Advertisement

Cone Calorimeter and Thermogravimetric Analysis of Glass Phenolic Composites Used in Aircraft Applications

  • Vasiliki Papadogianni
  • Alexandros Romeos
  • Athanasios Giannadakis
  • Konstantinos Perrakis
  • Thrassos PanidisEmail author
Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

The increasing use of composite materials in aircraft cabins and structures poses significant challenges in order to maintain and improve the fire safety of aviation. In this work, the flammability characteristics of a commercial glass-fibre reinforced phenolic composite (GFRP) used for aircraft cabin partitions and furnishing are investigated experimentally. Thermogravimetric analysis under inert atmosphere at several heating rates provided information on the thermal decomposition process. The degradation process is modelled with one and two-step mechanisms using the Ozawa–Flynn–Wall iso-conversional method and the GPYRO numerical code which utilizes a genetic algorithm optimization scheme. The estimated activation energy and pre-exponential factor values, especially in the two-step case (77.18 and 104.69 kJ/mol and 2.60 × 106 and 3.19 × 106 min−1 for the first and the second step respectively), recover reasonably well the conversion degree and its derivative. Tests with a cone calorimeter (CC), performed at different incident heat fluxes, provided information on the reaction to fire characteristics of the material and the influence of the heat flux on the combustion process. In general, combustion proceeds in two stages, flaming and smoldering combustion. The CC results assisted by scanning electron microscopy photos provide information on the charring characteristics of the material. The critical heat flux for ignition and the corresponding ignition temperature are estimated, correlating heat fluxes with time to ignition. Thermally thin and thick models are considered, as well as a modified technique bridging the gap between these limit cases and therefore valid for thermally thin and thick but also intermediate conditions (more pertinent in the present case). The results for this latter approach are \(\dot{q}^{\prime\prime}_{ig,cr}\) ~ 20 kW/m2 and Tig = 469°C, providing also complementing information on thermophysical properties, such as thermal diffusivity, α = 1.23 × 10−7 m2/s, thermal conductivity, k = 0.325 W/(m K) and specific heat capacity, c = 1.330 kJ/(kg K). This work provides information on the reaction to fire characteristics of GFRP, but also on physical and flammability properties in a form suitable to be used in numerical codes, for the prediction of fire and evacuation scenarios. The influence of the reinforcement structure on the fire behaviour of the composite is also illustrated and discussed.

Keywords

Cone calorimeter Thermogravimetric analysis Flammability properties Glass phenolic Aircraft materials 

Abbreviations

A

Pre-exponential factor (min−1)

a

Conversion degree (–)

c

Specific heat (kJ/kg K)

E

Activation energy (J/mol)

k

Thermal conductivity (kW/m K)

\(\dot{q}^{\prime\prime}_{cr}\)

Critical heat flux (kW/m2)

\(\dot{q}^{\prime\prime}\)

External heat flux (kW/m2)

\(\dot{q}^{\prime\prime}_{\text{int}}\)

Intercept heat flux (kW/m2)

To

Initial temperature (K)

Tign

Ignition temperature (K)

tign

Ignition time (s)

Greeks

α

Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)

β

Rate of temperature increase (K/s)

ΔHg

Latent heat of gasification (kJ/kg)

δ

Sample thickness (m)

δth

Thermal depth (m)

ε

Emissivity (–)

ρ

Density (kg/m3)

σ

Stefan–Boltzmann constant (W/m2K4)

Subscripts

ign

Ignition

int

Intercept on the external heat flux axis

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7 Transport/2007–2013) of the European Commission, under Grant Agreement No 265612, Project: Fire risks assessment and increase of passenger survivability (AircraftFire). The authors would also like to thank the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy and Microanalysis (L.E.M.M.) of University of Patras and its staff for producing the SEM pictures in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    EASA (2014) Annual safety reviewGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cherry RGW (2010) Trends in accidents and fatalities in large transport aircraftGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    NTSB (1997) In-flight fire and impact with terrain, ValuJet airlines flight 592Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lyon RE (1997) Fire-resistant materials: research overviewGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galea ER (2006) Proposed methodology for the use of computer simulation to enhance aircraft evacuation certification. J Aircr 43:1405–1413.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.20937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mouritz AP (2006) Fire safety of advanced composites for aircraft. Australian transport safety bureauGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    FAA federal aviation regulations part 25—airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:1.0.1.3.11. Accessed 25 Sep 2019
  8. 8.
    EASA (2017) CS-25 certification specifications and acceptable means of compliance for large aeroplanesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    FAA aircraft materials fire test handbook. https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/handbook. Accessed 25 Sep 2019
  10. 10.
    Hedo JM, Martinez-Val R (2011) Assessment of narrow-body transport airplane evacuation by numerical simulation. J Aircr 48:1785–1794.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egglestone GT, Turley DM (1994) Flammability of GRP for use in ship superstructures. Fire Mater 18:255–260.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810180408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown JR, Mathys Z (1997) Reinforcement and matrix effects on the combustion properties of glass reinforced polymer composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 28:675–681.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-835X(97)00018-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scudamore MJ (1994) Fire performance studies on glass-reinforced plastic laminates. Fire Mater 18:313–325.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810180507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramsay G, Dowling VP, Mckechnie B, Leonard J (1995) Methods for assessing the fire performance of phenolic resins and composites. In: Proceedings of the Asia-Oceania symposium on fire science and technology, pp 355–366Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mouritz AP, Gibson AG (2006) Fire properties of polymer composite materials. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Babrauskas V (1984) Development of the cone calorimeter—a bench-scale heat release rate apparatus based on oxygen consumption. Fire Mater 8:81–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810080206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO 5660-1:2002 (2002) Reaction to fire tests—Heat release, smoke production and mass loss rate—Part1: Heat release rate (cone calorimeter method). ISO copyright office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM E-1354 (2017) Standard test method for heat and visible smoke release rates for materials and products using an oxygen consumption calorimeterGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rhodes BT, Quintiere JG (1996) Burning rate and flame heat flux for PMMA in a cone calorimeter. Fire Saf J 26:221–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-7112(96)00025-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sorathia U, Lyon RE, Ohlemiller T, Grenier A (1997) A review of fire test methods and criteria for composites. SAMPE J 33:23–31Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mouritz AP, Mathys Z, Gibson AG (2006) Heat release of polymer composites in fire. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 37:1040–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2005.01.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morgan AB, Gagliardi NA, Price WA, Galaska ML (2009) Cone calorimeter testing of S2 glass reinforced polymer composites. Fire Mater 33:323–344.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.995 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hshieh FY, Beeson HD (1997) Flammability testing of flame-retarded epoxy composites and phenolic composites. Fire Mater 21:41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1018(199701)21:1%3c41::AID-FAM595%3e3.0.CO;2-G CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avila MB, Dembsey NA, Dore C (2008) Effect of resin type and glass content on the reaction to fire characteristics of typical FRP composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 39:1503–1511.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fateh T, Kahanji C, Joseph P, Rogaume T (2017) A study of the effect of thickness on the thermal degradation and flammability characteristics of some composite materials using a cone calorimeter. J Fire Sci 35:547–564.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734904117713690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Ris JL, Khan MM (2000) Sample holder for determining material properties. Fire Mater 24:219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1018(200009/10)24:5%3c219::AID-FAM741%3e3.0.CO;2-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Apostolopoulou N, Romeos A, Hinopoulos G, et al (2018) Considerations on reaction to fire tests of polyethylene foam with a cone calorimeter apparatus. J Fire Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734904118765606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Delichatsios MA (2005) Piloted ignition times, critical heat fluxes and mass loss rates at reduced oxygen atmospheres. Fire Saf J 40:197–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2004.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luche J, Rogaume T, Richard F, Guillaume E (2011) Characterization of thermal properties and analysis of combustion behavior of PMMA in a cone calorimeter. Fire Saf J 46:451–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FIRESAF.2011.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Delichatsios MA (2000) Ignition times for thermally thick and intermediate conditions in flat and cylindrical geometries. Fire Saf Sci 6:233–244.  https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.6-233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spearpoint M., Quintiere JG (2001) Predicting the piloted ignition of wood in the cone calorimeter using an integral model—effect of species, grain orientation and heat flux. Fire Saf J 36:391–415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-7112(00)00055-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mikkola E, Wichman IS (1989) On the thermal ignition of combustible materials. Fire Mater 14:87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810140303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quintiere JG, Walters RN, Crowley S (2007) Flammability properties of aircraft carbon-fiber structural compositeGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Torero J (2016) Flaming ignition of solid fuels. In: Hurley MJ et al. (eds) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. Springer, New York, NY, pp 633–661.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0_21
  35. 35.
    Quintiere JG (2006) Fundamentals of fire phenomena. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang J, Delichatsios MA, Bourbigot S (2009) Experimental and numerical study of the effects of nanoparticles on pyrolysis of a polyamide 6 (PA6) nanocomposite in the cone calorimeter. Combust Flame 156:2056–2062.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang J, Delichatsios MA (2010) Further validation of a numerical model for prediction of pyrolysis of polymer nanocomposites in the cone calorimeter. Fire Technol 46:307–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-008-0073-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vyazovkin S, Burnham AK, Criado JM et al (2011) ICTAC kinetics committee recommendations for performing kinetic computations on thermal analysis data. Thermochim Acta 520:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TCA.2011.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vlaev L, Nedelchev N, Gyurova K, Zagorcheva M (2008) A comparative study of non-isothermal kinetics of decomposition of calcium oxalate monohydrate. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 81:253–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2007.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rein G, Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello AC et al (2006) Application of genetic algorithms and thermogravimetry to determine the kinetics of polyurethane foam in smoldering combustion. Combust Flame 146:95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2006.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello C (2009) Generalized pyrolysis model for combustible solids. Fire Saf J 44:819–839.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2009.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stoliarov SI, Lyon RE (2008) Thermo-kinetic model of burning for pyrolyzing materials. Fire Saf Sci 9:1141–1152.  https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-1141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stoliarov SI, Crowley S, Lyon RE, Linteris GT (2009) Prediction of the burning rates of non-charring polymers. Combust Flame 156:1068–1083.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2008.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Matala A, Hostikka S, Mangs J (2008) Estimation of pyrolysis model parameters for solid materials using thermogravimetric data. Fire Saf Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-1213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lautenberger C (2016) Gpyro—a generalized pyrolysis model for combustible solids technical referenceGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stoliarov SI, Li J (2016) Parameterization and validation of pyrolysis models for polymeric materials. Fire Technol 52:79–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0490-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lyon RE, Safronava N, Stoliarov SI, Senese J (2012) Thermokinetic model of sample response in nonisothermal analysis. Thermochim Acta 545:82–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2012.06.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kim E, Dembsey NA (2015) Parameter estimation for comprehensive pyrolysis modeling: guidance and critical observations. Fire Technol 51:443–477.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0399-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Richter F, Rein G (2018) The role of heat transfer limitations in polymer pyrolysis at the microscale. Front Mech Eng 4:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2018.00018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hayhurst AN (2013) The kinetics of the pyrolysis or devolatilisation of sewage sludge and other solid fuels. Combust Flame 160:138–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Younglove BA, Hanley HJM (1986) The viscosity and thermal conductivity of gaseous and liquid argon. J Phys Chem Ref Data 15:1323–1337.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Whitaker S (1977) Fundamental principles of heat transfer. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Haines PJ (ed) (2002) Principles of thermal analysis and calorimetry (Oakland Analytical Services, Farnharm, U.K.). Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge. pp xiv + 220 ISBN 0-85404-610-0.  https://doi.org/10.1021/JA0252835
  54. 54.
    Ozawa T (1965) A new method of analyzing thermogravimetric data. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 38:1881–1886.  https://doi.org/10.1246/bcsj.38.1881 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Opfermann J, Kaisersberger E (1992) An advantageous variant of the Ozawa-Flynn-Wall analysis. Thermochim Acta 203:167–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6031(92)85193-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lautenberger C (2016) Gpyro—a generalized pyrolysis model for combustible solids users’ guideGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    GUM 1995 ISO/IEC Guide 98-3 (2008) Uncertainty of measurement—part 3: guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurementGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Guillaume E, Marquis D, Saragoza L (2014) Calibration of flow rate in cone calorimeter tests. Fire Mater 38:194–203.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brohez S (2009) comments to the paper uncertainty of heat release rate calculation of the ISO5660-1 cone calorimeter standard test method. Fire Technol 45:381–384.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-008-0050-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhao L, Dembsey NA (2008) Measurement uncertainty analysis for calorimetry apparatuses. FIRE Mater Fire Mater 32:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Enright PA, Fleischmann CM (1999) Uncertainty of heat release rate calculation of the ISO5660–1 cone calorimeter standard test method. Fire Technol 35:153–169.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015416005888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mulholland GW (1983) Smoke production and properties. In: SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 2nd edn. Chapter 15, Sect 2 2/217-2/227Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Delichatsios MA (1993) Smoke yields from turbulent buoyant jet flames. Fire Saf J 20:299–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-7112(93)90052-R CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Seader JD, Einhorn IN (1977) Some physical, chemical, toxicological, and physiological aspects of fire smokes. Symp Combust 16:1423–1445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0082-0784(77)80426-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Atreya A, Carpentier C, Harkleroad M (1986) Effect of sample orientation on piloted ignition and flame spread. Fire Saf Sci 1:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Li Y, Drysdale D (1992) Measurement of the ignition temperature of wood. Fire Saf Sci 1:380–385Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Safronava N, Lyon RE, Crowley S, Stoliarov SI (2015) Effect of moisture on ignition time of polymers. Fire Technol 51:1093–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0434-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Terrei L, Acem Z, Georges V, et al (2019) Experimental tools applied to ignition study of spruce wood under cone calorimeter. Fire Saf J 108:102845.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.102845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hopkins D, Quintiere JG (1996) Material fire properties and predictions for thermoplastics. Fire Saf J 26:241–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-7112(96)00033-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tewarson A (2002) Generation of heat and chemical compounds in fires. In: DiNenno PJ et al. (eds) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Quincy, MA, pp 3.82–3.161Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Janssens M (1991) Piloted ignition of wood: a review. Fire Mater 15:151–167.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810150402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cengel YA, Ghajar AJ (2015) Heat and mass transfer: fundamentals and applications, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Delichatsios MA, Chen Y (1993) Asymptotic, approximate, and numerical solutions for the heatup and pyrolysis of materials including reradiation losses. Combust Flame 92:292–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(93)90041-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Delichatsios MA, Panagiotou T, Kiley F (1991) The use of time to ignition data for characterizing the thermal inertia and the minimum (critical) heat flux for ignition or pyrolysis. Combust Flame 84:323–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(91)90009-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chen Y, Delichatsios MA, Motvalli V (1993) Material pyrolysis properties, part i: an integral model for one-dimensional transient pyrolysis of charring and non-charring materials. Combust Sci Technol 88:309–328.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00102209308947242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Puglia D, Manfredi LB, Vazquez A, Kenny JM (2001) Thermal degradation and fire resistance of epoxy–amine–phenolic blends. Polym Degrad Stab 73:521–527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-3910(01)00157-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wilson MT, Dlugogorski BZ, Kennedy EM (2003) Uniformity of radiant heat fluxes in cone calorimeter. Fire Saf Sci 7:815–826.  https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.7-815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schartel B, Hull TRR (2007) Development of fire-retarded materials—interpretation of cone calorimeter data. Fire Mater 31:327–354.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ukleja S (2012) Production of smoke and carbon monoxide in underventilated enclosure fires. University of Ulster, NewtownabbeyGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schartel B, Weiß A (2010) Temperature inside burning polymer specimens pyrolysis zone and shielding. Fire Mater 34:217–235.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.1007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mottram JT, Taylor R (1987) Thermal conductivity of fibre-phenolic resin composites. Part I: thermal diffusivity measurements. Compos Sci Technol 29:189–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-3538(87)90070-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mark JE (2006) Physical properties of polymer handbook. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Babrauskas V (2003) Ignition handbook : principles and applications to fire safety engineering, fire investigation, risk management and forensic science. Fire Science Publishers, IssaquahGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Goodman SH (1998) Handbook of thermoset plastics. Noyes Publications, WestwoodGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wang R, Zheng S, Zheng Y (2011) Polymer matrix composites and technology. Woodhead Pub, SawstonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Patton R, Pittman C, Wang L et al (2002) Ablation, mechanical and thermal conductivity properties of vapor grown carbon fiber/phenolic matrix composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 33:243–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00092-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bahramian AR, Kokabi M, Famili MHN, Beheshty MH (2006) Ablation and thermal degradation behaviour of a composite based on resol type phenolic resin: Process modeling and experimental. Polymer (Guildf) 47:3661–3673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POLYMER.2006.03.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics DepartmentUniversity of PatrasRio-PatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations