See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326127825

Improve Heat Resistance of Composite Engine Cowlings Using Ceramic Coating

Materials, Experimental Design and Testing

Article  in  SAE International Journal of Aerospace · June 2018

DOI: 10.4271/01-11-01-0004

CITATION READS

1 150

3 authors, including:

Yucheng Liu Thomas Sippel

South Dakota State University Airbus
236 PUBLICATIONS   1,486 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mechanical Systems Design View project

Wave Energy Converter Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yucheng Liu on 28 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018
ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 01-11-01-0004
Copyright © 2018
SAE International
doi:10.4271/01-11-01-0004

Improve Heat Resistance of

Composite Engine Cowlings
Using Ceramic Coating Materials,
Experimental Design and Testing
Yucheng Liu, Mississippi State University
Thomas Sippel, Airbus Helicopter Inc.
Ge He, Mississippi State University

History
Abstract Received: 13 Oct 2017
A large amount of heat generated in the engineering compartment in a hovering helicopter may Accepted: 21 Apr 2018
lead to premature degradation of inner skin of its engine cowling and cause serious failure on the e-Available: 04 Jun 2018
engine cowling. This study proposes a solution of improving heat resistance of the helicopter engine
cowlings by replacing the currently used intumescent coating with a ceramic coating material, Keywords
Cerakote C-7700Q. Oven and flame tests were designed and conducted to evaluate the heat resis- Heat buildup, Engine
tance of Cerakote C-7700Q. The test results show that the currently used painting scheme of the cowling, Ceramic coating
material, Flame test,
engine cowlings failed the 220°C oven test while after replacing the epoxy seal coat with the
Oven test
Cerakote, the new painting system passed the 220°C test in regards to painting bubbling. Based
on that, a new painting scheme with C-7700Q implemented was recommended. It is suggested that Citation
the most time- and cost-effective solution to improve thermal performance of the helicopter engine
Liu, Y., Sippel, T., and He, G.,
cowlings is to repaint the current engine cowlings with the proposed new three coating system of
“Improve Heat Resistance of
Cerakote, surface protection HS7072-622, and intumescent paint as a fireproof lacquer. This study Composite Engine Cowlings
also explains why serious appearance defects occurred in the inner skin of the engine cowling when Using Ceramic Coating
the aircraft is hovering. The present work can be converted to a design project for senior mechanical Materials, Experimental
engineering students to develop their design and teamwork skills and enhance their capacity for Design and Testing,” SAE
solving real-world engineering problems. Int. J. Aerosp. 11(1):61–69,
2018,
doi:10.4271/01-11-01-0004.

ISSN: 1946-3855
e-ISSN: 1946-3901

61
 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

62 Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018

 FIGURE 1   Delamination and blistering of inner

cowling skin.
Introduction

W
hen a helicopter is hovering, there is little airflow passing
through the engine cowling and hot stagnant air will
gather in the engine compartment. During extended
hover operations, excessive heat radiated from the engine accumu-
lates in the engine compartment, which is encapsulated by the engine
cowlings, without sufficient airflow to cool the area off. This heat
buildup within the engine compartment leads to the premature degra-
dation of the cowling inner skin and can give rise to burning of the
reinforcement material, delamination of the skin plies, core degrada-
tion, blistering, and resin crystallization (Figure 1). Thermal imaging
data obtained from FLIR high-performance camera (Figure 2) show
that the expected turbine output temperature is approximately 285°C
when the helicopter is in forward flight. However, during hover opera-
tions a steady state temperature of about 343°C will be reached. In
this state, the internal cowling temperature is estimated to be between
177°C and 220°C, which exceeds the maximum recommended service
temperature of the coating material currently being used (180°C)
and causes the failures on the inner skin of the engine cowlings as
displayed in Figure 1.
Three options were suggested to alleviate or even eliminate the
damage on the inner skin of the engine cowling caused by overheating.
The first option is to redesign the engine cowling and optimize its
structure to improve ventilation during the hover operations. The
second option is to fabricate the engine cowling with a higher thermal
resistant material. And the third approach is to replace the current
© SAE International

epoxy seal coat with heat-resistant ceramic coating materials, which

are more efficient after extended exposure to heat. After comparing
the three options and evaluating their pros and cons, we decided that
the third option provides the most time- and cost-effective solution
and should be considered first. If the effectiveness of the new coating
material is verified, the present problem can be  easily solved by
replacing the current coating materials with the new coating material
system, without the need of redesigning the engine cowling structure or redevising its
manufacturing process. Thus, the objective of this article is to select a candidate coating
materials for the inner skin of the engine cowling to improve its thermal performance
and design a testing procedure to evaluate their heat resistant capacity.

 FIGURE 2   FLIR testing showing the heat generation in the

engine cowling area.
Background
A two-component coating of intumescent paint and epoxy
topcoat is currently applied on the engine cowling panels to
provide heat, fire, and fluid protection. The epoxy topcoat acts
as a barrier against chemical attack from aircraft fluids and
humidity, while the intumescent component is a fire protection
barrier designed to prevent catastrophic structural failure in an
emergency. Intumescent in general are substances that swell in
the presence of significant heat to form an insulating char to
retard heat transfer [1, 2]. As requested by the Federal Aviation
© SAE International

Administration (FAA), the coating material for engine cowling

application needs to withstand a flame of 1100°C for a period of
15 minutes without material breakup or flame penetration on
the rear of the surface [3, 4]. Figure 1 shows that even though the
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018 63

compound of the intumescent and epoxy topcoat passed this flame testing, it performs
poorly when exposed to high temperatures without open flame.
The nominal service temperature of the intumescent painting material is 180°C.
However, during the extended hover operations the inside temperature can reach 220°C,
causing the dysfunction of the intumescent coating and epoxy topcoat combination.
Therefore, a non-intumescent coating material should be applied to withstand such heat
buildup and any fluids while still providing emergency fire protection. Several candi-
date solutions had been considered, including thermal blankets [5, 6], Mega-TempTM
spray-on insulation, and aerogel products. The thermal blanket can be used as a fix but
should not be considered for a permanent solution if weight increase is a concern. The
Mega-TempTM aircraft insulation is designed for being applied on fiberglass and E-glass
materials instead of the composite materials of which the engine cowling is made. The
Aerogel and other similar types of insulation have excellent thermal properties but
their mechanical durability as an exterior coating is questionable; moreover, they do
not provide any fluid protection [7, 8].
Since the new coating should provide be more heat-resistant than the currently used
coating material, and recognizing the need to minimize the cost for applying the new
coating material and the overall weight of the cowling, main properties considered for
the new coating material were thermal conductivity, reflectivity, thickness, and density.
The ceramic-type coatings could be the most promising solutions in terms of their cost,
weight, and protection capacity. Ceramic coatings have been broadly used in automo-
tive and racing industries to provide a thermal barrier for exhaust systems to reduce the
engine compartment temperature [9, 10, 11]. Such coatings can be either paint-based
with a certain percentage of ceramic solids and a binder, or entirely solid which is applied
via a plasma spray process. The ceramic coatings have low thermal conductivities, very
high melting points, and low densities. In addition, they provide excellent corrosion
resistance at temperatures far exceeding the maximum temperature experienced by the
engine cowling (220°C). Unfortunately, many ceramic coatings are not designed to coat
composite structures, therefore, new experiments have to be devised and performed to
assess their compatibility on the composite engine cowling.

Design of Experimental System

Selected Coating Material
Two ceramic coating materials are considered as candidates for the testing and assess-
ment: Cerakote C-7700Q and Zircotec performance aluminum. Cerakote C-7700Q is
a paint-based ceramic coating that is air cured and contains 69% solids by weight. The
Zircotec coating does not have binder or filler. It is applied through the plasma spray
method and melted at 10,000°C. Melted drops of the ceramic are propelled onto the
surface via a gas and quickly solidify, forming a layer that is welded, rather than adhered,
to the surface. The Zircotec performance aluminum in addition has a metal surface layer
to deflect radiant heat, a significant component of heat transfer in the engine compart-
ment. However the Zircotec coating can only be applied through a special process by
professionals at the Zircotec facility in the United Kingdom, which will be very costly
and time consuming. Therefore the Cerakote C-7700Q, a low cost material which can
be applied with a pressurized spray gun at about 30 psi, is finally recommended as the
only candidate coating material for further validation and verification.

Experimental Plan and Sample Preparation

The selected ceramic coating will be painted on composite panels to make test speci-
mens and those specimens need to undergo a flame test to verify that the coating mate-
rials pass the FAA requirement and an oven test to show that the painted composite
panels can withstand the engine cowling temperature (220°C) for a certain period
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

64 Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018

 FIGURE 3   Composite panels with Cerakote applied.
of time. Several test specimens (10″ × 10″ and 6″ × 6″) were
prepared for the flame and oven test, respectively. Besides
the epoxy topcoat, the current engine cowling panel is also
painted by a surface protection (epoxy primer) and a fireproof
lacquer (intumescent coating), so these samples consist of the
cowling composite panels sprayed with the current coating
system (epoxy top coat/epoxy primer/intumescent coating),
Cerakote only, Cerakote with both epoxy primer and intu-
mescent coating, Cerakote with epoxy primer only, and epoxy
primer and intumescent coating only. The results will help us
to decide out the most effective coating system (Cerakote alone,
Cerakote with epoxy primer, or Cerakote with epoxy primer
and intumescent coating) that provides the best heat and fire

© SAE International
protections. Several painted samples are displayed in Figure 3.
All the panels were made and painted at the Airbus Helicopter
facility in Columbus, MS. Based on different painting schemes,
those panels were marked and listed in Table 1.

Oven Test
An oven test was first designed to simulate the hovering thermal conditions, in which the
specimens would be placed into an oven held at a constant temperature. The test speci-
mens would be tested through two different cycles. The first cycle consists of a 10-minute
bake at 110°C to simulate the temperature of the inner skin of the engine cowling at
locations where are not considered as “hot spots”. Thermocouples would be placed on
the front and back of the panel so that the change in temperature across the sample can
be compared to the available thermal data taken from the cowling while the aircraft
was in a hovering maneuver. Temperatures would be recorded every two minutes and a
visual inspection will be performed after 5 minutes. In the second cycle, the specimens
would undergo a 220°C bake to simulate the peak temperature of the cowling for 5
minutes. Temperature readings would be recorded every minute and each test specimen
will be examined at 2.5 minutes and 5 minutes for any surface deterioration or failure.
In order to correctly simulate the working environment of the engine cowling panel
during the hovering of a helicopter, one surface of the specimens, which is painted with
the protective coating, should be applied with the constant heat and the other surface
should be open to ambient air and normal convection. In the oven test, once the oven
was preheated to the required temperature, the oven door was opened and each test panel
was placed at the entrance of the oven. Thermocouples were attached to the front and
back of the sample to record the temperature (Figure 4), two additional thermocouples
were placed inside the oven to monitor its temperature. The temperatures will be read
from a digital thermometer. The setup of the oven test is illustrated in Figure 5.

Flame Test
The flame test adheres closely to the FAA guidelines for the procedure [3] and was
designed based on the FAA standard firewall penetration test. This standard calls for a

TABLE 1  Test panels with different painting schemes.

Surface protectant Fireproof lacquer

(epoxy primer) (intumescent paint) Epoxy top coat Cerakote
Panel 1 X
© SAE International

Panel 2 X X
Panel 3 X X X
Panel 4 X X X
Panel 5 X X

© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018 65

 FIGURE 4   Thermocouple is applied.  FIGURE 5   Oven testing

setup and equipment.

© SAE International
© SAE International

minimum average flame temperature of 1100°C with a minimum heat transfer rate of
4500 Btu/hr. Based on the FAA standard, a test stand was designed and constructed
for conducting this test, as displayed in Figure 6. During the test, the flame would first
be ignited and the stand would be adjusted until 1100°C was read, the test panel would
then be mounted at that distance. Just like the oven test, thermocouples were attached to
the front and rear of the panel for temperature monitoring. Afterwards, the torch would
be reignited and ran for five minutes or until failure of the test panel. A fan would also
be used to simulate the forced convection, as required by the FAA standard.

Testing and Results

 FIGURE 6   Flame test stand and setup, computer
After finishing the experimental set-ups, the sample panels were design and real model.
tested in the following sequence: (1) 110°C oven test for 10 minutes;
(2) 220°C oven test for 5 minutes; and (3) flame test at 1100°C for
5 minutes.
After performing test (1) it was found that all the five panels
listed in Table 1 passed the test without serious defects such as
burning, charring, and bubbling. Figure 7 displays the temperature
difference (ΔT) variation of the test panels as measured from the
thermocouples on the inside and outside of the test panels.
Table 2 lists the results from the second oven test. From that
table it can be found that besides the current painting scheme (panel
4), panel 1 (Cerakote only) and panel 5 (epoxy primer and intumes-
cent coating only) also failed this test. Figure 8 plots the tempera-
ture variations of those test panels during test (2). The gasification
observed on panel 5 shows that the intumescent coating started its
“fire protection mode” as designed. However, for the cowling appli-
cation, that phenomenon of gasification occurs a little bit earlier and
such early gasification should be responsible for the appearance of
the bubbling in the cowling. Among the three panels on which the
Cerakote was applied, panel 2 and 3 did pass the oven test while
© SAE International

panel 1 failed that test. This phenomenon confirmed that a surface

protection material (epoxy primer in this study) is necessary for
engine cowlings as well as other aircraft components to endure
high temperatures.
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

66 Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018

TABLE 2  Oven test 2 results.

Test samples Pass or fail Fail time Failure mode

Panel 1 F 2 min 30 s Ply delamination

© SAE International
Panel 2 P
Panel 3 P
Panel 4 F 5 min Bubbling of paint
Panel 5 F 45 s Excessive gasification

After completing the oven tests, the flame tests were performed. Performance of the
five test specimens during the flame test are depicted in Table 3. The FAA failure criterion
is full flame penetration through the panel. Although no panel was fully penetrated
during the flame test, excessive charring was observed on the flame side from some
panels, which significantly damaged the panels so we consider that such panels failed
the flame test.
The panel 4 (with current painting scheme) during the flame test is shown in Figure
9. From the test, it was found that the intumescent coating functioned properly at such
a high temperature and expanded. The small bubbles on the outside are caused by the
radiant heat, similar to the bubbles observed in the second oven test for the same panel.
Figure 10 depicts the status of panel 4 after the flame test, from that figure the activa-
tion and expansion of the intumescent coating are evident. It is not surprising that the
panel 4 passed the flame test because the flame test is a FAA required fire test that all
the currently used aircraft materials have to pass. However, as evident from Figure 11,
the recommended painting scheme (panel 3) exhibited a better thermal performance
during the flame test.
Figure 11 compares the status of panel 3 (replaced the epoxy seal coat with
Cerakote) during and after the flame test. From that figure it can be seen that the
panel 3 was not penetrated in the flame test and only minimal charring occurred
on the back of that panel. Compared with the panel 4, it is evident that the panel 3
performed better in the flame test, as vindicated from its minimal charring and zero
bubbling and expansion.

Discussions
Comparing the performance of panels 1 to 3 during the tests it can be deduced that
Cerakote as a sole alternative to the current three coating system of surface protection
(epoxy primer), fireproof lacquer (intumescent paint), and epoxy seal coat is not viable

 FIGURE 7   Temperature variation of test panels in

oven test 1.
 FIGURE 8   Temperature variation of test panels in
oven test 2.
© SAE International
© SAE International

© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018 67

TABLE 3  Flame test (1100°C for 5 minutes) results.

Panel 1 Failed at 2.5 minutes due to serious charring

© SAE International

Panel 2 Failed after 5 minutes due to leaking liquefied resin

Panel 3 Passed, slight charring on back but didn’t exceed 130°C on back side
Panel 4 Passed, intumescent functioned properly
Panel 5 Failed at 1 minute 40 seconds due to excessive gasification

because the panel 1 failed both the second oven test and the flame test. During the
220°C oven test, the panel 1 exhibited delamination from its substrate within 3 minutes.
This phenomenon could be explained in terms of the fact that when directly painted
on the woven fibers the Cerakote did not have a consistent surface geometry to apply.
The hypothesis that the surface area can be a factor that affected the performance of
Cerakote was further supported by the fact that the Cerakote applied over the surface
protection layer of epoxy primer (panel 2), as well as painted over the epoxy primer and
intumescent paint (panel 3), did pass the 220°C oven test without any apparent harm
or delamination.
During the testing of the sample painted with only the epoxy primer and intumes-
cent paint (panel 5), it was found that excessive gasification of the material occurred in
the 220°C oven test. This could lend credence to the possibility that the bubbling of the
epoxy seal coat could be caused due to the breakdown of the intumescent paint, which
formed gas bubbles under the coating. Gasification of the intumescent paint was even
more observable when undergoing the flame test, in which the panel surface quickly
broke down and charred and produced large amounts of gas. Figure 12 shows the exces-
sive charring and residue produced from the flame test on the panel 5.
Intumescent paint undergoing the flame test responded in a specified fashion
by expanding/swelling and “mushrooming” out from the panel and prevent
further harm to the substrate, as expected due to its fire retardant manufacturing desig-
nation. A possible reason that the intumescent coating did not withstand when exposed
to the 220°C heat is that the currently used type is rated for 180°C over 100 hours of
direct heat. Temperatures reached during hovering exceed this value and could lead
to an early and rapid degradation and disable the coating from functioning properly.

 FIGURE 9   Flame test on panel 4.  FIGURE 10   Panel 4 after flame test.
© SAE International

© SAE International

© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

68 Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018

 FIGURE 11   Panel 3 during and after the flame test.  FIGURE 12   Panel 5 after the flame test.

© SAE International

© SAE International
Finally, it is recommended that the epoxy seal coat in the current coating system
should be replaced by Cerakote to alleviate and remove the delamination and burning
in the inner skin of the engine cowling caused by the heat buildup when the aircraft
is hovering. The existing engine cowlings should be repainted with the recommended
Cerakote C-7700 Q to acquire enhanced heat resistance.

Conclusions
Serious appearance defects including burning, delamination, and bubbling were detected
on the inner skin of the engine cowlings, which were due to the accumulated heat buildup
in the engine compartment when the aircraft was hovering. After analysis of the structure
design, manufacturing process, materials of the engine cowling, and its coating materials,
it was decided that the most desirable solution to solve this problem is to paint the engine
cowlings with new coating materials to enhance their heat resistance. After thoroughly
comparing properties of popular coating materials applicable for the composite panels,
it was suggested that the ceramic coating materials such as Cerakote C-7700Q could
replace the intumescent coating material used in the current painting scheme because
of its better heat protection capacity. To verify this hypothesis, oven and flame tests were
designed and conducted to verify the viability of Cerakote as a coating material for the
engine cowling and enable us to find the best painting scheme. Test results showed that
the Cerakote coating, when being jointly used with the epoxy prime and the intumescent
paint, successfully passed all tests and represent the best painting scheme for solving
this problem. The Cerakote has long been used in automotive industries to provide a
thermal barrier for exhaust systems to reduce the engine compartment temperature,
the results obtained from this study for the first time suggest its applicability in aircraft.
The present project has been implemented into a senior design course and provided
an excellent training opportunity for senior mechanical engineering students to develop
their design and teamwork skills and enhance their capacity for solving real-world
engineering problems [12, 13].

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Airbus Helicopters, Inc. at Columbus, MS for providing
great support for this project. The authors are also appreciative for the valuable contri-
butions from the following contributors: Nathan Miller, Samuel Glusenkamp, Austin
Slye, Brenton Moss, Taylor Yarbrough, Aaron Sanders, Kendyl Partridge, Logan Collier,
David Miller, Jon Breland, Pat Mitchell, Elena Warren, and Dustin Caruso.
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

Liu et al. / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 11, Issue 1, 2018 69

References
1. Horacek, H. and Pieh, S., “The Importance of Intumescent Systems for Fire Protection of
Plastic Materials,” Polymer International 49(10):1106-1114, 2000.
2. Hering, A., “The Proof Is in the Fire,” Chemical Innovation 31(5):17-21, 2001.
3. Federal Aviation Administration, “Powerplant Installation and Propulsion System
Component Fire Protection Test Methods, Standards, and Criteria,” AC 20-135, 1990.
4. Gettle, G.L., Homer, V.H., and Kennedy, D.R., “Passive Protection of Aircraft against Fire
and Flammable Fluid Deflagrations,” Aircraft Survivability 36-40, 2003.
5. Tran, K.D., “Burn-Through Resistance of Fibre/Felt Materials for Aircraft Fuselage
Insulation Blankets,” Fire and Materials 26:1-6, 2002.
6. Glass, D.E., “Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) and
Hot Structures for Hypersonic Vehicles,” AIAA 2008-2682, 15th AIAA International
Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Dayton, OH,
Apr. 28-May 1, 2008.
7. Mizushima, Y. and Hori, M., “Preparation of Heat-Resistant Alumina Aerogels,” Journal
of Materials Research 8(11):2993-2999, 1993.
8. Jones, S.M., “Aerogel: Space Exploration Applications,” Journal of Sol-Gel Science and
Technology 40(2):351-357.
9. Cao, X.Q., Vassen, R., and Stoever, D., “Ceramic Materials for Thermal Barrier Coatings,”
Journal of the European Ceramic Society 24(1):1-10, 2004.
10. Clarke, D.R. and Phillpot, S.R., “Thermal Barrier Coating Materials,” Materials Today
8(6):22-29, 2005.
11. Vasen, R., Jarligo, M.O., Steinke, T., Mack, D.E., and Stover, D., “Overview on Advanced
Thermal Barrier Coatings,” Surface and Coatings Technology 205(4):938-942, 2010.
12. Liu, Y.-C., “Transportation of a Mechanical Engineering Senior Design Class to an
Industry-Tied and Team-Oriented Course,” European Journal of Engineering Education
(in press).
13. Liu, Y.-C. and Dou, Y.-Q., “Design of an Industry-Tied and Team-Oriented Course for
Mechanical Engineering Seniors”, Proceedings of ASEE SE Section Annual Conference,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Apr. 12-14, 2015.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the
content of the article.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Yucheng Liu, Friday, August 03, 2018

View publication stats