About cellular polyurethane in fuel tanks to prevent fires

7 802 40
About cellular polyurethane in fuel tanks to prevent fires

There are many reasons why equipment, often together with the crew, can be irretrievably lost as a result of combat damage. However, one of the main ones is a fire that occurs after a shell hits and penetrates the armor. Its fragments are quite capable of igniting both propellant charges and fuel, the supply of which often amounts to many hundreds of liters.

Unfortunately, today there are no means capable of effectively extinguishing flaming gunpowder, much less preventing the detonation of shells, so the only way out of this situation can only be complete isolation of ammunition stowage from the crew compartments. But as for fuel, there are quite a few solutions in general - they concern not only the improvement of automatic fire-fighting systems and the production of water-fuel emulsions (we wrote about this here), but also the use of open-cell polyurethane.



The latter method is by no means new - one way or another, it has already been repeatedly used in a variety of equipment, and not only land-based. Therefore, it would be interesting to talk about what it is, even without reference to specific machines, including its effectiveness and shortcomings. This is what we will do.

Cellular polyurethane foam


Conventional types of fuel have a very unpleasant feature from the point of view of fire hazard, which consists in the formation of vapors. They appear as a result of gradual fuel consumption (emptying of fuel tanks), and their concentration directly depends on the temperature - the higher it is, the stronger the vaporization. It is especially strong if the tanks are located in the engine-transmission compartment, where the temperature can often reach hundreds of degrees Celsius or more.

Mixing with air, fuel vapors (gasoline and kerosene are the most dangerous in vaporization, but diesel fuel is not non-flammable either) form a highly flammable and sometimes even explosive mixture, which can ignite when the fuel tank is penetrated by bullets and shrapnel, including large fragments of shells. This problem can be solved in several ways, including filling empty volumes of tanks with inert gas, as well as blowing them with air and even cooled exhaust gases to reduce the concentration of the mixture.


Open cell structure of polyurethane

However, the simplest is to use open-cell polyurethane foam, which resembles a sponge or foam rubber in appearance. This is a light, porous material with a mesh structure, where 95-98% of the volume is made up of small open cavities. Such foam, made in the form of blocks or plates, fills almost the entire internal volume of the tank, soaking with fuel, without interfering with its circulation and reducing the fuel supply by no more than 5-7%. It is resistant to aggressive fuel environments, vibrations and high temperatures, thanks to stabilizing additives.

The compositions of such polyurethane foam vary, as do its porosity or "cellularity". But even "foam rubber" in the form of polyurethane PPU-EO-100, which is actively produced in our country today for the manufacture of air filters, as well as fuel and wastewater filters, already shows quite good results. It is enough to "fill" 75% of the fuel tank with it, and in most cases you can forget about the ignition of the vapor-air mixture. And why?

The first most important effect of polyurethane is the reduction of the volume of free fuel vapors. After all, the greater the volume of emptiness in the tank, the higher the chance of accumulation of vapors in a critical concentration. Polyurethane foam, filling the internal space with its cells, leaves significantly less space for their formation. Thus, the probability of the occurrence of a flammable environment capable of igniting from the impact of fragments and other attacking bodies is reduced to a minimum.

The second protective function is related to flame propagation. In a conventional tank, fire can spread instantly. But polyurethane divides the internal volume into many microcavities, and any flame is forced to collide with polyurethane barriers. In essence, the heat transfer of combustion products is disrupted, and the ignition process is interrupted. This effect turns a potential fire into a localized, dying combustion.


One of the variants of "foam" fuel tank filler in the form of mesh polymer foam

It is equally important that polyurethane dampens internal fuel vibrations. When a tank is punctured, a hydraulic shock can cause intense aerosol formation – tiny droplets that easily ignite. Polyurethane foam acts like a sponge: it holds the fuel in its cells, preventing massive fuel ejection outside the tank and thereby reducing the likelihood of a “fuel torch”. Moreover, polyurethane foam itself reduces the shock wave energy, which reduces the destruction of the fuel tank.

Added to this is another feature: partial localization of holes. Of course, cellular polyurethane is not able to "seal" a hole left by a bullet or fragment, but it significantly reduces the rate of fuel leakage.

Efficiency and disadvantages


Tests conducted both in Soviet times and in modern Russia have clearly shown that fuel tanks filled with cellular polyurethane are not prone to either ignition or explosion, even with direct hits. Where under normal conditions one spark is enough to ignite and cause a major fire, conditions for stable combustion do not arise inside such a tank.

This applies to many calibers. The tanks were fired at by large-caliber machine guns, including those with armor-piercing incendiary bullets, and such "small arms" as 5,45 and 7,62 mm machine guns. Moreover, the stability of the polyurethane filling was also demonstrated when hit by armor-piercing shells from 30 mm guns. In such conditions, the damage to the tank body was quite serious, but the "explosive effect" itself or combustion never occurred. The same result was achieved when grenades exploded in the immediate vicinity of the fuel tank - the fragments did not ignite.

Such fuel tanks with polyurethane filling can be used on any combat equipment, regardless of whether it runs on gasoline, diesel fuel or kerosene. Moreover, given that the engines of modern combat vehicles are most often multi-fuel, the versatility of this protection is of particular importance. Ultimately, polyurethane significantly reduces the likelihood of fire in the event of combat damage.

Of course, cellular polyurethane foam has its weaknesses. The main one is its limited effectiveness in case of multiple damage to the tank. For example, if it “doesn’t notice” one hit, extinguishing the danger of ignition, then in case of a series of holes due to shrapnel, bullets or shells, the fuel leakage in any case becomes the cause of the fire. Experiments have shown that in case of multiple hits, the protection completely loses its effectiveness.

Therefore, it cannot be considered a universal remedy in itself. In practice, the use of polyurethane foam is always supplemented by other solutions. Most often, we are talking about self-healing coatings based on polyurethane or multi-component compositions that tighten holes and reduce the leak rate or completely eliminate it. In this case, the foam plays the role of an internal barrier, and the outer layer - a sealing shell.

This combination certainly increases efficiency, but it also has a downside - more complicated design and higher production costs. While a simple metal tank can be made relatively easily, a fuel tank with polyurethane foam inside and a coating on the outside becomes a more complex and expensive product. However, it is this complication that allows for a radical increase in the vehicle's chances of surviving a hit.

There is another factor that cannot be discounted: polyurethane is not eternal. In an aggressive fuel environment, it gradually degrades over several years, and therefore requires periodic replacement. Designers must take this into account already at the design stage, laying in the possibility of servicing and updating the filler. Yes, all this requires costs and increases the price, but the result is obvious - the survivability of equipment and, most importantly, its crew increases many times over.
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    9 September 2025 06: 33
    The article does not say a word about how the successful tests in the USSR and Russia ended.
    1. -5
      9 September 2025 08: 00
      Isn't it time to make battery-powered tanks or hybrids? Instead of fuel tanks and a huge diesel engine - a small but powerful electric motor (motors) and batteries. This will increase fire resistance. Battery capacity is growing annually and is already quite competitive with internal combustion engines in terms of operating time.
      1. +2
        9 September 2025 11: 30
        Look how a lithium-ion battery bursts into flames at the slightest damage.
        1. +1
          9 September 2025 12: 37
          Quote: Kitun Evgeniy
          Look how a lithium-ion battery bursts into flames at the slightest damage.

          I was expecting such a comment. However, non-flammable batteries have long been created. Explosion-proof batteries are made in the form of a monolithic element with accumulators of various electrochemical systems (NiCd, NiMg, SLA) with protection against thermal expansion, filled with compound. Lithium-ion is yesterday. Although they have also long been modernized in terms of fire hazard.
          1. +3
            9 September 2025 12: 44
            This is protection from thermal expansion, not from shell fragments. Any mechanical damage and the battery burns so hard that you can't put it out. And as a bonus, it also has the same fuel tank as a purely diesel tank.
            1. -2
              9 September 2025 13: 14
              Quote: Kitun Evgeniy
              This is protection from thermal expansion, not from shell fragments. Any mechanical damage and the battery burns so hard that you can't put it out. And as a bonus, it also has the same fuel tank as a purely diesel tank.

              You are not reading carefully. Firstly, a ruptured fuel tank burns everything. Secondly, non-flammable materials do not detonate or burn. These are not the ancient as dinosaur eggs lead-acid batteries of the 6STEN-140m type.
              1. +5
                9 September 2025 15: 08
                tank rupture? did you even read the article?
                Non-flammable materials still burn and detonate, you just need the right conditions. Aluminum alloys burn like crazy, and if you mix it with a powerful oxidizer, it will explode almost from a sneeze.
                The same diesel fuel does not explode on its own, but if you mix it with any nitrate, it explodes with about the same power as TNT from one spark.
                As for non-flammable batteries, look for news about recent burnt-out car carriers. New batteries don't burn, they said.
                1. 0
                  5 October 2025 14: 23
                  Well, not from any spark, and not even from the KD-8a, but only from an intermediate one... but yes, Igdanites weren't invented yesterday.
          2. +1
            9 September 2025 19: 55
            The specified batteries have a smaller capacity, a smaller number of recharges, and are also quite toxic, especially cadmium ones. The tank needs a lot of energy, and this energy will be released in any case if damaged. But diesel fuel needs oxygen from the air, and the battery already has everything
          3. 0
            10 September 2025 11: 50
            Quote: Civil
            Lithium-ion is yesterday's news.
            Yeah. And MiCd is ultra-modern - created more than a century ago. And what is NiMg? You clearly know nothing about batteries. The best of the serial batteries have a specific energy of 0,3 kW-hour/kg, and the specific energy of a tank with diesel fuel is 2 kW-hour/kg, taking into account the efficiency of the engine and losses in transmissions. This alone already puts a big cross on batteries and electric tanks.
            1. 0
              10 September 2025 12: 52
              Quote: astepanov
              Quote: Civil
              Lithium-ion is yesterday's news.
              Yeah. And MiCd is ultra-modern - created more than a century ago. And what is NiMg? You clearly know nothing about batteries. The best of the serial batteries have a specific energy of 0,3 kW-hour/kg, and the specific energy of a tank with diesel fuel is 2 kW-hour/kg, taking into account the efficiency of the engine and losses in transmissions. This alone already puts a big cross on batteries and electric tanks.

              Some are looking for reasons, and some are looking for opportunities. I remember and raise the comments on VO, how almost exactly the same was written about UAVs. About their small load, short range and lack of armor. Yes! An electric tank should also be unmanned. Without hatches for the commander, driver, gunner, space, etc. of crew support systems. In fact, only a gun, machine guns, engine and armor. As usual - whoever does it first will get the advantage.
              1. 0
                10 September 2025 13: 20
                Dear Sir, I have given only part of the arguments - those that are accessible to you. I am an electrochemist with almost half a century of experience in battery development. And I, unlike you, know the fundamental limitations of battery capabilities. You can present your illiterate conjectures in kindergarten - they will not work here.
                1. 0
                  10 September 2025 14: 10
                  Quote: astepanov
                  Dear Sir, I have given only part of the arguments - those that are accessible to you. I am an electrochemist with almost half a century of experience in battery development. And I, unlike you, know the fundamental limitations of battery capabilities. You can present your illiterate conjectures in kindergarten - they will not work here.

                  How do you explain the mass transition to hybrids and electric transport of cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses, construction equipment? Come on, don't cover up modernity with outdated experience. Otherwise it turns out "I'm a groom with almost half a century of experience in harness development and I know the limitations of cars' capabilities."
      2. +2
        9 September 2025 12: 11
        Isn't it time to make tanks with batteries?
        not yet, if only because filling a tank with diesel is much faster than charging batteries, batteries burn during a short circuit, God willing, and also spontaneously ignite several times, and extinguishing them with water is not an option.
        About battery capacity in cold weather... crying
        1. 0
          9 September 2025 13: 10
          not yet, if only because filling a tank with diesel is much faster than charging batteries,

          1. Replacement kit. Instead of a barrel, the refueller has replacement kits and a charging station.
          2. Fast charging, when the batteries are charged in 20 minutes (do not charge faster) to 80%.
          I answered about the fires above.
          About battery capacity in cold weather...

          This is also a question that has long been resolved with casings and heating, as well as the composition of the battery elements themselves.
          1. +4
            9 September 2025 15: 12
            And how will you charge them with the given capacity in 20 minutes? And you will also need to transport diesel fuel, so instead of 1 refueller we get: 1 refueller, 1 charging vehicle with a generator, 1 refueller for the generator, 1 vehicle for batteries, 1 crane or forklift to move them.
      3. 0
        9 September 2025 17: 09
        Before dreaming about "hybrids" you should at least study the academic discipline "BTT Engines" and then dreams about "a small but powerful electric motor with a light and unusually capacious battery that can be charged from a simple outlet" will pass. Yes
      4. +1
        14 September 2025 00: 14
        You can put trolleybus horns on the tower and send them along the route wink
      5. 0
        29 September 2025 17: 49
        With this you can go to Europe, where everyone dreams of batteries.
      6. 0
        24 December 2025 18: 50
        Li-ion's energy density at 150 watt-hours/kg is 80-100 times lower than diesel's, even taking into account the vehicle's efficiency, which is a maximum of 1:25-30, likely worse. And as the fuel is used up, the vehicle becomes lighter, which offers some advantages.
        Hybrids (if you mean an internal combustion engine with an electric transmission) are generally heavier and more expensive than a simple engine with a manual/hydraulic transmission, without having any truly gigantic advantages.
  2. +2
    9 September 2025 07: 49
    Mixing with air, fuel vapors (gasoline and kerosene are the most dangerous when vaporized, but diesel fuel is also not non-flammable)

    From GOST 12.1.004-85 "Fire safety. General requirements"

    In the case of liquid ignition from a hot surface, critical conditions for ignition and flame propagation are created more quickly in heavy hydrocarbons, which are thermally less resistant to decomposition processes and autocatalytic oxidation. For this reason, heavier hydrocarbons of diesel fuel spontaneously ignite at a lower temperature than light thermally stable hydrocarbons of gasoline. The ignition region of gases (vapors) in air is characterized by boundaries within which a mixture of gas (vapors) with air is capable of igniting from an external ignition source with subsequent flame propagation.

    The fact that diesel tanks burned less than gasoline tanks is unfortunately a propaganda myth.
    1. 0
      9 September 2025 08: 22
      The fact that diesel tanks burned less than gasoline tanks is unfortunately a propaganda myth.

      Poufs in the studio!
      1. +1
        9 September 2025 12: 00
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        The fact that diesel tanks burned less than gasoline tanks is unfortunately a propaganda myth.

        Poufs in the studio!

        Proof from Baryatinsky
        From the point of view of protection, the side-by-side arrangement of the fuel tanks, especially in the fighting compartment and without partitions, cannot be considered successful. It was not because life was good that tankers tried to fill the tanks to capacity before the battle – diesel fuel vapors explode no worse than gasoline vapors, the diesel fuel itself - never. And if the "thirty-fours" with torn off turrets, depicted in numerous photographs, are the result of an explosion of ammunition, then tanks with sides torn off by welding are the result of an explosion of diesel fuel vapors.

        Source: https://statehistory.ru/books/Mikhail-Baryatinskiy_T-34-v-boyu/2
    2. +4
      9 September 2025 11: 32
      Diesel evaporates worse and does not create as actively a fuel-air mixture, which is what causes the fire.
      1. +2
        9 September 2025 11: 59
        Quote: Kitun Evgeniy
        Diesel evaporates worse and does not create as actively a fuel-air mixture, which is what causes the fire.

        Diesel evaporates worse at normal temperatures, but when diesel fuel is heated by a nearby engine, it evaporates no worse than gasoline, and look at the GOST that I cited.
        1. +2
          9 September 2025 12: 17
          In essence, when heated, gasoline evaporates much more intensively than diesel fuel. Since 43, external fuel tanks were used, from which fuel was consumed first. The side ones remained full, thus acting as screens from cumulative shells.
          Well, the cherry on the cake is that the crews on diesel tanks did not suffer from fumes from fuel as often as those with gasoline engines.
          By the way, the Author you mentioned noted that the crews of diesel vehicles had more serious burns when the wood caught fire.
          The T-34 had many shortcomings that were partially eliminated only in the first post-war generation of vehicles. And even then, not all of them.
          1. +6
            9 September 2025 12: 23
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            By the way, the Author you mentioned noted that the crews of diesel vehicles had more serious burns when the wood caught fire.

            Diesel fuel has the property of soaking clothes and not evaporating like gasoline, in addition, the durite hoses did not hold diesel fuel well and the entire engine compartment was covered in flammable layers of dirt. And the crew wore solarized quilted jackets and overalls. In theory, everything is fine....but in practice, there are seams.

            Since 43, external fuel tanks were used, from which fuel was used first. The side ones remained full, thus acting as screens from cumulative shells.

            According to the design, there were no fuel lines from the external tanks to the high-pressure fuel pump, and they could only be used in the summer. In winter, the tanks were practically not turned off so that the diesel fuel would not freeze.
      2. 0
        14 September 2025 00: 19
        During combat operations, the sine of the angle can reach a value of four or even higher, so that diesel fuel can easily and naturally catch fire.
    3. +1
      9 September 2025 20: 53
      What nonsense, you can light gasoline with a match, but diesel fuel - nothing.
  3. BAI
    +3
    9 September 2025 08: 44
    Yes, all this requires costs and increases the price, but the result is obvious - the survivability of equipment and, most importantly, its crew increases many times over.

    Anything that saves the lives of the crew should be used.
  4. +3
    9 September 2025 10: 33
    First used in the USSR during the creation of the Su-25. Polyurethane inside, latex tape on the outside of the tanks.
    When punctured, a leak occurred, but the latex sealed the hole within a couple of minutes. Made in the USSR.
    The Su-57 uses a different method of TB protection.
    1. +2
      9 September 2025 11: 21
      Cylinders for dissolved acetylene are filled with a porous mass (active carbon or cast porous mass) and a solvent. This requirement is provided for by GOST 5457-75 "Dissolved and gaseous technical acetylene. Technical conditions".
  5. +1
    9 September 2025 10: 59
    I'm wondering, if the fuel is not very clean, or has water in it, won't everything turn into a stick?
    1. 0
      9 September 2025 11: 33
      only if the water freezes in winter
    2. 0
      9 September 2025 14: 55
      Quote: Melior
      I'm wondering, if the fuel is not very clean, or has water in it, won't everything turn into a stick?

      During the Great Patriotic War, a tank commander received a cotton handkerchief to clean up dubious diesel fuel.
  6. +2
    9 September 2025 11: 14
    I had a sponge like that (someone got a piece from a Su-25, they cut it up and I got it), it was hard, but perfect for my skin and it lathers great. I really liked it, I forgot it somewhere in the bathhouse. smile
  7. +2
    9 September 2025 13: 46
    The design of a modern tank should include main tanks outside the armor and a small tank inside the armor. The tanks should be multi-sectional. External tanks should not damage the tank when burning fuel. At the same time, external tanks will act as anti-drone grates. Also, air filters and some radiators in hulls capable of acting as anti-drone and anti-cumulative screens should be located outside the armor.
    .
    Polyurethane and other fillings must be combined with active systems for pumping fuel from damaged tanks to undamaged ones.
    1. 0
      9 September 2025 14: 56
      The first part of your comment is like the Merkava. laughing !
    2. 0
      15 September 2025 15: 28
      and even a mortar attack will leave the tank without fuel, but covered in diesel fuel
  8. 0
    26 September 2025 12: 00
    In Russia, the majority of tanks are diesel-powered, and the issue of diesel fuel ignition doesn't seem to be a pressing issue. Why bother?