NFPA 2112 Round Robin Manikin Testing NFPA 2112 Thermal Manikin Task - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
nfpa 2112 round robin manikin testing
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

NFPA 2112 Round Robin Manikin Testing NFPA 2112 Thermal Manikin Task - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 18, 2023 48 likes •341 views

NFPA 2112 Round Robin Manikin Testing NFPA 2112 Thermal Manikin Task Group April 29 th , 2016 Issue In recent years the burn injury predictions have started to differ significantly more than in the past Test Results for 4.5 oz (154 g/m2) Nomex

slide-1
SLIDE 1

NFPA 2112 Round Robin Manikin Testing

NFPA 2112 Thermal Manikin Task Group April 29th, 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Issue

  • In recent years the burn injury predictions

have started to differ significantly more than in the past

Test Results for 4.5 oz (154 g/m2) Nomex III A with underwear

Test Method ASTM F1930 -11 Results from Alberta (TPBI) 40.8 % Results from DuPont (TPBI) 20 % Results from NCSU (TPBI) 37 %

slide-3
SLIDE 3

NFPA 2112 Task Group Request

  • Using the same fabrics and test procedure

– Determine the expected differences between laboratories performing NFPA 2112 testing

  • Propose language that might improve

agreement between labs

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Task Group Language Proposed to NFPA 2112

– 3 second nude calibration exposure

  • Average incident heat flux calculated from one to three

seconds

  • Numerical fitting function not to be used to calculate

incident heat flux

  • Average incident heat flux is greater than or equal to 79

kw/m2 at 1 second mark

– In situ testing at 4, 8, and 12kW/m2

  • 6 sensors to be verified (right and left arms and legs, chest

and back)

  • 4, 8, and 12kW/m2 levels
slide-5
SLIDE 5

2011 ISO Round Robin Data

ISO 13506 Results Section 9.5.3 120 s data acquisition

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Laboratory Percent Under Garment Second Degree or Worse

slide-6
SLIDE 6

NFPA 2112 Round Robin Testing 2015

– Six fabrics tested

  • Fabric A: 4.5 osy Aramid
  • Fabric B: 5.8 osy FR Modacrylic/Aramid
  • Fabric C: 3.4 osy Aramid
  • Fabric D: 6.0 osy Aramid
  • Fabric E: 7.5 osy FR Cotton
  • Fabric F: 6.5 osy FR Cotton blend

– Three Second Exposure, with 100% cotton t‐shirt and briefs

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Round Robin Results

– Five Labs Participated

  • University of Alberta
  • DuPont Richmond
  • North Carolina State University
  • Aitex
  • BTTG

– Results Anonymized for the five labs

  • Labs 3 and 4 compliant with proposed task group language
  • Labs 1, 2, and 5 not compliant with proposed task group

language

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Round Robin Results‐Analysis

– Display Results – Identify any outliers – Compare labs results vs. fabric types – Can each lab distinguish between fabric types

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Round Robin Results‐All Labs

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4.5 osy Aramid 5.8 osy FR Modacrylic/Aramid 3.4 osy Aramid 6.0 osy Aramid 7.5 osy FR Cotton 6.5 osy FR Cotton Blend

Overall % Body Burn

ALL LABS AVERAGE BURN INJURY PREDICTIONS

Lab #1 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 5

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Test Method ASTM F1930- 00 ASTM F1930 -11 Skin thicknesses μm 50/1500/10000 (based on whole body) 75/1125/3885 (based on forearm) Results from Alberta (TPBI) 47.2 % 40.8 % Results from DuPont (TPBI) 36 % 20 % Results from NCSU (TPBI) 41 % 37 % reduction in reported value Alberta: 6.4 % reduction in reported value DuPont: 16 % reduction in reported value NCSU: 4 %

Test Results for 4.5 oz (154 g/m2) Nomex III A with underwear using different skin properties, 3 sec. exposure at 84 kW/m2. Percent 2nd degree or worse, including head.

* Slide from “ASTM New Orleans LA, January 1st, 2015” Presentation by Douglas Dale, University of Alberta

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Lab Results Results for Fabric A‐(4.5 osy Aramid)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean‐36.62% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 33.77% 39.46%

Lab Results (1‐4) for Fabric A (4.5 osy Aramid)

Lab Lab p‐Value 4 1 0.0279* 4 2 0.0787 3 1 0.1038 3 2 0.2670 4 3 0.6520 2 1 0.9833

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Lab Results Results for Fabric B‐(5.8osy Modacrylic/Aramid)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean‐19.70% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 14.68% 24.73%

Lab Results (1‐4) for Fabric B (5.8osy Modacrylic/Aramid)

Lab Lab p‐Value 3 2 <.0001* 4 2 0.0001* 3 1 0.0027* 4 1 0.0095* 1 2 0.0740 3 4 0.9404

slide-15
SLIDE 15

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean‐48.79% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 47.76% 49.82%

Lab Results (1‐4) for Fabric C (3.4osy Aramid)

Lab Lab p‐Value 4 2 0.0181* 3 2 0.0840 1 2 0.2876 4 1 0.3798 4 3 0.6567 3 1 0.9203

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Lab Results Results for Fabric C‐(3.4osy Aramid)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Lab Results (1‐4) Results for Fabric D‐(6.0osy Aramid)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean‐19.51% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 15.24% 23.77%

Lab Results (1‐4) for Fabric D (6.0osy Aramid)

Lab Lab p‐Value 4 1 <.0001* 4 2 <.0001* 4 3 0.0002* 3 1 0.0019* 3 2 0.0064* 2 1 0.7342

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Lab Results (1‐4) Results for Fabric E‐(7.5osy FR Cotton)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean‐27.56% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 20.85% 34.07%

Lab Results (1‐4) Results for Fabric E‐(7.5osy FR Cotton)

Lab Lab p‐Value 2 1 0.0037* 4 1 0.0061* 3 1 0.1158 2 3 0.1212 4 3 0.2116 2 4 0.9759

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Lab Results (1‐4) Results for Fabric F‐(6.5osy FR Cotton Blend)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean‐30.80% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 23.30% 38.31%

Lab Results (1‐4) Results for Fabric F‐(6.5osy FR Cotton Blend)

Lab Lab p‐Value 4 1 0.0003* 2 1 0.0012* 3 1 0.0105* 4 3 0.0613 2 3 0.3437 4 2 0.6058

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Can a Lab Distinguish Between the Fabrics?

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Can a Lab Distinguish Between the Fabrics?

Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 5

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Historical Perspective North American Labs

ASTM 2002 vs. NFPA 2112‐2015 Round Robin

slide-26
SLIDE 26

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 11.37% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 9.41% 13.33%

North American Labs: ASTM F1930‐2002 Round Robin Results 3 second exposure, no underwear

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 28.03 Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 20.53% 35.54% 95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 35.62 Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 28.46% 42.78% FR Cotton, 9 osy Aramid, 6 osy PBI/Kevlar, 4.5 osy

Lab Lab p‐Value K P 0.0178* N P 0.1036 K N 0.3741 Lab Lab p‐Value K P 0.0086* K N 0.0249* N P 0.6219 Lab Lab p‐Value K P 0.0021* K N 0.0033* N P 0.8560

slide-27
SLIDE 27

North American Labs: NFPA 2112‐2015 Round Robin Results 3 second exposure, with underwear

Fabric A: 4.5 osy Aramid Fabric B: FR Modacrylic/Aramid Fabric C: 3.4 osy Aramid

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 38.08% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 35.69% 40.46% 95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 20.72 Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 14.37% 27.07% 95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 48.8 Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 47.45% 50.14%

Lab Lab p‐Value 4 2 <.0001* 3 2 0.0007* 4 3 0.0103* Lab Lab p‐Value 3 2 <.0001* 4 2 <.0001* 3 4 0.7954 Lab Lab p‐Value 4 2 0.0207* 3 2 0.0778 4 3 0.5420

slide-28
SLIDE 28

North American Labs: NFPA 2112‐2015 Round Robin Results 3 second exposure, with underwear

Fabric D: 6.0 osy Aramid Fabric E: 7.5 osy FR Cotton Fabric F: 6.5 osy FR Cotton Blend

95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 21.5% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 16.46% 26.56% 95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 32.01% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 26.28% 37.74% 95% Confidence Interval Prediction Mean: 36.47% Lower‐95% Upper‐95% 31.25% 41.69%

Lab Lab p‐Value 4 2 <.0001* 4 3 0.0002* 3 2 0.0040* Lab Lab p‐Value 2 3 0.1442 4 3 0.2250 2 4 0.9348 Lab Lab p‐Value 4 3 0.0773 2 3 0.3189 4 2 0.5336

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Conclusion