Carbon Brake Dust - Airbus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon Brake Dust - Airbus
Hi all,
I understand that carbon dust coming out of the brakes is cancer causing, and that is why, brake fans are to be switched ON prior to stopping at the gate, so as not to expose ground personnel to its harmful effects.
Can someone give me the reference to this;
I understand that carbon dust coming out of the brakes is cancer causing, and that is why, brake fans are to be switched ON prior to stopping at the gate, so as not to expose ground personnel to its harmful effects.
Can someone give me the reference to this;
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon Brakes
Unable to give you a reference on this.
In general, carbon brakes contain a significant amount of carbon fibers and Silicon Carbide (SiC) , a material which is also used in abrasives. SiC in carbon brakes is formed during the manufacturing process, where a porous carbon fiber and matrix preform is infiltrated with liquid silicon and thereafter "baked" at very high temperatures to form the SiC. The black "dust" you see is a composition of this SiC and other components of the brake (micron size carbon fiber fragments etc.).
Carcinogenic effects of SiC dusts are under investigation with workers in SiC plants. For carbon brakes, I don't know if there is a similar study available.
IMHO, the risks related to carbon brakes are minor since the carbon particle emissions (submicron to angstrom range) of the engines have a much more severe effect on the health of ground personnel.
F.y.i. beryllium brake disks have been used on military aircraft (C-5 Galaxy, F-14 Tomcat) due to their superior energy capacity, yet its dust (beryllium oxide) is severely carcinogenic.
In general, carbon brakes contain a significant amount of carbon fibers and Silicon Carbide (SiC) , a material which is also used in abrasives. SiC in carbon brakes is formed during the manufacturing process, where a porous carbon fiber and matrix preform is infiltrated with liquid silicon and thereafter "baked" at very high temperatures to form the SiC. The black "dust" you see is a composition of this SiC and other components of the brake (micron size carbon fiber fragments etc.).
Carcinogenic effects of SiC dusts are under investigation with workers in SiC plants. For carbon brakes, I don't know if there is a similar study available.
IMHO, the risks related to carbon brakes are minor since the carbon particle emissions (submicron to angstrom range) of the engines have a much more severe effect on the health of ground personnel.
F.y.i. beryllium brake disks have been used on military aircraft (C-5 Galaxy, F-14 Tomcat) due to their superior energy capacity, yet its dust (beryllium oxide) is severely carcinogenic.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground personnel have the luxuary of the outside environment to minimise the effect of the brake dust being breathed in.
I change these brake packs on a regular basis inside and out, I have always been told it was safe.... eeek!!
The risk assessment for the task is minimal but does recommend the use of a respiratory mask.
Will be of interest to see if anybody knows more facts on the properties relating to health!
I change these brake packs on a regular basis inside and out, I have always been told it was safe.... eeek!!
The risk assessment for the task is minimal but does recommend the use of a respiratory mask.
Will be of interest to see if anybody knows more facts on the properties relating to health!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that there is no proof that this dust is carcinogenic. If it would be, there would be an avelange of law suites against the manufacturs.
Still I think you better be cautious - as a pilot to hit the fan early and as a ground staff to stay away a bit longer.
Dani
Still I think you better be cautious - as a pilot to hit the fan early and as a ground staff to stay away a bit longer.
Dani
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have one hour turns and therefore don't require the use of brake fans, the problem being as soon as the engineer starts playing with the aircraft, they immediately select brake fan on. 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or...
As Dream Land says, the engineers turn the fans 'OFF'...I've seen it the other way.
You have to remember, the wheel and brake temps continue to climb after the landing...with temperatures peaking maybe 25 to 30 minutes after landing.
As always, follow your company's SOP. But, the fans are optional equipment on the Bus...if you have them, use them. That's what they're there for.
PantLoad
You have to remember, the wheel and brake temps continue to climb after the landing...with temperatures peaking maybe 25 to 30 minutes after landing.
As always, follow your company's SOP. But, the fans are optional equipment on the Bus...if you have them, use them. That's what they're there for.
PantLoad
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
completly disagree. Just because you have them doesn't mean that you should use them all the time.
I hate those guys (inclusive the mechanics) who turn it on all the time just to cover their a$$. If you think a little and plan ahead, you hardly ever need them, except for very short turnarounds or heavy braking.
Ideal braking temperature is around 100-200 degrees, so keep it there, don't cool it too low.
Dani
I hate those guys (inclusive the mechanics) who turn it on all the time just to cover their a$$. If you think a little and plan ahead, you hardly ever need them, except for very short turnarounds or heavy braking.
Ideal braking temperature is around 100-200 degrees, so keep it there, don't cool it too low.
Dani
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani...
Of course, if the fans are not needed, then there is no need to use them. Again, what determines this is your company's SOP.
Just a reminder...and I think you are already aware of this...the certification criteria for an RTO on the SA Airbus limits the brake temps to 150 degrees C. Above this, you may or may not be able to stop in the distance dtermined by the charts.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Just a reminder...and I think you are already aware of this...the certification criteria for an RTO on the SA Airbus limits the brake temps to 150 degrees C. Above this, you may or may not be able to stop in the distance dtermined by the charts.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dust generation is highest when the stator and rotor components of the carbon brakes are cold, i.e. during the initial brake application while on the landing roll and taxi-out. Break wear and correspondingly dust-generation is therefore highest during those phases of operation.
From a friction point of view, in case of carbon brakes the higher the temperature, the better the friction coefficient/deceleration behaviour due to special tribological effects at temperatures exceeding 300°C. However, from a lifetime point of view, temperatures should be kept below 500°C since oxidation effects begin to degrade the structural integrity of the brakes on a long term.
Optimum brake temperatures from an operational point of view depend on the carbon brake pack (i.e. depending on brake manufacturer, e.g. messier-bugatti, Goodrich) in use on the corresponding aircraft.
Fuel, OTP and aircraft utility rate are key factors for most operators, i.e. aiming for the optimum turn-off more often requires firm and continuous brake application to reduce taxi-in time and safe fuel. Brakes consequently get hotter and need to be cooled to enable a 20 to 25 minute turnaround time.
From a friction point of view, in case of carbon brakes the higher the temperature, the better the friction coefficient/deceleration behaviour due to special tribological effects at temperatures exceeding 300°C. However, from a lifetime point of view, temperatures should be kept below 500°C since oxidation effects begin to degrade the structural integrity of the brakes on a long term.
Optimum brake temperatures from an operational point of view depend on the carbon brake pack (i.e. depending on brake manufacturer, e.g. messier-bugatti, Goodrich) in use on the corresponding aircraft.
Fuel, OTP and aircraft utility rate are key factors for most operators, i.e. aiming for the optimum turn-off more often requires firm and continuous brake application to reduce taxi-in time and safe fuel. Brakes consequently get hotter and need to be cooled to enable a 20 to 25 minute turnaround time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear All,
Thanks for all the replies.
I saw this Airbus brief on smartcockpit.com regarding use of brakes and let me quote:
Select brake fans
1. Atleast 5 min after the temp check to
Allow thermal equalization and stabilization
Avoid oxidation of brake surface hot spots
2. Just before stopping at the gate, to:
Prevent carbon dust from being blown over ground personnel
Can someone now explain this??????
Thanks for all the replies.
I saw this Airbus brief on smartcockpit.com regarding use of brakes and let me quote:
Select brake fans
1. Atleast 5 min after the temp check to
Allow thermal equalization and stabilization
Avoid oxidation of brake surface hot spots
2. Just before stopping at the gate, to:
Prevent carbon dust from being blown over ground personnel
Can someone now explain this??????
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani...
No, that's not what I'm saying. What you are referring to is the brake temp limitation for takeoff...300 degrees (or 150 degrees if the fans were running). This limitation exists relative to wheel well fires vis-a'-vis the flash point of Skydrol.
What I'm referring to is the certification for the RTO and brake effectiveness. While carbon brakes wear better when they're warm, they stop better when they're cool (or cold). The RTO certification is based on brake temps no warmer than 150 degrees.
So, in essence, you can legally take off with brakes at 300 degrees, but you may not be able to stop in the runway remaining in the event of an RTO.
Airbus has a publication "Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance". I think all this is explained in this paper. You've probably already read it, but I think the 150 degree figure for RTOs is discussed in there.
Anyway, this is a great discussion. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful input.
Regards,
PantLoad
What I'm referring to is the certification for the RTO and brake effectiveness. While carbon brakes wear better when they're warm, they stop better when they're cool (or cold). The RTO certification is based on brake temps no warmer than 150 degrees.
So, in essence, you can legally take off with brakes at 300 degrees, but you may not be able to stop in the runway remaining in the event of an RTO.
Airbus has a publication "Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance". I think all this is explained in this paper. You've probably already read it, but I think the 150 degree figure for RTOs is discussed in there.
Anyway, this is a great discussion. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful input.
Regards,
PantLoad
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed that the 150°/300° is (also) because of hydraulic fire.
But AI certainly wouldn't certify you for TO with a temperature that is too hot for a RTO. Therefore, if you TO with 300°, AI must have made sure that you can safely absorb all brake energy in case of rejection. There might be one exception: If on your performance computer (runway table) there is a weight limit with the remark "brake energy", you run into this very problem.
As mentioned above by others, wear and efficiency are two different thing, and it is not that easy as you explain it. It depends heavily on the supplier of the brakes.
I was flying in a company where they had a graph of the brake wear in function of temperature: Cold brakes have minimal wear, when temp rises, wear increases to a max to around 300°, then wear goes down again until around 600°. It's a bell curve, or also called Gauss curve.
In other companies we had the information that wear is unimportant as long as you hit the pedals just once: Wear is a function of how many times you apply the brakes. How long or how hot or how strong is neglectable.
When you turn your view towards carbon brakes in Formula 1 car races, there is maximum brake efficiency with very high temperatures. You have certainly seen those pictures of cars driving by with glowing wheel hubs - that's the carbon brakes working.
In aircraft there are slightly different implications, since you have to cover the RTO case. It is better to have (relatively) hot brakes for wear and efficiency, but you don't want to have them too hot, because if they go beyond a certain limit, they get distroyed.
Therefore we have a perfect example for a balance of parameters. We have to make a compromize. Imho it is about 100-200°C. Others weight the danger of hydraulic fire, brake blast in case of RTO higher than efficiency and cost control. Be it as it is. I have made up my mind and stick to it.
Agreed also that this is an interesting topic.
Dani
But AI certainly wouldn't certify you for TO with a temperature that is too hot for a RTO. Therefore, if you TO with 300°, AI must have made sure that you can safely absorb all brake energy in case of rejection. There might be one exception: If on your performance computer (runway table) there is a weight limit with the remark "brake energy", you run into this very problem.
As mentioned above by others, wear and efficiency are two different thing, and it is not that easy as you explain it. It depends heavily on the supplier of the brakes.
I was flying in a company where they had a graph of the brake wear in function of temperature: Cold brakes have minimal wear, when temp rises, wear increases to a max to around 300°, then wear goes down again until around 600°. It's a bell curve, or also called Gauss curve.
In other companies we had the information that wear is unimportant as long as you hit the pedals just once: Wear is a function of how many times you apply the brakes. How long or how hot or how strong is neglectable.
When you turn your view towards carbon brakes in Formula 1 car races, there is maximum brake efficiency with very high temperatures. You have certainly seen those pictures of cars driving by with glowing wheel hubs - that's the carbon brakes working.
In aircraft there are slightly different implications, since you have to cover the RTO case. It is better to have (relatively) hot brakes for wear and efficiency, but you don't want to have them too hot, because if they go beyond a certain limit, they get distroyed.
Therefore we have a perfect example for a balance of parameters. We have to make a compromize. Imho it is about 100-200°C. Others weight the danger of hydraulic fire, brake blast in case of RTO higher than efficiency and cost control. Be it as it is. I have made up my mind and stick to it.
Agreed also that this is an interesting topic.
Dani
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani,
From memory, the rejected take off certification tests are done with brakes that are 90% worn.(10% wear remaining)
Can't put my finger on it, but I think there is a JAR that describes this requirement.
Does anyone have a written reference to this statement ?
interesting discussion
From memory, the rejected take off certification tests are done with brakes that are 90% worn.(10% wear remaining)
Can't put my finger on it, but I think there is a JAR that describes this requirement.
.....The RTO certification is based on brake temps no warmer than 150 degrees.
interesting discussion
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon - Carbon brakes...
A good one because I have been to DABS and have seen how Dunlop make the damm things..
A Rotor / Stator is manufactured by compressed (by a bolted press) layers of carbon fibre weave being subjected in an oven at 1000 deg F (+/- 2) in a hard vacumn, to a supply of methane gas. the gas breaks down, allowing the Hydrogen to combine with any Oxygen (and purify it out as water) and Carbon to cross link the fibres (as the SECOND CARBON!) This process takes four weeks. the stacks are then weighted and reversed back into the same process to equal the process out for all units in that autoclave. The discs are then have a graphite process before they are machine finished.. I also had the free lunch to prove it.
Cancer?? Were did that come from???
Silicon Carbide? Unless DABS have changed their processes.
Flare Idle.. Were did you get your facts from??
Carbon Fibre particles may have the same effect as Asbestos (nobody is sure, but again nobody can say it doesn't!)
People picking up crashed Harriers, wear respirators to stop inhalating fibre particles contaminated with burnt thermosetting polymer residue (that certainly is cariogenic!
)
Hot Brakes = Blown Fusible plugs = Wheel change, when you want that push back to make that slot time!
A good one because I have been to DABS and have seen how Dunlop make the damm things..
A Rotor / Stator is manufactured by compressed (by a bolted press) layers of carbon fibre weave being subjected in an oven at 1000 deg F (+/- 2) in a hard vacumn, to a supply of methane gas. the gas breaks down, allowing the Hydrogen to combine with any Oxygen (and purify it out as water) and Carbon to cross link the fibres (as the SECOND CARBON!) This process takes four weeks. the stacks are then weighted and reversed back into the same process to equal the process out for all units in that autoclave. The discs are then have a graphite process before they are machine finished.. I also had the free lunch to prove it.
Cancer?? Were did that come from???
Silicon Carbide? Unless DABS have changed their processes. Flare Idle.. Were did you get your facts from??
Carbon Fibre particles may have the same effect as Asbestos (nobody is sure, but again nobody can say it doesn't!)
People picking up crashed Harriers, wear respirators to stop inhalating fibre particles contaminated with burnt thermosetting polymer residue (that certainly is cariogenic!
)Hot Brakes = Blown Fusible plugs = Wheel change, when you want that push back to make that slot time!
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 20th Jun 2008 at 23:19.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 73
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scientific report on brake dust
Here is the link
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi.../full/47/4/325
The way I read it there is little to worry about. However, it also seems to me it could affect a very few. Good work shop ventilation and perhaps one of those face masks to filter some of it out might be a reasonable precaution.
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi.../full/47/4/325
The way I read it there is little to worry about. However, it also seems to me it could affect a very few. Good work shop ventilation and perhaps one of those face masks to filter some of it out might be a reasonable precaution.
I've always been lead to believe that carbon dust is very bad for one's health, but I think the residual smoke that seeps out of engines on turn arounds is probably just as bad. Jet fuel, turbine oil, hydraulic fliud, sealants, paints used in manufacture and repair are also nasty when contact is allowed.
I occasionally look up at the overhead and see a "high voltage inside " decal wondering how much electro magnetic radiation is being pumped out.
And I haven't even mentioned blue loo or worse- crew meals.
I occasionally look up at the overhead and see a "high voltage inside " decal wondering how much electro magnetic radiation is being pumped out.
And I haven't even mentioned blue loo or worse- crew meals.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But AI certainly wouldn't certify you for TO with a temperature that is too hot for a RTO. Therefore, if you TO with 300°, AI must have made sure that you can safely absorb all brake energy in case of rejection.
There are always a great may factors which may affect your ability to RTO safely from close to V1. Taking off with high brake temperatures limits the amount of energy they brakes can absorb. Why introduce another risk factor into an already risky situation?
Brake Fans are there for a reason. Don't like the noise? Buy some ear defenders!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all
Good to see people using the topic to discuss brake temp limitations.
However my original question is still unanswered.
Is the requirement to switch ON brake fans just prior to stopping at the gate for the reason that the carbon dust is harmful for people around??
The earlier mentioned Airbus brief seems to point to that;
Good to see people using the topic to discuss brake temp limitations.
However my original question is still unanswered.
Is the requirement to switch ON brake fans just prior to stopping at the gate for the reason that the carbon dust is harmful for people around??
The earlier mentioned Airbus brief seems to point to that;