Aircraft Cabin Pressure
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 30
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I recently toured the Boeing facility. They mentioned that the 787 has a lower cabin altitude than other aircraft.
Apparently, one of the big needs for pressurization (aside from passenger comfort) is that it reduces stress on the fuselage.
As the cabin pressure gets lowered at altitude, passenger comfort increases. It looks like newer planes are getting cabin pressure around 5000-6000 feet at cruising altitude, with the Bombardier getting pressure to 4500 feet.
It appears that a key component to lowering cabin pressure at cruise is the structural strength of the fuselage. Boeing indicated that carbon fiber is stronger than aluminum, so that allows a lower cabin pressure due to a stronger aircraft structure.
My question is: what is the limiter on fuselage strength and lowering cabin pressure? Is it weight (more strength means more weight)? Is it cost?
I would think that cruising in an aircraft at a sea level cabin pressure would offer plenty of benefits to an airline and passengers.
Do you see any breakthroughs in lowering cabin pressure on the horizon? Is cruising at sea level cabin pressure optimal?
All of the articles that I find online talk about fuselage structure and cabin pressure. I'm wondering if there are other ways to lower the cabin pressure.
It seems that lower cabin pressure will have excellent travel benefits. I'm not an engineer-type.
My son just started college at Embry Riddle this year, studying aerospace engineering. I told him if he can figure out a way to get aircraft cabin pressure to sea level, he'd have an incredible career.
If you have any ideas, please let me know.
Thank you!
Mark
Apparently, one of the big needs for pressurization (aside from passenger comfort) is that it reduces stress on the fuselage.
As the cabin pressure gets lowered at altitude, passenger comfort increases. It looks like newer planes are getting cabin pressure around 5000-6000 feet at cruising altitude, with the Bombardier getting pressure to 4500 feet.
It appears that a key component to lowering cabin pressure at cruise is the structural strength of the fuselage. Boeing indicated that carbon fiber is stronger than aluminum, so that allows a lower cabin pressure due to a stronger aircraft structure.
My question is: what is the limiter on fuselage strength and lowering cabin pressure? Is it weight (more strength means more weight)? Is it cost?
I would think that cruising in an aircraft at a sea level cabin pressure would offer plenty of benefits to an airline and passengers.
Do you see any breakthroughs in lowering cabin pressure on the horizon? Is cruising at sea level cabin pressure optimal?
All of the articles that I find online talk about fuselage structure and cabin pressure. I'm wondering if there are other ways to lower the cabin pressure.
It seems that lower cabin pressure will have excellent travel benefits. I'm not an engineer-type.
My son just started college at Embry Riddle this year, studying aerospace engineering. I told him if he can figure out a way to get aircraft cabin pressure to sea level, he'd have an incredible career.
If you have any ideas, please let me know.
Thank you!
Mark
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
#2
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,254
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Cabin pressure is a differential pressure when you're talking about maintaining the same cabin altitude and flying at different altitudes. In other words, if you want to maintain a sea level cabin and climb to a cruise altitude, the amount of differential pressure (pressure inside the cabin vs. what's outside) increases, the higher you go.
When the structural limit for pressurization (or anticipated pressurization cycles) has been reached, that either limits the altitude of the aircraft, or any climb higher than that requires an increase in cabin pressure altitude.
The actual cabin pressure altitude isn't so big a deal so much as the rate of change. Generally we try to keep the climb and descent of the cabin pressure altitude to a comfortable 500 feet per minute, or less. Unless someone has a head cold, that's a good value for nearly anyone. If someone does have a head cold, they shouldn't be flying.
Pressurizing a cabin doesn't decrease stress on the fuselage structure. It adds stress. It also adds strength and rigidity if properly applied.
Think about the stress on even a small section of cabin. A door that's three feet wide and six feet tall has an area of 18 square feet, or 2,592 square inches. If a differential pressure is maintained of 6 psid, that's over fifteen thousand pounds of pressure just on the door. A 10X12" window has over seven hundred pounds pushing out on the plexiglass at the same differential pressure. Now think about the area of the entire pressure vessel; the airplane cabin is a big aluminum balloon that gets stretched with tremendous pressure with every pressure cycle.
I'm not sure that there's any great advantage to getting cabin pressure to sea level. Most people don't live at sea level. Take off in Denver or Salt Lake City and the cabin pressuring going down to sea level wouldn't be a big plus. Take off in Phoenix and the field elevation is already fifteen hundred feet. Why go down to sea level unless landing there? If landing there, the cabin pressure will be reduced to sea level prior to landing (we generally ensure that field elevation pressure is reached by 1,000' above ground during a descent to landing, and that the airplane lands unpressurized).
Aircraft structures are built just strong enough, plus a margin. Weight is a big issue in any airframe.
Carbon fiber offers certain advantages, but it also offers unknowns, and a conservative finite life due to some of those unknowns.
The entire fuselage isn't pressurized; the pressurized portion is called the "pressure vessel." Short of finding ways to strengthen the pressure vessel, what else is there to be done other than limit altitude? Differential pressure is the limitation; either strengthen the fuselage with different materials and construction at the same weight (new technologies), increase weight at the cost of payload, fuel, and performance, or limit the altitude of the aircraft. Those represent your options.
My question would be why it's so important to achieve a sea level cabin. What's the point?
When the structural limit for pressurization (or anticipated pressurization cycles) has been reached, that either limits the altitude of the aircraft, or any climb higher than that requires an increase in cabin pressure altitude.
The actual cabin pressure altitude isn't so big a deal so much as the rate of change. Generally we try to keep the climb and descent of the cabin pressure altitude to a comfortable 500 feet per minute, or less. Unless someone has a head cold, that's a good value for nearly anyone. If someone does have a head cold, they shouldn't be flying.
Pressurizing a cabin doesn't decrease stress on the fuselage structure. It adds stress. It also adds strength and rigidity if properly applied.
Think about the stress on even a small section of cabin. A door that's three feet wide and six feet tall has an area of 18 square feet, or 2,592 square inches. If a differential pressure is maintained of 6 psid, that's over fifteen thousand pounds of pressure just on the door. A 10X12" window has over seven hundred pounds pushing out on the plexiglass at the same differential pressure. Now think about the area of the entire pressure vessel; the airplane cabin is a big aluminum balloon that gets stretched with tremendous pressure with every pressure cycle.
I'm not sure that there's any great advantage to getting cabin pressure to sea level. Most people don't live at sea level. Take off in Denver or Salt Lake City and the cabin pressuring going down to sea level wouldn't be a big plus. Take off in Phoenix and the field elevation is already fifteen hundred feet. Why go down to sea level unless landing there? If landing there, the cabin pressure will be reduced to sea level prior to landing (we generally ensure that field elevation pressure is reached by 1,000' above ground during a descent to landing, and that the airplane lands unpressurized).
Aircraft structures are built just strong enough, plus a margin. Weight is a big issue in any airframe.
Carbon fiber offers certain advantages, but it also offers unknowns, and a conservative finite life due to some of those unknowns.
The entire fuselage isn't pressurized; the pressurized portion is called the "pressure vessel." Short of finding ways to strengthen the pressure vessel, what else is there to be done other than limit altitude? Differential pressure is the limitation; either strengthen the fuselage with different materials and construction at the same weight (new technologies), increase weight at the cost of payload, fuel, and performance, or limit the altitude of the aircraft. Those represent your options.
My question would be why it's so important to achieve a sea level cabin. What's the point?
#3
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I think the bigger issue is that the cost-to-benefit doesn't make sense after a while, otherwise the fuselage needs to be incredibly strong, which adds weight and decreases payload, so there's a point at which the returns are marginal, which is what I think you were trying to say.
#4
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,254
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Looking at the population centers of the world, I'm pretty sure that most people DO live within 1000' of sea level.
I think the bigger issue is that the cost-to-benefit doesn't make sense after a while, otherwise the fuselage needs to be incredibly strong, which adds weight and decreases payload, so there's a point at which the returns are marginal, which is what I think you were trying to say.
I think the bigger issue is that the cost-to-benefit doesn't make sense after a while, otherwise the fuselage needs to be incredibly strong, which adds weight and decreases payload, so there's a point at which the returns are marginal, which is what I think you were trying to say.
Average elevations by country...
USA: 2,500'
China: 6,000'
India: 525'
Russia: 2,000'
South Africa: 3,400'
Indonesia: 1,200'
Brazil: 1,000'
Pakistan: 3,000'
Nigeria: 1,200'
Mexico: 3,600'
Japan: 1,400'
Phillipines: 1,400'
Ethiopia: 4,300'
That's over 58% of the world population by country living at an average of 2,400 as established by word population by country, and average elevation of those countries.
I didn't try to say anything. I said it.
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,115
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Another issue with increased pressurization is increased humidity. Humidity is really bad for aluminum aircraft, and definitely not good for all the electronics/wiring in composite aircraft. (airplanes get parked in deserts for a reason).
Just because the average elevation of a country is a certain figure, that doesn't mean all the people, or even the majority of the people live at that figure or higher... The most populated areas of many of those countries are sea level cities in coastal areas.
The world's average elevation is 2,700.'
Average elevations by country...
USA: 2,500'
China: 6,000'
India: 525'
Russia: 2,000'
South Africa: 3,400'
Indonesia: 1,200'
Brazil: 1,000'
Pakistan: 3,000'
Nigeria: 1,200'
Mexico: 3,600'
Japan: 1,400'
Phillipines: 1,400'
Ethiopia: 4,300'
That's over 58% of the world population by country living at an average of 2,400 as established by word population by country, and average elevation of those countries.
I didn't try to say anything. I said it.
Average elevations by country...
USA: 2,500'
China: 6,000'
India: 525'
Russia: 2,000'
South Africa: 3,400'
Indonesia: 1,200'
Brazil: 1,000'
Pakistan: 3,000'
Nigeria: 1,200'
Mexico: 3,600'
Japan: 1,400'
Phillipines: 1,400'
Ethiopia: 4,300'
That's over 58% of the world population by country living at an average of 2,400 as established by word population by country, and average elevation of those countries.
I didn't try to say anything. I said it.
#6
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,254
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There is no advantage, or need, to run cabin pressure to sea level; the majority of the world's population does not live at sea level. Some world population centers are there, and eventually flights landing there will have cabin pressures matching field elevation, as is always the case; to suggest that all flights should have cabin pressure altitudes that descend to sea level, especially when the flight may never actually go to sea level, makes no sense.
If you'd prefer to figure out world population by cities and location, cite each one, and do the math, more power to you.
I think you get the point.
How does increasing cabin pressure increase humidity?
Why do composite aircraft have more wiring than conventional airframes?
If you'd prefer to figure out world population by cities and location, cite each one, and do the math, more power to you.
I think you get the point.
How does increasing cabin pressure increase humidity?
Why do composite aircraft have more wiring than conventional airframes?
#7
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The world's average elevation is 2,700.'
Average elevations by country...
USA: 2,500'
China: 6,000'
India: 525'
Russia: 2,000'
South Africa: 3,400'
Indonesia: 1,200'
Brazil: 1,000'
Pakistan: 3,000'
Nigeria: 1,200'
Mexico: 3,600'
Japan: 1,400'
Phillipines: 1,400'
Ethiopia: 4,300'
That's over 58% of the world population by country living at an average of 2,400 as established by word population by country, and average elevation of those countries.
I didn't try to say anything. I said it.
Average elevations by country...
USA: 2,500'
China: 6,000'
India: 525'
Russia: 2,000'
South Africa: 3,400'
Indonesia: 1,200'
Brazil: 1,000'
Pakistan: 3,000'
Nigeria: 1,200'
Mexico: 3,600'
Japan: 1,400'
Phillipines: 1,400'
Ethiopia: 4,300'
That's over 58% of the world population by country living at an average of 2,400 as established by word population by country, and average elevation of those countries.
I didn't try to say anything. I said it.
#9
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It appears that a key component to lowering cabin pressure at cruise is the structural strength of the fuselage. Boeing indicated that carbon fiber is stronger than aluminum, so that allows a lower cabin pressure due to a stronger aircraft structure.
My question is: what is the limiter on fuselage strength and lowering cabin pressure? Is it weight (more strength means more weight)? Is it cost?
My question is: what is the limiter on fuselage strength and lowering cabin pressure? Is it weight (more strength means more weight)? Is it cost?
The 787 carbon fiber fuselage allows Boeing to pressurize the aircraft to a lower cabin altitude than a similar aluminum design. Since that aircraft also uses an electrical pneumatic system rather than the traditional bleed air system on most aircraft, they can accomplish this increased pressurization with no additional demands on the engines. Nothing come for free, so I would imagine the electrical demands are considerably higher. This may demand more from engine driven electrical components but obviously that was deemed to be an acceptable tradeoff by the designers. From what I understand, in actual practice, this electric-centered aircraft design has had some growing pains in terms of system reliability.
Getting it to sea level is probably not a worthwhile trade off for the extra cost involved. It's definitely not optimal when it comes to efficiency and aircraft operation.
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 233
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
That doesn't make sense (above); what if everyone in those countries live on the coast. I looked on a couple searches an I saw anywhere from 40-80% of folks live by the ocean. Looking at pictures of earth from space at night, a good portion of the densely populated areas are on a coast line. Historically a good portion if not a majority of humans have lived by coast lines. I am not sure if it is still most based on a couple quick searches, but it might be. I realize all coastlines are not at sea level with cliffs and such, but most likely under 500' MSL.
Mark H. I think you are confusing lower cabin altitude with lower pressure; or at least it looks like you are using them interchangeably. Lower cabin altitude would be higher pressure relative to higher cabin altitude.
I do not see an advantage of having cabin pressure remain at sea level. It actually might be worse if you are having fluctuations; as far as effects on the body. Big swings in pressure can do bad things.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post