This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering
Newsletters Subscribe Contact Us Careers Adv ertise RSS
Fire Protection Engineering
Fire Protection Design Departm ents
HO M E > C O NTENT > RESEA RC H- DERI V ED A I RC RA FT FI RE SA FETY I M P RO V EM ENTS (2000- 2010)
Occupants and Egress
Fire Inv estigation
Com m unity
Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010)
Const ant ine Sarkos
SHARE EMAIL Tw eet
C ase Stud ie s
University Graduates to Combined Fire Alarm and Emergency Communications System ALL Case Studies
Feb . 21, 2013
Fire safety is an overriding concern in the design and operation of a commercial airliner, primarily because of the potential large loss of life in a single accident. Therefore, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has maintained an extensive R&D program to improve aircraft fire safety. The research is driven by accidents, new airplane designs and new technology. A previous article in Fire Protection Engineering summarized 20 years of R&D to improve aircraft fire safety and the airliner fire safety improvements derived from this research.1 Research conducted in the last decade has produced additional aircraft fire safety improvements.2 This article summarizes major improvements implemented over the last decade for each research driver, focusing on thermal acoustic insulation, fuel tank explosions, composite aircraft, and lithium-ion batteries.
Connect With Us
Twitter Facebook Linkedin RSS
Figure 1. Hidden In-Flight Fire Incident Involving Thermal Acoustic Insulation THERMAL ACOUSTIC INSULATION FLAMMABILITY Insulation blankets comprised of fiberglass batting, encapsulated within a plastic film, line the entire aircraft fuselage shell to attenuate noise and provide thermal insulation for passenger comfort. During a hidden, in-flight fire, the fire resistance of the insulation is important because it is often the first item ignited and the predominant hidden material (Figure 1). Tests showed that the FAA-required, vertical, Bunsen burner flammability test produced marginal pass/fail results for the insulation film on the fatal MD-11 inflight fire aircraft, a metalized polyethyleneteraphalate (PET).3 Also, insulation may be a beneficial factor during a post-crash fire if modified to act as a barrier against fire penetration through the fuselage by an external fuel fire. Delaying fuselage fire penetration gives passengers more time to escape. Full-scale tests showed that improved insulation materials and barriers would substantially delay fire penetration.4
5 The next step was to develop an improved flammability test method with pass/fail criteria that would identify materials capable of resisting a severe ignition source. FAA Next Generation Burner for Insulation Fuel Fire Burn-through Resistance Evaluation In-Flight Fire Ignition Resistance To examine the behavior of different types of insulation blankets. ignition and flame propagation may occur because of radiant heat feedback and containment of melted film near the ignition source. and no continued flaming after removal of the pilot flame. 2009. The four-minute value was based on an analysis of past accidents. it was made from readily available materials because the previous burner specified by FAA was no longer manufactured (Figure 2). It was found that the radiant panel test standard for flooring materials6 gave a good correlation with the large-scale fire test data.htm 2/9 . In addition. but more fire-resistant films prevented flame propagation. The criterion adopted was. the PET films were the most flammable.1 1 Lastly. when subjected to a relatively severe ignition source.1 2 Post-crash Fire Burn-through Resistance A new test method was developed to measure the penetration or burn-through resistance of thermal acoustic insulation during a post-crash fuel fire. and accounting for the time to melt the aluminum fuselage. A replacement burner dubbed the “NexGen Burner” was also developed. 2.1 0 After Sept. replacing the Bunsen burner test method. 2. including polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) and polyimide (PI). which is specified by not allowing any flaming beyond a 2-inch (50 mm) length from the point of flame application. Newly manufactured aircraft were required to have burn-through resistant insulation after Sept. a series of large-scale fire tests was conducted in an open-ended mock-up of the attic area above the passenger cabin ceiling. requiring the replacement of metallized PET insulation in more than 700 aircraft. an advisory circular was developed and published that provides guidance on the “installation details and techniques that have been found to be acceptable to realize the full potential of materials having satisfactor y fire-resistant properties.1 4 FAA adopted a final rule that contained a new requirement for burn-through resistance insulation installed in commercial transport aircraft. In a confined attic space.7 These findings prompted the FAA to issue Airworthiness Directives (ADs).9 The FAA also improved the Federal Aviation Regulations by requiring the radiant panel test method and criteria for insulation.11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering Figure 2. demonstrating the feasibility of this criterion. Electrical arc testing was an important part of the insulation hazard assessment due to the reported incidents involving flame spread on thermal/acoustical insulation blankets caused by electrical arcing.1 6 In addition. 2005.8. that the specimen did not ignite. which showed that evacuation times varied considerably— depending on many factors—but rarely exceeded five minutes.”1 7 file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. another AD was adopted to replace insulation blankets made of PET called AN-26 because of its vulnerability to ignition and fire spread from an electrical arc. and the plain PET blankets exhibited minimal flame spread and self-extinguished. The tests showed that the metallized PET blankets consistently ignited with significant flame spread. In contrast. In general. a radiant panel test methodology was developed to evaluate installation methods found to contribute significantly to insulation flammability.1 3 Tests indicated that a variety of materials could provide the needed four minutes of burn-through protection. the polyimide and PVF blankets did not ignite. essentially. any large transport aircraft manufactured in the United States was required to be lined with insulation compliant with the radiant panel test criteria.1 5.
Bangkok.. which contain hollow fiber membranes capable of separating nitrogen from oxygen in air. The three accidents had striking similarities. capable of providing protection throughout the entire aircraft flight and ground profile. utilizing available engine bleed air to continuously provide nitrogenenriched air (NEA) to inert the center wing fuel tank (Figure 3). Manila. 2001.11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering FUEL TANK EXPLOSION PROTECTION A major research program was conducted by the FAA to protect against fuel tank explosions. and few moving parts. the FAA OBIGGS was reliable. or On-Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS). 737.000) for a 747. but in all three cases the ignition source that triggered the explosion could not be determined. The NEA is generated by the air separation modules.000-$200. the FAA-developed system is simple. With a simple design. viz. relatively lightweight (about 160 pounds [72 kg]) and inexpensive ($150. Schematic of On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) Fuel Tank Inerting FAA developed a practical and effective fuel tank inerting system. lightweight and practical.htm 3/9 . 1990 and 737. ascent and cruise conditions and high-flow rate/low NEA purity compatible at the required inerting concentration during descent. However. Unlike the heavier and less reliable military OBIGGS in the C-5A and C-17. file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. the critical feature of the FAA OBIGGS was a dual-flow capability – low flow rate/high NEA purity during ground. It was largely driven by TWA 800 and two other fatal center wing tank explosions. Figure 3.
During ground. at the low-flow NEA setting. the NEA flow rate was set at the high setting. the oxygen concentration continuously decreased. ascent and cruise. fleet would be impacted by the rule at a compliance cost of more than $1 billion. called an on-board oxygen analysis system (OBOAS). and increased approximately linearly thereafter to 14.”2 3 which was made possible by the FAA OBIGGS development. COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT FIRE SAFETY The new Boeing 787 is constructed of composite fuselage and wings in order to gain significant operational cost savings from lower weight.2 1 . The oxygen concentration increased as air rushed into the CWT during descent.11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering Aircraft flight tests were needed to corroborate the predicted performance of the OBIGGS and demonstrate its operational capability. A320 Oxygen Concentration Histories in Center Wing Limiting Oxygen Concentration The Limiting Oxygen Concentration (LOC) is the minimum concentration of oxygen in air that will allow fuel vapor combustion. It was an enabling factor in the development of a simple and cost-effective OBIGGS for commercial transport aircraft.000 feet (12 km). the higher NEA flow rate prevented the oxygen concentration from exceeding the limiting oxygen concentration (LOC) of 12%.1 9 A unique instrument developed by FAA. It was estimated that the final rule would prevent one or two catastrophic fuel tank explosions over a 35-year period. FAA Regulation to Prevent Fuel Tank Explosions On July 21. At the onset of descent. FAA tests in a simulated fuel tank determined that the LOC was 12% at sea level to 10. corrosion resistance and less file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. FAA issued a final rule titled “Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes.2 2 The 12% value is fairly consistent with LOC values in the literature for the hydrocarbon constituents of jet fuel. 2008.htm 4/9 . Five thousand aircraft in the U.5% at 40. however.S. Figure 4.2 0 The results from one A320 test are shown in Figure 4. measured the oxygen concentration at eight CWT locations.000 feet (3 km). The OBIGGS was initially tested in an Airbus A32018 and later in the NASA B747 shuttle carrying airplane (SCA).
It was shown that composite wing fuel tanks are more flammable than their aluminum counterparts during solar heating. Fire safety was a concern because epoxy resins are flammable. post-crash fire tests helped develop scaling factors to use in conjunction with the small-scale test to predict cabin gas concentration levels. Boeing was required to demonstrate that the level of fire safety in the B787 was equivalent to a conventional (aluminum) aircraft. However. To obviate the need for these intermediate-scale tests in future certification programs.2 5 Fullscale. To evaluate this proposal. Intermediatescale tests were required similar to those performed by FAA during development of the improved fire test method for thermal acoustic insulation. and that painted surfaces greatly impacted the heat-up for both types of tanks. During FAA certification of the B787. the epoxy resin vaporizes and burns. leaving behind an inert insulation layer of graphite fibers. Burn-through Resistance of Composite Fuselage Skin Subjected to a Jet Fuel Fire for 5 Minutes Boeing also had to demonstrate that the B787 provided protection against a hidden inflight fire. When heated.2 4 Boeing proposed that the burn-through resistance of the B787 composite fuselage provided an equivalent level of safety with the insulation burn-through resistance regulation.11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering maintenance due to increased fatigue strength. file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. and a reduction in the burning rate with time. alternately directed layers of epoxy-impregnated. which would negate the need for burn-throughresistant insulation in the B787.2 6 The full-scale fire tests again exhibited the superior burn-through resistance and low gas emissions of the carbon fiber composite when subjected to a severe jet fuel fire (Figure 5). FAA developed a small-scale test to expose composite materials to a simulated post-crash fire and analyze gas emissions that could migrate into the cabin and impact survivability. The flammability of fuel vapor inside a composite wing fuel tank was examined by FAA and compared with aluminum tanks. rapid cooling and reduction in flammable vapors was observed in both tanks under simulated flight conditions. continuous graphite fibers. FAA conducted research and testing to characterize and understand the fire behavior of this type of composite structure and to support the certification process.htm 5/9 . This causes a reduction in internal heating as each subsequent ply of epoxy-graphite burns. FAA developed a small-scale fire test method to measure the in-flight fire resistance of composite fuselage structure. Figure 5. Overall.2 7 Fuel vapor concentration was measured in wing tanks made of both materials. the composite displayed superior fire burn-through resistance and relatively good fire resistance. The composite material is comprised of multiple. under conditions simulating heating on the ground from the sun and in-flight air flow cooling in a wind tunnel.
which can be ejected in a molten state.3 0 With either type of battery. fire and even explosivelike hazards.2 9 Conversely. has no observable effect on a metal battery fire. thermal runaway of a single battery in a typical cardboard shipping box resulted in thermal runaway and ignition of the remaining batteries in the box (Figure 6). Thermal Runaway Propagation in Bulk-loaded Lithium Batteries. It took airport firefighters about 25 minutes to extinguish the difficult fire.3 0 Because of the inability of a halon fire suppression system to control a metal battery fire.htm 6/9 .3 1 file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. the fire extinguishing agent in passenger aircraft cargo compartment fire suppression systems. The incident that highlighted the dangers of lithium battery fires in aircraft occurred at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. malfunctioning lithium batteries can experience thermal runaway. Halon 1301 extinguishes the electrolyte fire and prevents reignition at a concentration of 3%. the metal batteries were found to be far more hazardous. Since 1991. However. Halon 1301. which would breach the cargo compartment liner.2 8 FAA conducted tests on the two main types of lithium batteries: primary or metal (nonrechargeable)2 9 and ion (rechargeable). an Interim Final Rule was issued that prohibits the bulk shipment of metal lithium batteries on passengercarrying aircraft. more than 44 air-transport-related battery fire incidents have occurred. when an ion battery overheats.11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering LITHIUM BATTERY FIRE HAZARDS Due to their high energy density and design. which is the minimum concentration required to be maintained by a cargo compartment fire suppression system. causing high surface temperatures. Figure 6. mostly involving freighter aircraft. However. It produces heavy smoke and overpressures. Two off-loaded pallets of lithium batteries from an incoming flight caught fire. raising the likelihood of fire and smoke spreading to the cabin and cockpit. the flammable electrolyte vents and ignites in the presence of an ignition source. A metal battery fire involves burning lithium.
P. 68. Marker. burning ion batteries were contained in a cardboard box designed to safely ship oxygen generators.90-30 Series Airplanes and Model MD-88 Airplanes.” NATO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel. Vol. file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. were ineffective against metal battery fires because of the build-up of pressure. “Evaluation of Fire Test Methods for Thermal Acoustic Insulation.. T. P. No.. “Flammability of Aircraft Insulation Blankets Subjected to Electrical Arc Ignition Sources. “Risks in Transporting Lithium Batteries in Cargo by Aircraft. “Full-Scale Test Evaluation of Aircraft Fuel Fire Burnthrough. 9. The documented findings3 2 were the primary source of information contained in the FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) titled. Constantine Sarkos is with the Federal Aviation Administration. DOT/FAA. 65. Available robust shipping containers.. Final Rule. May 26. 2000. Issue No. 10.” Final Rule. 2003. R.. Sarkos. 3. 4. Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-97/58. Federal Aviation Administration.. 34341-34360. 2.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN 11/8.3 2 Typical cardboard shipping boxes will burn and be consumed by a shipment of either type of lithium batteries experiencing thermal runaway. Washington. pp. Vol. Washington. No. which was partly based on the oxygen shipment standard. pp. C. C. DC-10-30.Resistance Improvements. DC-10-15. 2011. Publication RTO-MP-103 on Fire Safety and Survivability. “Development and Implementation of Improved Fire Test Criteria for Aircraft Thermal Acoustic Insulation in Civil Transport Aircraft. 147. T. “Improved Flammability Standards for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Materials Used in Transport Category Airplanes.P. and Sarkos. and DC-10-40 Series Airplanes and Model MD-11 and 11F Series Airplanes.” Fire Protection Engineering.” Federal Register.” Federal Register.Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source..11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering FAA has also conducted tests with shipping containers to ascertain their capabilities for withstanding a lithium battery fire. Brussels. 34321-34341.. 1999. Marker. Federal Aviation Administration. which caused the sealed lid to fail and expel the burning batteries.htm 7/9 .” Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN00/20. 6. Federal Register. 1997. Cahill.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-98/52. DC10-30F. West Conshohocken. ASTM E648. “Improvements in Aircraft Fire Safety Derived From FAA Research Over the Last Decade.. 65. C. July 31.3 3 A preliminary performance standard for a shipping container for lithium-ion batteries was developed. PA. Winter 2000. However. 5. References 1. Federal Aviation Administration. Sarkos. “Airworthiness Directives. 45046. Federal Aviation Administration. Final Rule. P.”3 4 FAA research strives to better understand and safeguard against the fire hazards of lithium battery cargo shipments. 103. McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10F. 7. “Airworthiness Directives. American Society for Testing and Materials. Cahill. Washington. 1997. such as metal pails and drums recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2000. “An Overview of 20 Years of R&D to Improve Aircraft Fire Safety. 4-16. Washington. No.. 2000. p. 8. McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 and MD. 2002. 5. 103. Hill. Cahill. pp. May 26. Vol.
757-200. 24. Federal Aviation Administration. S. 22. 75208. Federal Aviation Administration. DOT/PHMSA. 74. Federal Aviation Administration.” Final Rule. S.M. Washington. 737-200. Federal Aviation Administration.. Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Flame Propagation Test Method Details.. 20. 8. 69.. No. 757. Fire Penetration Resistance of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Installed on Transport Category Airplanes. 75.. and 757-200PF Series Airplanes. 747-100B SUD. 737-300. Washington. Final Rule. 237. Final Rule. p.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-06/38. 2003. Marker. Federal Register. 73. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” Report DOT/FAA/ AR-04/26. Federal Register. 2006. Risks in Transporting Lithium Batteries in Cargo by Aircraft. Ochs..Ion Cells in Transport Category Aircraft. L. and Crowley. Washington. Vol. “Evaluation of Fuel Tank Flammability and the FAA Inerting System on the NASA 747 SCA. 27. Cavage. W. T. p.” Report DOT/FAA/ AR-04/8. “Development of a Next-Generation Burner for Use in Testing Thermal Acoustic Insulation Burnthrough Resistance. June 24. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington.. “Fire Protection for the Shipment of Lithium Batteries in Aircraft Cargo Compartments. 2004. Federal Aviation Administration. DOT/RSPA. 218. No. Federal Aviation Administration. Safety Alert for Operators. DOT/FAA. Washington.. 147. W. Federal Aviation Administration. No.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-99/44. 747SR. 2009. “Flammability Assessment of Bulk-Packed. pp. 747-100. Non-rechargeable Lithium Primary Batteries in Transport Category Aircraft.” Report DOT/FAA/ AR-TN09/23. Vol. Summer. 2008. Vol. 747-400. and Cavage.” Report DOT/ FAA/AR-03/58. R.856-1. Morrison. Hazardous Material: Chemical Oxygen Generators. Federal Aviation Administration.. 2000. Jan. 30. 2010. “Development of a Laboratory-Scale Test for Evaluating the Decomposition Products Generated Inside an Intact Fuselage During a Simulated Postcrash Fire. 28. R. Marker. 32. Final Rule. Webster. H. Prohibition on the Transportation of Primary Lithium Batteries and Cells Aboard Passenger Aircraft. S. Washington. Improved Flammability Standards for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Materials Used in Transport Category Airplanes. Final Rule. “Limiting Oxygen Concentration Required to Inert Jet Fuel Vapors Existing at Reduced Fuel Tank Pressures. 2003. 33. 17. 15. 25.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-07/57. 2010. file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010. 747-100B. Dec. 8. Vol. 140. Washington. 21.” Report DOT/FAA/AR04/41. Federal Aviation Administration. and Speitel.. 65696. December 2004. Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes.. Federal Register. H.. and 737-400 Series Airplanes.. Advisory Circular.htm 8/9 . Hazardous Materials. p. 68. M. Washington. L. Dec. Washington. No. 2010. 2004. 12. 2007. Federal Aviation Administration. Webster. 34.M. “Flammability Properties of Aircraft CarbonFiber Structural Composites. AC No. “Flight-Testing of the FAA Onboard Inert Gas Generating System on an Airbus A320. Washington. p. M. 14.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN07/15. 26. W. R. 23. Volume 73. 747-200B.. and Morrison. No. Vol... Federal Register. R.. p. July 31. Federal Aviation Administration.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN02/79. 2007.200CB. Vol. 2005. Oct.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-10/31. S. Quintiere. Hill.. Washington. and Summer. and 767-200 and 767-300 Series Airplanes. 29. Walters. 16. 45046. Cavage. Nov. M. Webster. Federal Aviation Administration.. 72. W. Washington. 747-200C. DOT/FAA. Washington. 2003. 747-200F. 2004. 15.. Washington. Federal Aviation Administration. 2008. Federal Register. “A Description and Analysis of the FAA Onboard Oxygen Analysis System. R. Boeing Model 727-200 and 727-200F Series Airplanes.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/52. 19. Burns. p. 2004. Federal Register. SAFO 10017.856-2A. Burns. 2008.. Summer. DOT/ PHMSA. “Flammability Assessment of Bulk-Packed. 31. Summer. Marker. Federal Aviation Administration. 1302. Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Register. 42444. Jan. and Speitel.” Report DOT/FAA/AR-09/58. 25. Burns. 18. “Airworthiness Directives. Washington.. H. AC No. Advisory Circular. July 21. 2011. J. “A Comparison of Flammability Characteristics of Composite and Aluminum Fuel Tanks. 240. S. and 747SP Series Airplanes. 747-300. and Cavage. 2008. “Development of Improved Flammability Criteria for Aircraft Thermal Acoustic Insulation. 2009. Washington.. “Limiting Oxygen Concentration Required to Inert Jet Fuel Vapors Existing at Reduced Fuel Tank Pressures – Final Phase. 13. 11. July 29. No.” Report DOT/FAA/ AR-11/6. 11. 6649766512. 10. 1438.11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering 11. Interim Final Rule. T. Rechargeable Lithium. No. Federal Aviation Administration.. T. DOT/FAA. “Evaluating the Decomposition Products Generated Inside an Intact Fuselage During a Simulated Postcrash Fuel Fire. 737-200C. Washington. 6.. Hazardous Materials: Transportation of Lithium Batteries. 12. 2011. 25. Installation of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation for Burnthrough Protection.
o rg Fire Protection Design Departm ents Occupants and Egress Professional Practice Fire Modeling Fire Inv estigation Com m unity Site Fe ature s RSS Sitem ap Site Archiv e Newsletters View Mobile Site Fire P ro te ctio n Eng ine e ring C o rp o rate Priv acy Statem ent T erm s of Use Subm it an Article Se arch mag azine .Fire Safety Issues Campus Fire Safety .A U.htm 9/9 .The Development and Use of a Modern Standard 1 Airport Terminal Design . Re late d Article s Electrical Fires: Research Needed to Improve Safety Challenges of Aircraft Hangar Fire Protection .11/9/2556 Research-Derived Aircraft Fire Safety Improvements (2000-2010) | content content from Fire Protection Engineering SHARE Tw eet PRINT REPRINTS FAVORITE EMAIL Please Log In or Register to post comments.Sfp e .sfp e . Overview Material Usage and Fire Safety Mag azine .S.o rg Sub scrib e to the p rint mag azine Fo llo w Us T witter Facebook Linkedin RSS Fire P ro te ctio n Eng ine e ring Re late d Site s Society of Fire Protection Engineers SFPE Blog SFPE Careers SFPE Jobs Board Copy right © 2 01 3 Penton file:///D:/TTP/magazine/research-derived-aircraft-fire-safety-improvements-2000-2010.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.