NFPA Round Robin Manikin Testing...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

NFPA 2112Round Robin Manikin Testing

NFPA 2112 Thermal Manikin Task GroupApril 29th, 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 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 %

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

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

2011 ISO Round Robin Data

ISO 13506 Results Section 9.5.3120 s data acquisition

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Laboratory

Perc

ent U

nder

Gar

men

t Sec

ond

Deg

ree

or W

orse

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

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

Round Robin Results‐Analysis

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

Round Robin Results‐All Labs

010203040506070

4.5 osy Aramid 5.8 osy FRModacrylic/Aramid

3.4 osy Aramid 6.0 osy Aramid 7.5 osy FR Cotton 6.5 osy FR CottonBlend

Overall % Bod

y Bu

rn

ALL LABS AVERAGE BURN INJURY PREDICTIONS

Lab #1 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 5

Test Method ASTM F1930- 00 ASTM F1930 -11

Skin thicknesses μm50/1500/10000

(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

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

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‐Value4 1 0.0279*4 2 0.07873 1 0.10383 2 0.26704 3 0.65202 1 0.9833

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


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‐Value3 2 <.0001*4 2 0.0001*3 1 0.0027*4 1 0.0095*1 2 0.07403 4 0.9404


Mean‐48.79%Lower‐95% Upper‐95%47.76% 49.82%

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

Lab Lab p‐Value4 2 0.0181*3 2 0.08401 2 0.28764 1 0.37984 3 0.65673 1 0.9203

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

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


Mean‐19.51%Lower‐95% Upper‐95%15.24% 23.77%

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

Lab Lab p‐Value4 1 <.0001*4 2 <.0001*4 3 0.0002*3 1 0.0019*3 2 0.0064*2 1 0.7342

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


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‐Value2 1 0.0037*4 1 0.0061*3 1 0.11582 3 0.12124 3 0.21162 4 0.9759

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


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‐Value4 1 0.0003*2 1 0.0012*3 1 0.0105*4 3 0.06132 3 0.34374 2 0.6058

Can a Lab Distinguish Between the Fabrics?

Can a Lab Distinguish Between the Fabrics?Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4

Lab 5

Historical Perspective North American LabsASTM 2002 vs. NFPA 2112‐2015 Round Robin


Mean: 11.37%Lower‐95% Upper‐95%9.41% 13.33%

North American Labs: ASTM F1930‐2002 Round Robin Results3 second exposure, no underwear


Mean: 28.03Lower‐95% Upper‐95%20.53% 35.54%


Mean: 35.62Lower‐95% Upper‐95%28.46% 42.78%

FR Cotton, 9 osy Aramid, 6 osy PBI/Kevlar, 4.5 osy

Lab Lab p‐ValueK P 0.0178*N P 0.1036K N 0.3741

Lab Lab p‐ValueK P 0.0086*K N 0.0249*N P 0.6219

Lab Lab p‐ValueK P 0.0021*K N 0.0033*N P 0.8560

North American Labs: NFPA 2112‐2015 Round Robin Results3 second exposure, with underwear

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

95% Confidence Interval PredictionMean: 38.08%

Lower‐95% Upper‐95%35.69% 40.46%

95% Confidence Interval PredictionMean: 20.72

Lower‐95% Upper‐95%14.37% 27.07%

95% Confidence Interval PredictionMean: 48.8

Lower‐95% Upper‐95%47.45% 50.14%

Lab Lab p‐Value4 2 <.0001*3 2 0.0007*4 3 0.0103*

Lab Lab p‐Value3 2 <.0001*4 2 <.0001*3 4 0.7954

Lab Lab p‐Value4 2 0.0207*3 2 0.07784 3 0.5420

North American Labs: NFPA 2112‐2015 Round Robin Results3 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


Lower‐95% Upper‐95%16.46% 26.56%


Lower‐95% Upper‐95%26.28% 37.74%


Lower‐95% Upper‐95%31.25% 41.69%

Lab Lab p‐Value4 2 <.0001*4 3 0.0002*3 2 0.0040*

Lab Lab p‐Value2 3 0.14424 3 0.22502 4 0.9348

Lab Lab p‐Value4 3 0.07732 3 0.31894 2 0.5336

Conclusion

Documents

NFPA Round Robin Manikin Testing...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