AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Adminis tered by the Defense Information Sys tems Agency, Defense Technical Information Center

Special Issue:

Ships Navy Experts Explainthe Newest Material &Structural Technologies

The issue you hold in your hands has been 14 months in themaking. It began with a simple idea: turn the spotlight on theage-old art of building ships. We wanted to show the excitingnew technologies that are offering novel materials for ship con-struction, changing the way ships are built, and indeed creatingone of the most fundamental shifts in Navy combatants sincesteel replaced wood.

This simple mission turnedout to be much more complex.The project underwent a num-ber of different iterations, butfinally settled in and cametogether. It has been a labor oflove for yours truly, for I reallydo believe that even though air-planes and tanks often grab thespotlight, Navy ships are still the most challenging structuraland materials engineering systems fielded in today’s military.Nothing has the complexity, impact, size, and sheer force of afighting vessel, nor can many things capture the imagination inquite the same way.

So here it is, finally, and I am thankful that it is done. Notjust because it is off my desk and I can get on to the next proj-ect, but we are proud because AMPTIAC has compiled some-thing that probably has not existed before: an overview of thenewest technologies being incorporated into structures andmaterials for use aboard Navy combatants. And the people pro-viding the perspective are the experts at the Office of NavalResearch, NSWC-Carderock, and the Naval Research Lab. Youwon’t find this level of detail, variety, and expert contentfocused on this subject anywhere else.

That all being said, there is one critical feature of this publi-cation that needs some attention: the DOD center behind it.Some of you out there have been reading this publication forseven years now. You undoubtedly remember about two yearsago when we shifted over to our current layout format and full

color reproduction. You also have probably noticed that we arepublishing these large special issues fairly often. It is all a partof our mission to bring you the most in-depth, focused, andtechnologically exciting coverage of Defense materials and pro-cessing advances available anywhere.

But the side effect of the more noticeable and attention-grabbing Quarterly, is thatAMPTIAC itself has lost someattention. The reality is that thecenter has grown with numer-ous projects, focused reports,and database efforts over thepast few years, but there aremany out there that may readthis publication and not evenknow that the center exists.

We want to put more emphasis on the other efforts AMPTIAC is involved in, and let our customers and potentialcustomers know that we are here for you. We help with ques-tions, assist in materials selection, and provide consultation ona variety of materials and processing-related issues. We havemore than 210,000 DOD technical reports in our library anddirect access to hundreds of thousands more throughout DOD,DOE, NASA, and other US Government agencies. We havedozens of focused reports tailored to specific technology areasand many more compiling vast amounts of data into hand-book-style resources.

The basic message here is to take note of this magazine, readit, and enjoy. But if you think AMPTIAC is just the Quarterly,Think Again.

Wade BabcockEditor-in-Chief

Editorial: There’s More to AMPTIAC

than the Quarterly

http://iac.dtic.mil/amptiac

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology InformationAnalysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, administrativelymanaged by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to David H. RoseDirector, AMPTIAC315-339-7023

E M A I L : a m p t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o mU R L : http :/ / a m p t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMPTIACATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK201 Mill StreetRome, New York 13440

PHONE : 315 .339 .7008

FAX : 315 .339 .7107

E M A I L : a m p t i a c _ n ews @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

Editor-in-ChiefWade G. Babcock

Creative Director Cynthia Long

Information ProcessingJudy E. TallarinoPatricia McQuinn

Inquiry ServicesDavid J. Brumbaugh

Product SalesGina Nash

Training CoordinatorChristian E. Grethlein, P.E.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3

INTRODUCTIONDue to their characteristics, advanced composite materials havebeen making steady inroads into military systems for the last 40years. Principle advantages of composites include higher stiffnessto weight ratio (much better than steel or aluminum), enduranceunder cyclic loading, and resistance to chemical attack (e.g. cor-rosion resistance).

Polymer matrix composite (PMC) materials are increasinglybeing used in all aspects of our society, from transportation(trains, autos and airplanes) and civil engineering (bridges, wallreinforcement,) to electronics and sporting goods. The aerospacemilitary industry has been using these materials for more than40 years, principally due to their demand for low weight struc-tures. The maritime industry, historically not constrained byweight issues, has used steel as its primary structural material.

As a result of recent requirements for faster and more agileships, the Navy has been developing and is now starting to usePMCs in primary and secondary structures. Some examplesinclude lightweight foundations, deckhouses, and masts;machinery components, such as composite piping, valves, cen-trifugal pumps and heat exchangers; and auxiliary or supportitems, such as gratings, stanchions, vent screens, ventilationducts, and louvers [1]. The growing interest in composite mate-rials is also driven by the directives to reduce maintenance, saveweight, increase covertness and provide affordable alternatives tometallic components with lower life cycle costs.

Polymer composites are engineered materials in which themajor component is a high strength fibrous reinforcement (typ-ically a fiber made out of carbon, glass or Kevlar) and the minorcomponent is an organic resin binder (such as epoxy, vinyl-esteror -imide). Structural composites for US Navy ship applicationsare typically brominated vinyl-ester with glass reinforcementfibers over a balsa wood core. Some recent notable large com-posite applications include the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor(AEM/S) System (installed on the USS Radford DD 968), theLPD 17 AEM/S, the DDG 51 Forward Director Room, and the

Composite Helicopter Hangar Program. Figure 1 shows the cur-rent and potential composite applications in Surface Ships.

A significant concern in shipboard application of organicmatrix based composites is the possibility that an accidental (ordeliberate) fire may ignite the composite material. This mayresult in the spread of flames over the composite’s surface, therelease of heat, and the generation of potentially toxic smoke.Thus, a localized incidental fire may propagate to a larger struc-tural fire involving the composite, which now becomes addi-tional fuel for the growing fire. In enclosed and confined spaces(such as ships) the growing fire can lead to a flashover conditionin which all combustible materials within the enclosure igniteand generate copious amounts of potentially toxic smoke. If theburning composite component is part of a primary critical struc-ture, it may also collapse.

The US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA),Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Office of Naval Research(ONR), and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, CarderockDivision (NSWCCD) have a long history in fire research and in

Usman Sorathia, Fire Protection Branch Head Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center

West Bethesda, MD

Figure 1. Current and Potential Composite Applications forSurface Ships.

49

Sonar Dome

FoundationNon-Structural Partitions

Decks & BulkheadsAuxiliary Machinery

Propulsion ShaftsRudders

Propulsors

Life RailsHangar Doors

Deck Equipment EnclosuresDoors & Hatches

Exhaust Stack

Intake Louvers & Ducting Deckhouse

MastRadomes

GunEnclosures Hull & Deck

Machinery

studies of composite flammability. NSWCCD and NRL conduct many small, intermediate, and large-scale (e.g. thedecommissioned USS Shadwell) fire tests to characterize materi-als, systems, and structures, as well as validate the adequacy oftheir performance prior to use aboard ships. It is imperative to improve the fire performance of these materials if they are tobe used in the fleet without compromising fire safety. This article presents some of the programs that the Navy is workingto address this issue.

FIRE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTSOnboard Surface ShipsThe Navy recognizes that composites are being considered foruse in the integrated topside design of the next generation of surface combatants, such as DD(X). One of the many designconsiderations for composites is fire performance. Egress and firefighting situations onboard surface ships are different than thoseonboard submarines. For example, where fire performance goalsfor use of composites in submarines were based on assumptionsthat a fire should be extinguished or brought under controlwithin 5 minutes, on surface ships the assumption allows about30 minutes to fight the fire. As a result, the requirements used inMIL-STD-2031 for submarines need not be adopted for com-posites on surface ships.

A guide to goals and qualifications for the use of composites[2] in the DD(X) program was developed under the sponsorshipof the DD(21) program office, and NAVSEA’s Ship DesignIntegration and Engineering Office (SEA 05P). It outlines aseries of fire performance goals and standard fire tests for com-posite structures to ensure they are fire-safe when considered foruse on the topside of surface combatants. These fire performancegoals are based on current US Navy fire fighting doctrine andthe fire safety goals approved by the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) for use of composites in high speed craft.

In most cases, fire performance goals are based on full-scalefire tests. Material fire performance goals should be incorporat-ed in conjunction with existing or additional detection, suppres-sion, and fire-fighting systems.

Fire Performance of Current Materials SystemThe Navy currently using brominated vinyl-ester resin (Derakane510A) with glass reinforcement in most surface ship applications.This resin was selected based on cost, room temperature curingproperties, chemical resistance, and ease of use in large scale pro-cessing methods such as vacuum assisted resin transfer molding(VARTM). Topside structures usually employ a sandwich styleconstruction with PMC surfaces and a balsa wood core.

In a recent ONR-sponsored Composite Helicopter HangarProgram (for more information see related article in this issue byPotter), this system was extensively tested in accordance withNAVSEA performance requirements, including blast and fireresistance. A typical composite construction in this programincluded hat-stiffened (structural support strips attached to oneside of the panel, which in cross section resemble a top-hat) sand-wich construction with a balsa wood core (9.5 lbs/ft3, 3.5 inchesthick) and glass/vinyl-ester (Derakane 510A) composite laminateskins (120 lbs/ft3, 0.25 inches thick.) In this configuration, the

sandwich composite construction weighs about 7.8 lbs/ft2. The US Navy unprotected standard sandwich composite, as

described above, does not meet all of the fire performance goals forinterior manned applications. For example, in mock-up room cor-ner tests [3], the unprotected sandwich composite (critical heat fluxfor ignition ≈ 15 kw/m2, ignition temperature ≈ 384 ºC) ignites inless than 2 minutes. The composite facesheets delaminate fromthe balsa core in approximately 11 minutes, and the system exhib-ited a total heat release rate of close to 1.0 MW shortly after theburner heat release rate was increased to 300 kW.

Passive Fire ProtectionThe major difference between metallic and composite structuresis that enclosed spaces consisting of PMC structures may bedriven to flashover by small fires. Suppression of this demandseither preventing a fire’s heat from getting to the surface of acomposite, or dampening the resin’s inherent response to heat.Fire suppression systems can be active (sprinklers, chemical dis-persion) and/or passive (inherently non-combustible materials,fire insulation); this article focuses on passive fire suppressionsystems.

Fire insulation provides a solution for both the hazard of fireinvolvement of the composite (combustible) structure, and forthe threat of structural collapse. A sufficiently thick layer of fireinsulation (~1.25 inches of materials like StructoGard® orFiresafe®) can keep the temperature of the exposed sandwichcomposite below its ignition temperature. This reduces the haz-ard of fire involvement, as well as keeping temperatures on thematerial’s backside below its glass transition temperature for upto 30 minutes (reducing threat of structural collapse).

For military applications, fire insulation attachment methodsfor composite structures should be robust enough to withstandthe effects of blast and shock in addition to rigorous wear andtear of use in hostile environments. (NAVSEA Drawing5184182 dictates the parameters for attachment of fire insula-tion.) Assembly of insulation to composite structures is a laborintensive process, with total costs (both material and labor) esti-mated at about $35-50 per sq ft The insulation must also beshock qualified as Grade A, meaning it must remain intact andfunctional.

The term “fire resistance” is sometimes misused in the contextof glass reinforced polymer (GRP) composite applications.Historically, this term is used for expressing the ability of build-ing structures to limit the fire’s spread from its origin to ad-joining spaces, such as bulkheads and overheads, by preventingignition of items on the non-fire side of the bulkhead (backside).However, the term has been used occasionally in the context ofGRP applications to suggest that they have limited flame spread,fire growth and smoke production. A more appropriate term forthis is “fire-restricting,” which is also the IMO preferred charac-terization to imply that materials have low surface flammability,heat release rate, and smoke production. The phrase “fire resist-ance” is used in this section to describe fire spread to adjoiningspaces as measured by the temperatures on the backside or theunexposed side of a panel.

In the Composite Helicopter Hangar program, the sandwichcomposite was protected with a covering of 1.25 inch thick

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 350

StructoGard®. All fire resistance tests on bulkheads, decks, andoverheads passed the US Navy fire performance requirements forfire resistance and structural integrity. Sandwich composite pro-tected with 1.25 inch thick StructoGard®” also passed the ISO9705 room corner fire test.

NEW RESINS AND CORE MATERIALSThe Navy has long recognized the need for the development ofresins and core materials which can be processed by VARTMand have mechanical characteristics comparable to vinyl-estersand balsa wood, but with superior flammability characteristicscomparable to phenolics. To this end, the Navy has investedmore than $10M toward the development of new fire restrictingresins and foams over the last 5-10 years. Most of this invest-ment is made through ONR Small Business InnovationResearch (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer Program(STTR), and Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)projects, as well as internal research programs. This investmentincludes the development of products such as phthalonitrile byNRL, modified phenolics by General Dynamics’ Electric BoatCorporation and others, epoxy- and cyanate-ester based onbisphenol C by the Federal Aviation Administration, polyhedraloligomeric silesquioxane- (POSS®) based resins, nanoclay rein-forced vinyl-esters, phosphine oxide based epoxy and vinyl-esterresins, and carbon foam materials. More detailed descriptions ofsome of these products are included herein.

Phthalonitrile ResinResearchers at NRL in the 1980’s developed a new class of high-temperature polymers (based on the phthalonitrile {PN} system)with attractive properties for composites [4]. The fully curedresin exhibits good thermal and oxidative stability, and possessesuseful long-term mechanical properties up to 371 °C (700 °F).More significantly, there is no indication of a glass transition orsoftening up to 500 °C (932 °F). The uncured resin has a lowmelt viscosity that allows it to be used in a resin transfer mold-ing manufacturing process.

Phthalonitrile is on a short list of materials that have met all the small scale fire, smoke, and toxic gas requirements as

defined by MIL-STD-2031. (Large scale fire tests have not beencompleted.) Figure 2 shows the chemical structure of thephthalonitrile system, and once cured it forms a triazine net-work that is known to be very flame resistant. Also, the benzenerings forming the backbone structure are very stable against fire.The resin system’s combination of these two properties helpscreate composite materials which are very resistant to fire.

Figure 2 also shows an epoxy composite and a phthalonitrilecomposite over a Bunsen burner. One can clearly see the epoxycomposite on fire, while the phthalonitrile is not. (The Bunsenburner flame does not appear on that photo because of the opticsused in the camera.)

One of the shortcomings of this resin system is its relativelyhigh processing temperature (Tcure = 270 °C) and small pro-cessing window (∆T=40 °C). In a recent development spon-sored by ONR, the same group of researchers have been able tomodify the backbone chemistry of the monomer in such a wayas to lower the processing temperature to 190 °C and expandthe processing window to 140 °C without affecting the hightemperature performance of the resin system. Figure 3a showsthe formulation of the two new resins, where n=2 or n=4 in thestructure. Figure 3b shows the thermal stability of the two newmonomers (new21 and new32) together with the originalphthalonitrile system (biphenyl). The original phthalonitrileand the two new formulations (n=2 and n=4) show the sameonset temperature for thermal degradation (around 500 °C). Itis worth mentioning that the char yield is more than 70% in allcases and more than 80% when n=4. Also shown in the figureare the glass transition temperatures (represented by the verticalarrows in the graph) of various structural resin systems whichcan be contrasted with the much higher thermal stability of thephthalonitrile resins (Vinyl, Epoxy [Epx], Bismaleimide [BMI],and Phthalonitrile.)

POSS® Based SystemsThe Navy is investigating and developing new hybrid inorgan-ic-organic chemical feedstock technology materials manufac-tured by Hybrid Plastics Inc. The technology is based on a classof chemicals called Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxanes or

Figure 2. Left, Original Phthalonitrile Structure. Right, A Phthalonitrile Composite vs an Epoxy CompositeOver a Bunsen Burner (the Epoxy has Ignited.)

Phthalonitrile (PN) Monomer

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3 51

POSS®. POSS® materials are called hybrid due to their com-bined inorganic (silicon based) and organic (carbon based)structure and can be viewed as discrete, chemically-modifiedparticles of silica having dimensions at the nanometer scale (seeFigure 4). As a result, this technology bridges the property spacebetween hydrocarbon-based plastics and ceramics.

The organic portion of the POSS® molecule provides com-patibility with existing resins, thus enabling its incorporationinto conventional organic resins. The inorganic component ofthe POSS® molecule (the SiO1.5 cage, as seen in Figure 4) pro-vides the thermal and oxidative stability. POSS®‚ can improvethe thermal, dielectric and mechanical properties of traditionalpolymers and is compatible with existing manufacturing proto-cols. The material releases no VOCs and thereby produces noodor or air pollution. POSS®‚ nanomaterials can be used both asdirect replacements for petroleum based materials or as low-den-sity performance additives to traditional plastics. They are bio-

compatible, recyclable, non-flammable, and competitivelypriced with traditional polymer feedstocks.

Carbon FoamsThe Navy is investigating a new carbon foam material beingdeveloped by Touchstone Research Laboratory that has shownexceptional fire resistance. CFoam® is produced by a controlledcoking process utilizing extracts produced from bituminouscoals of low volatile content, such as those found in the easternUS. These are attractive and inexpensive precursors for carbonfoam. After the coal extract is foamed in an autoclave, thematerial can be heat-treated to further dictate its mechanical, thermal, and physical properties. When calcined (heated athigh temperatures to remove bound water), the CFoam® resistsignition, has high compressive strength, impact resistance, andlow thermal conductivity (see Figure 5). Its properties are tai-lorable on both micro- and macroscopic scales. As such, it

Figure 3. Left, Structure of the New Phthalonitrile Monomers with n=2 and n=4. Right, Thermal Stability Graph of the OriginalPhthalonitrile System Superimposed with the New Monomers.

O

OOOO

O

O

O

OO

O

O

Si Si

Si

Si

Si

Si

Si

SiR

R R

R

R

R X

R

Figure 4. Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxanes.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 352

0 200 400 600 800 1000Temperature, °C

Wei

ght L

oss

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

new21new32biphenyl

Viny

lEp

oxy

BMI

PN

Nonreactiveorganic (R) groups to increase

solubility and compatibility.

Maypossess one or more functional

groups suitable for polymerization or grafting.

Thermallyand chemically robust hybrid

(organic-inorganic) framework.

Nanoscopicin size with a Si-Si distance of

0.5 nm and a R-R distance of 1.5 nm.

Precise three-dimensional structure for molecular levelreinforcement of polymer segments and coils.

offers a large design potential for a widerange of military, aerospace, and com-mercial applications.

SMALL-SCALE SCREENING TESTMETHODOLOGYOne of the best guidelines for the rapiddevelopment of resins and core materialsis the measurements of heat release ratesin small scale cone calorimeters. Since1985, NSWCCD has aggressively evaluated the fire performance of con-ventional and advanced glass- andgraphite-reinforced composite materialsat several incident heat fluxes. Thematerial flammability characterizationwas performed to identify compositesthat would meet or compare favorablywith requirements specified by MIL-STD-2031. Thermoset materials evalu-ated include vinyl-esters, epoxies, bis-maleimides, phenolics, and polyimides.Thermoplastic materials evaluated

MIL-STD-2031(For comparison) >150 <65 <50 -Douglas Fir Plywood 22 314 98 75Glass/VE (brominated bisphenol A

epoxy vinyl-ester), 1031 81 122 82 1226Glass/VE (non brominated), 1167 85 276 184 999Glass/VE (epoxy novolac vinyl-ester), 1169 85 302 198 815Gl/VE Sandwich Composite (1257) 70 126 93 1063Glass/Modar (1161) 119 160 91 126Glass/epoxy, S2/3501-6, (1089) 105 178 98 580Glass/epoxy, F155, (1040) 18 40 2 566Glass/epoxy, 7701/7781, (1006) 49 181 108 1,753Graphite/epoxy, AS4/3501-6, (1093) 94 171 93 -Glass/Cyanate ester (1046) 58 130 71 898Graphite/BMI (1098) 110 74 51 228Glass/phenolic (1101) 210 47 38 176Glass/phenolic (1014) 214 81 40 83PE/phenolic (1073) 129 98 83 294Aramid/phenolic (1074) 163 51 40 156Glass/polyimide (1105) 175 40 27 170Glass/Phthalonitrile, (1273) 437 35 24 157Glass/PPS (1084) 244 48 28 690Graphite/PPS (1085) 173 94 70 604Graphite/PAS (1081) 122 24 8 79Graphite/PES (1078) 172 11 6 145Graphite/PEEK (1086) 307 14 8 69Graphite/PEKK (1079) 223 21 10 274Gl/Vinyl-Phenyl POSS (HP 112) 107 77 23 93FAA Cyanate Ester (Bisphenol C) Not Ignited Not Ignited Not Ignited Not IgnitedGl/Geopolymer Not Ignited Not Ignited Not Ignited Not IgnitedGr/Silicone 415 10 5 -

Figure 5. Carbon Foam, Exposed to a 3000 °F Acetylene Flame, Doesn’t Burn andProvides Excellent Insulating Properties.

Table 1. Fire Performance Data for Selected Composite Materials at 50 kW/m2.

Ignitability(s) Peak Heat Release (kW/m2)

Average Heat Release

300 s (kW/m2)

ExtinctionArea (m2/kg; a measure of

smoke production)

Material System

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 3 53

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 354

include polypheny-lene sulfide (PPS),polyether etherketone (PEEK),polyether sulfone(PES), polyarylsulfone (PAS), andpolyether ketoneketone (PEKK).

Data show thatmost conventionaland even some ad-vanced compositematerials do notmeet the MIL-STD-2031 require-

ment of >60 seconds to ignition at 100 kW/m2 incident heatflux. The heat release rates and related data for several compos-ite materials based on conventional and advanced resins at 50kW/m2 incident heat flux are shown in Table 1.

To facilitate the introduction of new and modified fire toler-ant materials, systems, and designs, a small-scale screening testmethodology is used. This methodology involves the evaluationof new organic matrix-based composite materials for firegrowth. The test looks at heat release rates from small-scale tests(cone calorimeter, ASTM E 1354, Figure 6) in combinationwith a Composite Fire Hazard Analysis Tool (CFHAT).CFHAT is a spreadsheet-based tool developed for estimatingfire conditions inside a compartment constructed with com-posite materials, and uses small-scale data from cone calorime-ter heat release tests as input. The tool uses a flame spreadmodel to determine the rate at which the composite system isinvolved in the fire and the total heat release rate of the fire inthe compartment. This heat release rate is used by a compart-ment fire model to determine the gas temperature, visibility andtoxicity levels inside the compartment. Recent tests conducted

at NSWCCD show that solid (no core) composite materialswhich have met the MIL-STD-2031 requirements of heatrelease rates and time to ignition at all four heat fluxes of 25,50, 75, and 100 kW/m2, also meet the requirements of roomcorner fire test in accordance with ISO 9705.

SUMMARYThe US Navy currently uses sandwich composite panels withbalsa wood cores covered in glass reinforced, brominated vinyl-ester resin for topside structures. These unprotected sandwichcomposites do not meet the fire growth requirements of ISO 9705, and as such require fire insulation to reduce the firerisk. Since installation of fire insulation is an expensive process,the US Navy has invested $5M over the last 5-10 years in thedevelopment of fire restricting, low-temperature-cure resins.Recent efforts in the development of phthalonitriles, toughnovolacs, POSS®-based resins, and phosphate modified vinyl-esters hold good promise and are expected to continue in thefuture. These material developments, in conjunction with small-scale test methods, help to facilitate the rapid development andtransition of new resin systems into the fleet.

REFERENCES[1] J.E. Gagorik, J.A. Corrado and R.W. Kornbau, “An Over-view of Composite Developments for Naval SurfaceCombatants,” 36th International SAMPE Symposium andExhibition, Volume 36, April 1991[2] U. Sorathia, T. Gracik and D. Satterfield, “Fire PerformanceGoals and Qualification Procedures for Composite MaterialSystems used in Topside Structure and Other TopsideApplications in Surface Ships”, August 2002 [3] B.Y. Lattimer and U. Sorathia, “Thermal Characteristics of Firesin a Combustible Corner,” Fire Safety Journal, in press (2003)[4] T.M. Keller and T.R. Price, “Amine-Cured Bisphenol-LinkedPhthalonitrile Resins,” J. Macrmol. Sci.-Chem. A18, 931(1982)

Figure 6. Cone Calorimeter Test on Composite Test Specimen.

Mr. Usman Sorathia is Branch Head, Fire Protection Branch, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center.Carderock’s Fire Protection Branch is the US Navy’s authorized small and intermediate scale fire test facility withemphasis in material and passive fire safety. Mr. Sorathia has over 20 years of experience in research, development,manufacturing, and fire safety characterization of plastics, foams, resins, fibers, and composites. He has an MS inChemical Engineering from Washington State University and more than 50 publications and 15 patents to his credit.He is Chairman of the Interagency Working Group on Fire and Materials (IWGFM) and also chairs the FlammabilityCommittee of the Society of Advanced Materials and Process Engineering (SAMPE). He is also an active memberof ASTM and NFPA.