Next Generation Composite Aircraft Fuselage Materials under Post-crash Fire Conditions

  • Gaetano La Delfa
  • Johannes Luinge
  • Arthur Geoff Gibson
Conference paper


This paper summarizes a series of small-scale tests carried out to evaluate and model the post-crash fire integrity of composite aircraft fuselage structures.

The US Federal Aviation Administration regulations for the penetration of an external fuel fire into an aircraft cabin after crash require a burn-through period of 4min (FAA § 25.856 Appendix F, Part VII). Different candidate structures for the next generation of composite aircraft fuselage, provided by Airbus, were investigated, including CFRP monolithic laminate and a folded-core CFRP sandwich. Those materials were subjected to constant heat flux from a propane gas burner, while being held under compressive load in a small, specially designed compression test rig with anti-buckling guides. The propane burner was calibrated to produce a constant heat flux up to 182kW/m2. The sample time-to-failure was measured, along with the temperatures at various points through the thickness.

Modelling the thermal and structural behaviour under load required the use of a modified version of the Henderson Equation, which describes heat transfer through composites under ablative fire conditions. This has been incorporated into the Com-Fire software model. Kinetic parameters for the resin decomposition reaction were determined from thermo-gravimetric data and other thermal parameters, conductivity and diffusivity were measured experimentally. The paper will compare the behaviour of single and double-skinned structures and will examine measured and modelled behaviour.


Composite structures Aerospace Fire resistance Mechanical property 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gibson, A.G., Wright, P.N.H., Wu, Y-S., Mouritz, A.P., Mathys, Z. and Gardiner, C.P. (2004). The integrity of polymer composites during and after fire. Journal of Composite Materials 38:15, 1283–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mouritz, A.P. (2006) Fire Safety of Advance Composite for Aircraft, Aviation Safety Research Grant B2004/0046, School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering RMIT University.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CAP681 Global Fatal Accident Review 1980–1996.
  4. 4.
    Committee on fire- and smoke-resistant amterials for commercial aircraft interiors (1995) Fire and Smoke-Resistant Interiors Materials for Commercial Transport Aircraft, The National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dao, M. and Asaro, R.J. (1999) A study on failure prediction and design criteria for fiber composites under fire degradation. Composites 30A:123–131.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mouritz, A.P. and Mathys, Z. (2001) Post-fire mechanical properties of glass-reinforced polyester composites. Composites Science and Technology 61:475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dodds, N. et al. (2000) Fire behaviour of composite laminates. Composites: Part A 31(7): 689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibson, A.G. et al. (2003) A Low Cost Burner Technique for the Development and Modelling of Laminates in Fire. In Composites in Fire 3: 3rd International Conference on the Response of Composite Materials to Fire, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greene, E. (1993) Fire Performance of Composite Materials for Naval Applications, US Navy Contract N61533-91-C-0017, Structural Composites, Melbourne, FL.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson, A.G. et al. (2006) Laminate theory analysis of composites under load in fire. Journal of Composite Materials 40(7):639–658. A.G. GibsonCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Budiansky, B. and Fleck, N.A. (1993) Compressive failure of fibre composite. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 41/1:183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schultheisz, R. and Waas, A.M. (1996) Compressive failure of composite, Part I: Testing and micromechanical theories. Progress in Aerospace Science 32:1–42.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman, H.L. (1959) Kinetics of thermal degradation of char-forming plastics from thermogravimetry: Application to a phenolic plastic. In Proceedings of the 136th American Chemical Society meeting, Atlantic City, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cai, X.E., Shen, H., Zhang, C.H., Wang, Y.X. and Kong Z. (2000) Application of constant reaction rate TG to the determination of kinetic parameters by Hi-Res TG. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 60:623–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Opfermann, J. (2000) Kinetic analysis using multivariate non-linear regression. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 60:641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson, J.B., Wiebelt, J.A. and Tant, M.R. (1985) A model for the thermal response of polymer composite materials with experimental verification. Journal of Composite Materials 19:579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibson, A.G. et al. (1995) A model for the thermal performance of thick composite laminates in hydrocarbon fires. Revue de l’Institut FranÇais du Pétrole 50(1):69–74 (special issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaetano La Delfa
    • 1
  • Johannes Luinge
    • 2
  • Arthur Geoff Gibson
    • 1
  1. 1.NewRail, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.TCC1/Department IW-CTEADS Innovation WorksMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations