Advertisement

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 136, Issue 3, pp 1237–1247 | Cite as

Experimental investigation of thermal properties and fire behavior of carbon/epoxy laminate and its foam core sandwich composite

  • Yanying XuEmail author
  • Chao Lv
  • Ruiqing Shen
  • Zhi Wang
  • Qingsheng WangEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to structural characteristics, composites are classified as laminated structure and sandwich structure. Carbon/epoxy laminate and foam core sandwich composite are the most commonly used laminate and sandwich structure material in the aircraft industry. The flammability of epoxy resins and foam core material is an inherent hazard. Many previous studies focused primarily on their mechanical properties, while the studies on the thermal and fire properties of carbon/epoxy laminate and its foam core sandwich composite have rarely conducted. Therefore, to characterize their thermal and fire properties, a comprehensive experimental investigation and theoretical analysis were carried out in this work using thermogravimetric analysis, cone calorimeter, vertical/horizontal burning tests, limiting oxygen index and scanning electron microscope tests. Several typical characteristic parameters were obtained and analyzed, such as pyrolysis temperature, heat release rate, mass loss, flaming spread rate and limiting oxygen index. These experimental data coupled with theoretical analysis can provide support for fire risk assessment and fire protection design in aircrafts. The carbon/epoxy laminate and foam core sandwich composite are both characterized as the thermally thick materials. The ignition models and mass loss rate models were obtained. Foam core material negatively affects most of the thermal and fire properties of sandwich composite, but the foam core sandwich composite has self-extinguishing behavior during horizontal burning tests, whose LOI is higher than that of carbon/epoxy laminate. Thus, an important conclusion was reached that the ignition position and flame spread direction have critical effect on the fire behavior of foam core material.

Keywords

Carbon/epoxy laminate Foam core sandwich composite Pyrolysis and thermal properties Fire properties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the Scientific Research Project of Liaoning Provincial Education Department (LZ01625). Authors are grateful for the support by China Scholarship Council and the Dale F. Janes Endowed Professorship at Oklahoma State University (USA).

References

  1. 1.
    Szolnoki B, Bocz K, Sóti PL, Bodzay B, Zimonyi E, Toldy A, Morlin B, Bujnowicz K, Wladyka-Przybylak M, Marosi G. Development of natural fibre reinforced flame retarded epoxy resin composites. Polym Degrad Stabil. 2015;119:68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shen Z. Design handbook of composite structure. Beijing: Aviation Industrial Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mouritz AP, Gibson AG. Fire properties of polymer composite materials. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marsh G. Composites consolidate in commercial aviation. Reinf Plast. 2016;60(5):302–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Branca C, Blasi CD, Galgano A, Milella E. Thermal and kinetic characterization of a toughened epoxy resin reinforced with carbon fibers. Thermochim Acta. 2011;517(1):53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu S, Chevali VS, Xu Z, Hui D, Wang H. A review of extending performance of epoxy resins using carbon nanomaterials. Compos Part B Eng. 2018;136:197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang X, Peng X, Lu G, Liu S. The study of relationship between radiant heat flux and combustion parameter based on the CONE data. Fire Sci Technol. 2006;4(25):469–72.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindholm J, Brink A, Hupa M. Cone calorimeter–a tool for measuring heat release rate. Turku: Åbo Akademi Process Chemistry Centre; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel RJ, Wang Q. Prediction of properties and modeling fire behavior of polyethylene using cone calorimeter. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2016;41:411–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shen R, Hatanaka LC, Ahmed L, Agnew RJ, Mannan MS, Wang Q. Cone calorimeter analysis of flame retardant poly(methylmethacrylate)–silica nanocomposites. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2017;128(3):1443–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harada T. Time to ignition, heat release rate and fire endurance time of wood in cone calorimeter test. Fire Mater. 2001;25(4):161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikkola E, Wichman IS. On the thermal ignition of combustible materials. Fire Mater. 1989;14(3):87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mikkola E. Ignitability of solid materials. In: Babrauskas V, Grayson SJ, editors. Heat release in fires. 2nd ed. London: Interscience Communications; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drysdale D. An introduction to fire dynamics. 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janssens M. Piloted ignition of wood: a review. Fire Mater. 1991;15(4):151–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahmed L, Zhang B, Shen R, Agnew RJ, Park H, Cheng Z, Mannan MS, Wang Q. Fire reaction properties of polystyrene-based nanocomposites using nanosilica and nanoclay as additives in cone calorimeter test. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018;132(3):1853–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dinenno PJ, Beyler CL. Fire hazard assessment of composite materials: the use and limitations of current hazard analysis methodology. In: Hirschler MM, editor. Fire hazard and fire risk assessment. Philadelphia: ASTM; 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Babrauskas V. Why was the fire so big? HHR: the role of heat release rate in described fires. Fire Arson Investig. 1997;47:54–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jiao C, Chen X. Flammability and thermal degradation of intumescent flame retardant polypropylene composites. Polym Eng Sci. 2010;50(4):767–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hatanaka LC, Wang Q, Cheng Z, Mannan MS. Effect of trimethylolpropane triacrylate cross-linkages on the thermal stability and char yield of poly (methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites. Fire Saf J. 2017;87:65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen R, Lu S, Li C, Ding Y, Zhang B, Lo S. Correlation analysis of heat flux and cone calorimeter test data of commercial flame-retardant ethylene–propylene–diene monomer (EPDM) rubber. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2015;123(1):545–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Staggs JEJ. The heat of gasification of polymers. Fire Saf J. 2004;39(8):711–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hurley MJ, Gottuk DT, Hall JR Jr, Harada K, Kuligowski ED, Puchovsky M, Torero J, Watts JM Jr, Wieczorek C. SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. 5th ed. New York: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horrocks AR, Price D. Fire retardant materials. Cambridge: Woodhead; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gooch JW. Limiting oxygen index. In: Gooch JW, editor. Encyclopedic dictionary of polymers. New York: Springer; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wen P, Tai Q, Hu Y, Yuen RKK. Cyclotriphosphazene-based intumescent flame retardant against the combustible polypropylene. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2016;55(29):8018–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kourtides DA. Processing and flammability parameters of bismaleimide and some other thermally stable resin matrices for composites. Polym Compos. 1984;5(2):143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Liaoning Key Laboratory of Aircraft Safety and AirworthinessShenyang Aerospace UniversityShenyangChina
  2. 2.Department of Fire Protection and SafetyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Chemical EngineeringOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations