety Technology Research 15 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing

16. Airport Safety Technology Research 16 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Aircraft Skin Penetration Testing

17. Airport Safety Technology Research 17 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010

18. Airport Safety Technology Research 18 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010

19. Airport Safety Technology Research 19 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 ASPN Penetration/Retraction Process Material deformation & tip region penetration Conical region penetration Cylindrical region penetration Retraction

20. Airport Safety Technology Research 20 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 ASPN Penetration and Retraction Forces Constant force is required to perforate aluminum panels after initial penetration Increasing force is required to perforate CFRP and GLARE panels after initial penetration P NPNP PRPR NRNR

21. Airport Safety Technology Research 21 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Maximum Plate Penetration (P P ) and Plate Retraction (P R ) 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) For GLARE and CFRP panels: Penetration load is higher than retraction load - petals remain deformed (due to local damage of composite plies)

22. Airport Safety Technology Research 22 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Maximum Nozzle Penetration (N P ) and Nozzle Retraction (N R ) 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) For GLARE and CFRP panels: Penetration load is higher than retraction load - petals remain deformed (due to local damage of composite plies)

23. Airport Safety Technology Research 23 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Petals Formation GLARE (Normal Penetration) Aluminum (Normal Penetration) CRF (Normal Penetration) Aluminum (Oblique Penetration)

24. Airport Safety Technology Research 24 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Material Cutting Apparatus

25. Airport Safety Technology Research 25 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 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

26. Airport Safety Technology Research 26 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 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 4X2 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

27. Airport Safety Technology Research 27 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Material Cutting Apparatus Design Progression

28. Airport Safety Technology Research 28 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Material Cutting Apparatus

29. Airport Safety Technology Research 29 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Material Cutting Apparatus

30. Airport Safety Technology Research 30 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Material Cutting Apparatus

31. Airport Safety Technology Research 31 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Composite Material Cutting Apparatus

32. Airport Safety Technology Research 32 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Development of a Composite Material Fire Test Protocol

33. Airport Safety Technology Research 33 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Development of a Composite Material Fire Test Protocol ALUMINUMCARBON/EPOXYGLARE Norm for ARFFUnfamiliar 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 heatHolds heatMay hold heat Current AircraftB787 & A3502 Sections of A380 skin What we knew before this testing…

34. Airport Safety Technology Research 34 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

35. Airport Safety Technology Research 35 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 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

36. Airport Safety Technology Research 36 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

37. Airport Safety Technology Research 37 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

38. Airport Safety Technology Research 38 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Initial Test Set-up FLIR Color Video Color Video at 45 ° Front view

39. Airport Safety Technology Research 39 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Initial Test Set-up

40. Airport Safety Technology Research 40 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Test 10 Video

41. Airport Safety Technology Research 41 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

42. Airport Safety Technology Research 42 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Panel Temperatures

43. Airport Safety Technology Research 43 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

44. Airport Safety Technology Research 44 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

45. Airport Safety Technology Research 45 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

46. Airport Safety Technology Research 46 Federal Aviation Administration October 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).

47. Airport Safety Technology Research 47 Federal Aviation Administration October 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)

48. Airport Safety Technology Research 48 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

49. Airport Safety Technology Research 49 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

50. Airport Safety Technology Research 50 Federal Aviation Administration October 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 Burner with Insulation Backing

51. Airport Safety Technology Research 51 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 Torch Ignition1 minute after ignition1.5 minutes after ignition 2.5 minutes after ignition 4 minutes after ignition Torches Out 15 seconds after torches out CFRP Exposed to Torch Burner with Insulation Backing

52. Airport Safety Technology Research 52 Federal Aviation Administration October 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

53. Airport Safety Technology Research 53 Federal Aviation Administration October 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?

54. Airport Safety Technology Research 54 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

55. Airport Safety Technology Research 55 Federal Aviation Administration October 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.

56. Airport Safety Technology Research 56 Federal Aviation Administration October 8, 2010 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