NFPA 2112 Round Robin Manikin Testing NFPA 2112 Thermal Manikin Task Group April 29 th , 2016
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)
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‐Value3 2 <.0001*4 2 0.0001*3 1 0.0027*4 1 0.0095*1 2 0.07403 4 0.9404
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‐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)
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‐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)
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‐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)
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‐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
95% Confidence Interval Prediction
Mean: 11.37%Lower‐95% Upper‐95%9.41% 13.33%
North American Labs: ASTM F1930‐2002 Round Robin Results3 second exposure, no underwear
95% Confidence Interval Prediction
Mean: 28.03Lower‐95% Upper‐95%20.53% 35.54%
95% Confidence Interval Prediction
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
95% Confidence Interval PredictionMean: 21.5%
Lower‐95% Upper‐95%16.46% 26.56%
95% Confidence Interval PredictionMean: 32.01%
Lower‐95% Upper‐95%26.28% 37.74%
95% Confidence Interval PredictionMean: 36.47%
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