Why don't airplanes explode due to pressure difference?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the structural integrity of airplanes under pressure differences, specifically the phenomenon where pressurized cabins (0.8 atm) face external pressures (0.2 atm) at high altitudes. The de Havilland Comet serves as a historical example of early failures due to design flaws, such as inadequate window casing rounding leading to fatigue cracks. Modern aircraft are designed with safety features, including pressure differential management systems and regular inspections of outflow valves, to prevent catastrophic failures. Notably, incidents like Aloha Airlines flight 243 highlight the importance of maintaining structural integrity against pressure cycling.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of aircraft pressurization systems
  • Familiarity with material fatigue and stress analysis
  • Knowledge of pressure vessel design principles
  • Basic concepts of aerodynamics and flight mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "aircraft cabin pressurization systems" and their safety mechanisms
  • Study "material fatigue in aviation" to understand failure modes
  • Explore "pressure vessel design" to grasp engineering principles
  • Investigate "case studies of aircraft incidents" for real-world applications
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, aviation safety professionals, and students of aerodynamics and materials science will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in aircraft design and structural integrity under pressure.

thommy
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
My question might sound trivial (I'm just a first year physics student anyways) , however I really feel the need to get an answer.

Since the pressurized cabins inside an airplane are regulated at about 0.8 atm while the pressure outside doesn't surpass 0.2 atm (at 35 000+ ft of altitude), shouldn't the airplane's body simply explode (stronger forces pushing outwards)? Why doesn't such an event ever occur?

Thanks to everyone in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first passenger jet, the de Havilland Comet did just that several times. It was a beautiful airplane.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE, Vanadium 50 and russ_watters
hutchphd said:
The first passenger jet, the de Havilland Comet did just that several times. It was a beautiful airplane.
Wait, how does an airplane explode several times? And why did crews keep trying to fly it? Just curious... :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: DaveE and Vanadium 50
Welcome to the PF. :smile:
thommy said:
My question might sound trivial (I'm just a first year physics student anyways) , however I really feel the need to get an answer.

Since the pressurized cabins inside an airplane are regulated at about 0.8 atm while the pressure outside doesn't surpass 0.2 atm (at 35 000+ ft of altitude), shouldn't the airplane's body simply explode (stronger forces pushing outwards)? Why doesn't such an event ever occur?

Thanks to everyone in advance!
Why don't all submarines implode? Why don't all vacuum chambers implode? Why don't my scuba air tanks explode? What could be going on here? :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: thommy
berkeman said:
Wait, how does an airplane explode several times? And why did crews keep trying to fly it? Just curious... :wink:
Different crews. :wideeyed:
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, Rive, thommy and 3 others
Wise guys. Allow me to rectify (and expand for the OP) the statement (see you'll be sorry...)
The story of Comet is one of those "every engineer should know by heart" tales of just a little too much in one design bite. The airplane was a marvel of new technologies including new aluminum alloys and stretched skin structure in addition to the jet power. The fleet was initiated and flew well for about a year (?as I recall)) and then the planes started coming apart at altitude. It turns out some window casings were not rounded enough and fatigue cracks developed. How this was tracked down is a great tale. Check it out.
I think this unfortunately initiated the sad demise of British commercial aircraft industry
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Keith_McClary and berkeman
thommy said:
My question might sound trivial (I'm just a first year physics student anyways) , however I really feel the need to get an answer.

Since the pressurized cabins inside an airplane are regulated at about 0.8 atm while the pressure outside doesn't surpass 0.2 atm (at 35 000+ ft of altitude), shouldn't the airplane's body simply explode (stronger forces pushing outwards)? Why doesn't such an event ever occur?

Thanks to everyone in advance!
You're right to wonder about the consequences of the pressure difference ##-## it's a constraint in the design of aircraft that requires that they be made sufficiently robust to withstand that difference ##-## similarly to @berkeman's air tank.
 
hutchphd said:
The fleet was initiated and flew well for about a year (?as I recall)) and then the planes started coming apart at altitude. It turns out some window casings were not rounded enough and fatigue cracks developed.
So which is it young feller? "Coming apart" and "cracks" or "Exploded"? I not a wise guy... :wink:
 
We'll just say they cracked up...
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
  • #10
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: thommy
  • #11
hutchphd said:
It turns out some window casings were not rounded enough and fatigue cracks developed.
Reminds me of what I tell people about my undergrad course in Fourier Analysis and Boundary Value Problems: All I learned from the course was that if you ever get on a plane with square windows, get off again immediately and trampolines don't make good musical instruments. :smile:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, Ibix, Keith_McClary and 2 others
  • #12
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and sysprog
  • #13
It does happen. Another example was Aloha Airlines flight 243. After repeated pressure cycling from many flights the aluminum fatigued and the roof blew off the plan in mid-air. The plane landed safely, but one flight attendant was literally blown out of the airplane in mid-air and was killed.
 
  • #14
A bit late, but something to add to the discussion here as an A&P...

All pressurized aircraft have a design limit to the pressure differential between the inside and the outside, usually shortened to the phrase "delta P". To ensure the pressurization system never exceeds this limit, there's a pressure-driven portion of the cabin pressurization controller that will actuate at a certain point just under the design limit. Even within a manufacturer's family of designs, like the Cessna Citations for example, that precise value will vary from design to design. For the Citations, that can be anywhere from 8.3 psi on the smaller birds like the Mustang and the CJs, all the way up to 9.3 on the Citation X. The outflow valve(s) that manage cabin pressure can sense the delta P, and will open up rather abruptly if you attempt to overpressurize the cabin. These valves are checked regularly during scheduled inspection to ensure they work properly. Sometimes, they don't, usually because of damage, like a mouse deciding to nibble its way through the diaphragm of the valve to get into the contents of the snack bar!

And it's absolutely possible to overpressurize the plane if you disable those safety valves... as a maintenance crew working on a KC-135R found out the hard way 20ish years ago:

-Stratotanker-Exploded-due-to-a-Stupid-Mistake-1-1.jpg
 
  • Wow
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: thommy, Ibix, Lnewqban and 3 others
  • #15
@Flyboy, What do you think about the FAA belatedly mandating that cargo bay doors flange to plug the ports, and open inward instead of outward, despite the cost of interior space, so that a greater pressure inside serves to more firmly keep the door closed, instead of tending to force it open; and what do you think of the comment of @phinds to the effect that portals with square corners are not to be trusted? I agree with the FAA and with @phinds on these . . . and it would have been better if that FAA mandate had been sooner . . .
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K