TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON STRUCTURAL AND PROXIMITY FIRE ...€¦ · Robert Tutterow announced the 2013 FIERO PPE Symposium to be held on March 4-6 in Raleigh, NC. It will include a tour

TC Meeting Minutes 11-12 January, 2012 Page 1 of 6

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON STRUCTURAL AND PROXIMITY FIRE FIGHTING

PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT

ORLANDO, FLORIDA 11--12 JANUARY 2012

Pre-ROC MEETING FOR NFPA 1851

11 JANUARY 2012 Agenda Item 1-3: Call to Order, Introduction of Members and Guests, and Committee Procedures TC Chairman Stephen King called the meeting to order at 09.00. Chairman King then called for an introduction of members and guests. The following members and guests were present: Members Present:

Stephen King, Chairman Special Expert Benjamin Mauti, Secretary MSA David Trebisacci NFPA Staff Liaison Steven Corrado Underwriters Labs Inc. Dean Cox Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department Mark Dolim L.N. Curtis & Sons Tim Durby City of Phoenix (IFSTA) Richard Edinger Chesterfield Fire & EMS (IAFC) Patricia Freeman Globe Manufacturing Richard Granger Charlotte Fire Department William Haskell NIOSH National Personal Protection Technical Laboratory (NPPTL) A. Ira Harkness U.S. Dept. of the Navy Emeral Earl Hayden El Paso TX FD (IAFF) Pam Kavalesky Intertek Testing Services Steve Lakey Verified Independent Services Providers Karen Lehtonen Lion Apparel Mike McKenna Michael McKenna & Associates, LLC Daniel Melia Fire Department City of New York Andrew Oliver Gear Wash Louis Ott Gentex Corporation Matthew Pegg Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs Tom Ragan Shelby Specialty Gloves James Reidy Texas State Association of Fire Fighters Wendell Robison National Volunteer Fire Council Angie Shepherd NIOSH-NPPTL Kelly Sisson Heartland Fire and Rescue Tim Tomlinson Addison Fire Department


Guests Present: Karl Beeman Marken PPE Restoration Emily Blair Stedfast, Inc. Holly Blake W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Ron Bove W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. David L. Clark Gloves, Inc. R. Scott Colvin Maryland Fire Equipment Henry J. Costo Philadelphia Fire Department, Safety Office Deena Cotterill University of Kentucky & Fire-Dex Elizabeth Easter University of Kentucky Jim Evans Solutions Safety Products Tom Flaherty Reflexite Stewart Gantt W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Tim Gardner 3M Occupational Health Chris Gaudette Reflexite Tom Hamma Heartland Fire & Rescue Tricia Hock Safety Equipment Institute Christian Jaehrling Haix North America John Karban Fire Dex, LLC Stacy Klausing University of Kentucky & Intertek Roland Landry Falcon Performance Footwear Brian Marenco Honeywell Jeremy Metz West Metro Fire Rescue & SOPCE TC Amanda Newsom UL Kirk Owen Tencate Protective Fabrics Mark Saner Workrite Uniform Co. Marni Schmid Fortunes Collide Marketing Brian Shiels PBI Performance Products Robert Tutterow F.I.E.R.O. Bill Van Lent Veridian Protective Clothing Harry Winer HIP Consulting, LLC Jennifer Wise W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Joe Xiras Minera Bunker Gear Cleaner Cerina Yeaton Globe Fire Fighter Suits Rich Young DuPont

NFPA Staff Liaison David Trebisacci then read the NFPA Committee Operating Procedures, and passed out the sign-in sheets for both Members and Guests. David then reviewed the NFPA procedures applicable to the business of the pre-ROC meeting. David also reviewed the role of the NFPA Fire Research Foundation and any needs or projects the Foundation could undertake, Antitrust and Patent guidelines as they relate to NFPA standards, and the new NFPA process for standards. The slides related to these issues are attached to these minutes. There was a discussion about the classification of the Enforcer category. Dave encouraged committee members and guests to log on to nfpa.org/enforcers and provide comment on the program, including any refinements regarding User classification being eligible for the same funding program. Dave also noted that he could be emailed with any questions or help with this program.


Agenda Item 4: Approval of the TC Minutes of the 15 – 17 June 2010 Meeting in Providence, Rhode Island.

MOTION BY BILL HASKELL, SECOND BY EARL HAYDEN

To approve the Minutes of the 26-28 July 2012 Committee meeting in Providence, RI.

MOTION CARRIED

Agenda Item 5: Chairman’s Remarks Chairman King welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the day’s agenda, including several expert presentations and time Task Group meeting time.

Chairman King reviewed the NFPA Fire Service Needs Survey results with the group. Chairman King solicited the TC for feedback on possible issues for the NFPA Fire Service Research Foundation. The TC discussed this at the previous meeting and notes are contained in the Providence minutes. Fire helmet 10 year retirement was suggested as an additional research topic.

Committee Discussion The technical committee discussed several issues at the conclusion of Chairman King’s remarks. NITMAM’s for NFPA 1971, 2012 Edition Jeff Stull indicated at the most recent TCC meeting that he would be filing NITMAMs related to boot and glove tests that he felt were not properly substantiated with data. The TCC released notes requesting that the 1971 Committee conduct inter-laboratory testing and field testing for these tests. There are 4 glove testing issues and 2 footwear testing issues. The technical committee discussed this TCC request and updated that inter-laboratory testing was ongoing. David Trebisacci provided an overview of the NITMAM process to the technical committee. If a NITMAM is not approved by the membership attending the NFPA Annual Meeting, it essentially ends there, unless there is an appeal to the Standards Council. If a NITMAM is approved by the membership, the technical committee is then balloted. The results of the ballot and the membership action at the Annual Meeting are then sent to the Standards Council. 2013 FIERO PPE Symposium Robert Tutterow announced the 2013 FIERO PPE Symposium to be held on March 4-6 in Raleigh, NC. It will include a tour of the North Carolina State University Textile Protection and Comfort Center (T-PACC). Robert noted that anyone who wanted to be included on the email list for the event please contact Marni Schmid at [email protected]. The website for the event is www.fireppesymposium.com. A request to be added to the FIERO email list has been attached to the online version of these minutes (www.nfpa.org/1851, click on “Next Edition” tab, then the “ROC Meeting Minutes” for the Orlando meeting). Presentation by Casey Grant, NFPA Fire Protection Research Foundation Casey provided an overview of the foundation’s mission. The FPRF can provide a neutral platform to create credible research with joint input from normally adversarial entities. They can conduct benchmarking, symposia, and new research. The FPRF publishes all of its research online and is available to anyone at nfpa.org/foundation.

http://www.fireppesymposium.com/

http://www.nfpa.org/1851


Code Fund efforts are typically $30k and 1 year in scope and request forms should be written with this in mind. Casey can be reached at [email protected]. Casey’s report has been attached to the online version of these minutes (www.nfpa.org/1851, click on “Next Edition” tab, then “ROC Meeting Minutes” for the Orlando meeting).

Agenda Item 6: Durability Studies Findings – Dr. Elizabeth Easter Dr. Easter conducted a study with her associates regarding post-use turnout gear. The study results were “intended to help determine if the current ten year wear life (retirement age) is appropriate by assessing the performance criteria over time.” The TC discussed the results with the Dr. Easter and her associates and offered their full support, including additional used turnout gear and access to records of inspection, cleaning, and maintenance for that gear. The complete study, including conclusions, has been attached to the online version of these minutes (www.nfpa.org/1851, click on “Next Edition” tab, then “ROC Meeting Minutes” for the Orlando meeting).

The committee then split into smaller groups to conduct task group meetings, review the NITMAMs to NFPA 1971, and to discuss Code Fund Applications.

Chairman King adjourned the meeting at 17:00.

12 JANUARY 2012 Chairman King reconvened the meeting at 0800 on 12 January, 2012 and asked new members and guest to introduce themselves. Chairman King continued with Agenda Item 7, Task Group Reports.

Agenda Item 7: NFPA 1851 ISP Task Group – Rich Granger The ISP Task Group held an additional meeting in Charlotte, and TG chair Rich Granger thanked the group for their hard work through the standard development process. Karen Lehtonen presented the TG’s refined comments on the original committee proposal. The language provides clarification to what ISP’s are and what they are allowed to do based on the standard. Cleaning requirements were removed from the current standard and language was added that a third party will verify that an ISP is compliant to do cleaning and inspection. Additionally, a manufacturer cannot block an ISP from verification or service. The fire service was a strong proponent of this—especially in light of the third party verification.

Clarifications were added for how audits will be conducted for verified ISP’s. Language was added that allows 6 months after the publication date for verified ISPs to become verified to the 2013 Edition. Jim Reidy commented that the 6 months was an important consideration for end users who would need to budget for any additional service costs related to verified ISPs.

mailto:[email protected]




The TC agreed that ISP and verified ISP should be clarified. The definition of ISP will be modified to include that to be an ISP, you also must be verified. The result will be that ISP will also be understood to mean verified ISP throughout the document, and that there will be no such thing as a non-verified ISP. The TG report will be submitted as a public comment and has been attached to the online version of these minutes (www.nfpa.org/1851, click on “Next Edition” tab, then “ROC Meeting Minutes” for the Orlando meeting). Cleaning Task Group – Tim Durby Tim Durby presented the scope of the Task Group to the TC along with the areas that they worked on. The TG report has been attached to the online version of these minutes (www.nfpa.org/1851, click on “Next Edition” tab, then “ROC Meeting Minutes” for the Orlando meeting).

Discussion – other proposals Dan Melia brought forth comments that were voted down that he will be re-commenting on. The 10 year gear retirement life is the primary topic. The primary issue was stored gear having to be discarded due to age, rather than condition. The TC discussed this topic at length. Dean Cox clarified that originally one of the issues around 10 year was to make sure that fire fighters were not using old technology. Christian Jaehrling also noted that storage conditions could have a major impact on the quality of gear that has been stored for a long period of time. The example he provided was Southern FL gear that was unusable after 3 years of storage on a shelf in an un-climate controlled building. Jim Reidy commented that the 10 year requirement has had a positive impact on the quality of gear in his state as FD’s have began to comply with the new requirement. Dan Melia recommended that a task group be formed to look at the issue of 10 year helmet retirement. Discussion on NITMAMs Casey Grant went over the NITMAM process at the annual meeting. To vote on a motion on the floor, you must have been an NFPA member for 6 months prior. You do not need to be an NFPA member to speak on a motion or to participate in the discussion. It was noted that being a member of an NFPA committee does not mean that you are an NFPA member. Steve Corrado updated the technical committee on the results of the previous day’s discussion. Log 923 / 933: (Whole glove tool test) The newly proposed modified tool test will be removed from the standard if this motion is successful, and the current dexterity test would remain. NC St. conducted comparative testing that showed the new testing was desirable. This data will be shared with the TC. Log 924: (Glove torque test) If successful this motion will remove the new torque test from the standard. Log 926 / 928: (Whole boot flame test) If successful this motion would remove the new whole flame test and the Bunsen test would be inserted and be modified to test all the materials on the outside of the boot. This methodology has been used before by the Coast Guard and has not been found to be a safety hazard. Log 930: (Boot heat resistance test) If successful this motion will return the test back to the way it is in the current edition of the standard. Log 927: (Glove pouches) Many glove tests are conducted with the material in a pouch configuration. TG made the recommendation that the pouch could be made from two of the same component to be more efficient for pre-conditioning (two backs, two palms, etc). If successful the motion will return the standard back to the way it is in the current edition (pouch must be palm and back to represent glove)




Log 931: (Glove grip test) If successful, this method will return the test back to the way it is in the current edition. The TG changed the rope test from a rope to a fiberglass pike pole. This new test eliminates the glove surfaces that have a catastrophic grip failure. Came from a request in the fire service that the test be more fire service related.

Agenda Item 8: Old Business There is no old business of the committee.

Agenda Item 9: New Business Next TC meeting for NFPA 1851 ROC, April 3-5, 2012, San Antonio, TX: The next TC meeting will be for NFPA 1851 ROC and be held April 3-5 in San Antonio, TX. Jim Reidy gave the TC an overview of the host hotel and offered to be of assistance in any way possible while in town.

Agenda Item 10: Adjournment

MOTION BY ANDREW OLIVER, SECOND BY RICH GRANGER

To adjourn

MOTION CARRIED

Chairman King adjourned the meeting at 13:15 on 12 January 2012. Respectfully submitted,

Benjamin A. Mauti, Secretary TC on SPFFPCE

Sponsor Co-sponsor Media Partner

Fire Service PPE Symposium

March 4-6, 2013

Yes, please add me to your email list:

_________________@_______________________

We will not share your email address with anyone. You will only receive emails when

there are pertinent updates and reminders – if you sign up for multiple lists, you should

not receive duplicate emails. Please check your preferences below:

☐ F.I.E.R.O. Fire PPE Symposium attendee

☐ F.I.E.R.O. Fire PPE Symposium exhibitor

☐ F.I.E.R.O. General Interest

☐ F.I.E.R.O. Fire Station Design attendee

☐ F.I.E.R.O. Fire Station Design exhibitor

Supporting Organizations

11-12 January 2012 Meeting of the TC on Structural and Proximity Fire

Fighter Protective Clothing and Equipment Orlando, FL

AGENDA

1) FPRF as a Resource

2) Completed Available Research Reports

3) Currently Active Research Initiatives

4) Looking to the Future

FIRE PROTECTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION

UPDATE

FPRF: Role of the Foundation – Plan, manage and communicate research in

support of the NFPA mission – Independent charitable organization

• Formed by NFPA in 1982 • Intended to provide data to support the

needs of NFPA codes & standards • Foundation activities include:

i. Agenda Setting – research planning in emerging areas

ii. Research Projects and Programs iii. Benchmarking – state of the art symposia


FPRF: Project Participants… Who are they? – Funding (Sponsors): Where does it come from?

• Manufacturers, trade associations, NFPA, federal agencies, research organizations, nowhere, etc…

– Contractors: Who Does the Work? • Consultants, research organizations, test labs,

universities, NFPA Fire Analysis, volunteers – Advisory Oversight: Project Technical Panel

• Typically small (6 to 15) • Meet at important stages of project

(start/end/other)


Underlying Benefits of FPRF-based Projects • Independence • Collaboration • Cost sharing • Credibility • Pipeline to

implementation • Communications

network


--- Using the Foundation as a better resource ---

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.northsaanich.ca/__shared/assets/fire_fighter_3316.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.northsaanich.ca/Municipal_Hall/Departments/Emergency_and_Fire_Services/Fire_Department.htm&usg=__htQIVsH0sCAlhqDydYXT8A6rsy0=&h=333&w=255&sz=12&hl=en&start=22&tbnid=Uar4rK3C7oHrRM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfire%2Bfighter%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN�

AGENDA






UPDATE


2011 FPRF Symposia & Workshops • Jul 2010; Pittsburgh – Research Planning for

Fire Service SCBA Thermal Characteristics; in collaboration with NIST & NIOSH NPPTL

• Apr 2011; Dallas – Planning Workshop for Fire and Emergency Services Professional Qualifications; for NFPA

• Sept 2011; Detroit – 2nd Summit on Electric Vehicle Safety Standards; in collaboration with NFPA & SAE

• Dec 2011; Rockville MD – Workshop on CAFS, Compressed Air Foam Systems for Structural Fire Fighting; DHS/FEMA Fire Grant project

FPRF Reports: Fire Prevention Analysis of Ambulance Crash Data U.S. National Electric Vehicle Safety Standards Summit Measuring Code Compliance Effectiveness Public Safety Messaging Incentives for Use of Residential Sprinkler Systems Engineered Lightweight Wood Truss Construction

(Completed Reports available at: www.nfpa.org/foundation)


FPRF Reports: Fireground Operations Quantitative Evaluation of Fire & EMS Mobilization Times Risk Factors for FF Cardiovascular Disease (U of Arizona) Assessment of Powered Rescue Tool Capabilities Fire Ground Tactics for Electric Drive Vehicles Fire Ground Tactics for Solar Power Systems Image Quality Testing of Fire Service Thermal Imagers



FPRF Reports: Personal Protective Equipment Reaching the U.S. Fire Service with H2 Safety Information Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions Thermal Capacity of Fire Fighter Protective Clothing Respiratory Exposure Study FF Protective Clothing Breathability Project (Phase I&II)



AGENDA






UPDATE

On-Going Studies Relating to Fire Service 1) Friction Loss Coefficients for Modern

Fire Hose 2) Thermal Hazards of Fire Service

Training Fires 3) Community Wildfire Regulatory Assessment 4) Whole Glove Testing Technologies (NCSU) 5) Fire Flow Water Consumption for

Sprinklered and Unsprinklered Buildings 6) Emergency Responder Training for

Electric Vehicles


On-Going Studies Relating to Fire Service 7) Fireground Injuries: An International Evaluation of

Causes and Best Practices (U of Arizona) 8) Stair Descent Devices Evaluation (U of Illinois Chicago) 9) Capabilities of CAFS for Structural Fire Fighting 10)Performance Requirements for Compatible and

Interoperable Fire Fighter Electronic Equipment

11)Evaluation and Enhancement of PASS Effectiveness


1) Administrate Project Advisory Panel (Jan-Dec 2012)

2) Literature Review 3) PPE Electronic Inventory 4) Performance Requirements for

Interoperability 5) PPE Electronic Equipment Workshop

(Sept 2012) 6) Reporting and Dissemination (Dec

2012)

“Compatible/Interoperable FF Electronic Equipment” Project Tasks and Timeline


AGENDA






UPDATE


New Projects Being Considered • Evaluation of Fire Apparatus Vehicle Crashes (JHopkins) • Optimum Material Design for SCBA Face Piece (NIST) • Analysis of PPE Care & Maintenance (NCSU, UK, NIOSH) • Evaluation of Effectiveness of Fire Service Infectious

Disease Programs (UArizona) • Deployment of Fire Prevention

Resources (NFPA) • Analysis of “Arc-Mapping” (IAAI) • Response Times for On-Airport

ARFF Fire Departments (NFPA)

Contact Information:

One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA USA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-984-7284 Email: [email protected]

FPRF Website: www.nfpa.org/foundation

Casey Grant Fire Protection Research Foundation

mailto:[email protected]�

Post Use Analysis of Firefighter

Turnout Garments Phases I & II

Deena G. Cotterill & Stacy Trenkamp Klausing

Dr. Elizabeth Easter

University of Kentucky

Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles Department

Sponsors E.I. DuPont TM

Fire-Dex, LLC

Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC.

Lion Apparel, Inc.

TenCate

3M TM

WL Gore & Associates, Inc.

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post use

evaluation of both volunteer and career firefighter

turnout garments that had been in service

The research evaluated used firefighter’s turnout garments

according to the NFPA 1851 standard inspection protocol

&using test procedures from NFPA 1971.

The results of the physical inspection and testing of the

turnout garments is intended to help determine if the current

ten year wear life (retirement age) is appropriate by assessing

the performance criteria over time

Purpose

› Does the Advanced Inspection predict garment and/or

material performance?

› Explore how/if garment performance changes with time.

› Is there a correlation between turnout gear fabrics and

composite performance and the age/use pattern of the

garment?

› To obtain specific use, care, and maintenance information

using a questionnaire

› To compare performance properties of turnout gear as a

function of cleaning cycles

Research Objectives

› Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance

properties specified in NFPA 1851 and 1971?

› Are the Advanced Inspection criteria of NFPA 1851

effective in evaluating garment performance?

› What criteria do departments use in retiring gear?

› Is there a correlation between care and maintenance of

turnout gear and performance properties?

› Do the performance properties of used turnout gear meet

the requirements of NFPA 1971?

Research Questions

71 turnout garments from medium to large departments ;

career firefighters (Phase I)

76 turnout garments from small departments; volunteer

firefighters (Phase II)

65 Surveys obtained from volunteer firefighters regarding care

and maintenance of gear

24 Combinations of flat fabric evaluated at 0 washes, 5

washes, 10 washes, and 20 washes

Sample Description

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Photograph the Garment Locations: front closed, back

closed, open inside of liner, labels,

shell inside out, back side of liner

---

Advanced Visual

Inspection

Use advanced inspection checklist,

photograph unique findings.

NFPA 1851

Light Evaluation of the

Liners

Evaluate coat body or pant inseam

area of thermal liner

NFPA 1851

Leakage Evaluation

(cup test)

Evaluate areas identified for Water

Penetration Evaluation

NFPA 1851

Evaluate Closure

Systems Functionality

NFPA 1851

Visual Evaluation

2 -3 Years 5-7 Years 9-10 Years

Good

Poor

Outer Shell


Good

Poor

Garment Liner (based on Outer Shell Rating)

Visible Defects

Results of Visual Evaluation

› Closure Functionality – all primary closures functional

2 garments in 9-10 category had nonfunctional hook & loop

Stitching on zippers were loose on 2 garments, but zippers

remained functional

Dee on 5-7 year old garment was missing rivet, nonfunctional

› Trim Flashlight Evaluation

› Liner Flashlight Evaluation

Coats: tested back, shoulder, and underarm

Trousers: tested seat and inseam

14 garments failed; 8 pants in seat and 6 in crotch

10% needle punch failed in 2-3 years;

35% E-89 failed in 2-3 years

Results of Leakage Evaluation

Coat: Right shoulder seam; left underarm seam; right & left front

panels

Pant: Seat inseam, crotch seam, right rear & left knee

› 43 out of 143 failed the test – 30.06%;

› >5 years of age: 36.67% showed leakage

› < 4 years of age: 18.87% showed leakage

Retired

Years of Use

Overall Cup

YesNo

>5yrs<4yrs>5yrs<4yrs

PassFailPassFailPassFailPassFail

40

30

20

10

0

Co

un

tFail

Pass

Evaluation

Leakage

26

14

2

0

31

19

41

10

Leakage Evaluation vs. Retirement and Years of Use

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP)

Samples to be taken from coats only (due to size of sample)

NFPA 1971

Total Heat Loss (THL) Samples to be taken from coats only (due to size of sample)

NFPA 1971

Results: All 70 garments met or exceeded the minimum TPP

requirement of 35 cal/cm2.

The median TPP value (70 samples) was 50.68 cal/cm2, which was an average of 20% increase in TPP values over the manufacturer’s 2000 certification value.

55.71% of the 70 samples tested did not meet the minimum requirements for THL (205 w/m2)

Found that retirement status and outer shell type have a significant relationship with THL Value.

Performance Testing

Flammability Testing

136 Outer Shells

100% passed

91 Thermal Liners

97.8% passed

91 Moisture Barriers

97.8% passed

All samples taken from right

front coat sleeve & left front

pant leg

Performance Testing

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Tear Resistance (outer shell) Took 2 samples from each garment – one horizontal and one vertical.

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing

Results:

› Vertical tear strength averages

decreased slightly with age but all three age categories exceeded the min. of 22 lbff,with the exception of 2 garments in the 9-10 year old and retired category .

› Analysis indicated that as fabrics aged, tear strength decreased

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Breaking Strength (outer shell)

3 samples from warp direction, 3 samples from fill direction on 143 samples

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing

Results:

› 10.49% did not meet the minimum requirement

› Average break was at 190.23 lbf

› 5 outer shells <4 years of age did not meet

the minimum requirement

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Seam Breaking Strength

(all layers) Samples to be taken from pants only. Two

samples from the seat seam, and two samples from the inseam.

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing

Results: › The results indicated a borderline

relationship between seam strength

performances of the outer shell seat seam

and the use and/or age of the garment.

This statistical significance did not exist for

the moisture barrier and thermal liner.

› Relationship found between seam strength

and visual evaluation

› The pants inseam of the moisture barrier

had a constant decrease in strength with

the years of use and/or age.

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation (hydrostatic test)

Take 2 samples from moisture barrier, and 2 samples from moisture barrier seams

NFPA 1851

Performance Testing

Failures: › 65.73% of 143

garments

showed

leakage

› 23.77% of

leakers were

< 4 years old

› 43.43% seam

failures, 42.11%

fabric failures

Years of Use

Overall Hydro

>5yrs<4yrs

PassFailPassFail

40

30

20

10

0

Pe

rce

nt

Fail

Pass

Testing

Hydrostatic

20.979

41.958

13.2867

23.7762

Percent within all data.

Hydrostatic Testing and Age of Garments

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Retroreflectivity and

Fluorescence Test (ambient conditions only)

Test if the garment history is available

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing – Retroreflectivity

Results: › Avg. RA value

(Coefficient of

retroreflection)

of 23 coats was

337; avg. for

pants was 310

› Phase II

› Coats: 292

› Pants: 230

› Thermal Manikin Testing 2 Ensembles of Turnout Garments

122 sensors on body

10 second exposure/heat flux of 2.0 cal/sq

Performance Testing – Ensemble

› Results indicate a 5% predicted burn injury for both sets of

turnout garments.

THERMO-MAN®Thermal Protection

Evaluation System

Front Back

Burn Injury Prediction

2nd Degree Burn = 3%

3rd Degree Burn = 2%

No Information

Total Burn Injury

5%


Garment 1A/2A

Exposure Time = 10.0 sec Test R090804I

®

Results of Laboratory

Evaluation

Care & Performance-Flat Fabric

Results: › Spike in TPP Value after 5 Wash Cycles

› TPP/Thermal insulation increases with washing

› The opposite was true for THL

› THL decreased 3.88% after 5 washes

201050

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

Wash Time

Me

an

Nomex/Kevlar

PBI/Kevlar

Outer Shell

Interaction Plot for Wash Cycle and TPPData Means

Questionnaire Responses

Results: › Majority (85.15%) classified the use of their gear as “light” or 1-5

times a week

› Over half said their gear is used for structural and industrial fires,

rescue

› Retirement Criteria

› Age

› Physical Appearance

› 43.47% answered that the cleaning of their gear is “voluntary”

› 24.62% said their gear is cleaned by a professional or verified

ISP

› 46.15% said their gear is cleaned annually

OtherAnnuallySemi-AnnuallyMonthlyEvery-Use

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Questionnaire

Co

un

t

12

30

8

2

8

Cleaning Frequency

Summary

Are the Advanced Inspection criteria of NFPA 1851 effective in evaluating garment performance?

Effective for flashlight test, Total Heat Loss, and Seam Breaking

Strength

Not predictive of performance in water penetration or tear

strength

Hydrostatic testing (143 samples):

65.73% showed leakage in the water penetration evaluation

30.06% showed leakage in the leakage evaluation

Summary, continued

Is there a correlation between turnout gear material and composite performance and the age/use pattern

of the garment?

TPP: No statistical difference, with 2/3 yr old garments ranging from 45.4 – 58.0, while the 9/10 year old garments exhibited a range of 45.1 – 60

Water Penetration: No significant difference in age groups

THL: did not show significant change with age/use

Flammability testing: Slight difference between char length and age/use of moisture barrier

Seam strength: Slight relationship between pant shell seat seam strength and use/age of garment

Summary, continued

Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance properties specified in NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971?

THL, Flammability, Breaking Strength meet

requirements

Tear Strength, Seam Strength, Water Penetration do

not

Summary, continued

Is there a correlation between care and maintenance of turnout gear and performance

properties?

As wash cycles increased, so did TPP

THL decreased with wash cycles

Thickness of the fabrics increased with wash cycle

Summary, continued

Do the performance properties of used turnout gear meet the requirements of NFPA 1971?

TPP, Flammability, and Retroreflectivity met

requirements

THL, Tear strength, breaking strength, seam strength,

and the water penetration barrier evaluation did not

Results of cup test and water penetration did not

match

Summary, continued

What criteria do departments use in retiring gear?

Age

Physical Appearance

1851 Proposals

Retirement Age

Sometimes retirement may need to occur before 10

years

Leakage Evaluation

Recommended to move to Annex

Liner Inspection

Recommended an inspection every 2 years instead of 3

Trim

Cleaning and Maintenance

QUESTIONS?

• What’s Next?

Looking for support for the next phase

What would you like to see?

Contact Information

• Dr. Elizabeth Easter

• [email protected]

• Post-Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear by Deena G.

Cotterill

• Presentations at the ASTM Conference, Anaheim, CA

June 2011& PPE Symposium in Charlotte, NC

• Post-Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear Phase II by Stacy

Trenkamp

• Link to Access Theses: • http://libraries.uky.edu/

1

ABSTRACT OF THESIS

POST USE ANALYSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post use evaluation of firefighter

turnout gear that had been in use for two to three years, five to seven years and nine to

ten years and/or retired. The research evaluated used firefighter’s turnout gear

according to standard inspection protocol of NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971 test procedures

to help determine if the current recommended ten year wear life (retirement age) is

appropriate. Quantitative data included a visual assessment (closure system

functionality, light evaluation, leakage evaluation and flashlight test) and performance

properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength and water penetration).

The results confirm the flashlight test allows the firefighter to effectively evaluate trim

reflectance on their turnout gear according to NFPA 1851. The leakage tests results

were not replicated by the water penetration tests. Based on the results of this study

TPP, THL, flammability and tear strength confirm the recommended ten year wear life of

a garment is appropriate. However, seam strength and water penetration results do not

confirm the recommended ten year wear life due to high rate of failure.

KEYWORDS: Turnout Gear, Post Use, Durability, Firefighter, NFPA Standards

___________________________

___________________________

2

POST USE ANALYSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR

By

Deena G. Cotterill

____________________________ Director of Thesis

____________________________

Director of Graduate Studies

____________________________ Date

3

RULES FOR THE USE OF THESIS

Unpublished theses submitted for the Master’s degree and deposited in the University of Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but quotations or summaries of parts may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgements.

Extensive copying or publication of the thesis in whole or in part also requires the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky. A library that borrows this thesis for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature of each user. Name Date _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

4

THESIS

Deena G. Cotterill

The Graduate School


2009

5

POST USE EVALUATAION OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR

_______________________________

THESIS _______________________________

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Merchandising, Apparel, & Textiles in the College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky

By

Deena Grace Cotterill

Lexington, Kentucky

Director: Dr. Elizabeth Pratt Easter Professor of Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles

Lexington, Kentucky

2009

6

MASTER’S THESIS RELEASE

I authorize the University of Kentucky Libraries to reproduce this thesis in

whole or in part for purposes of research.

Signed: ______________________________

Date: ________________________________

DEDICATED IN MEMORY OF

“PAPAW”

ERNEST BARKER

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by numerous individuals including faculty, fire fighting industry leaders, family, friends, and student co-workers. First, I would like to acknowledge and thank my major professor, Dr. Elizabeth Easter, for her invaluable hard work, expertise, guidance, patience, and dedication to this study. I would also like to thank Dr. Scarlett Wesley and Dr. Min-Young Lee for their suggestions along the way and for participating as members on my thesis committee. Tricia Hock of Fire-Dex, Karen Lehtonen of Lion Apparel, Patricia Freeman of Globe Manufacturing, and Richard Young of DuPont devoted so much time and effort to this study and I want to thank them for the suggestions and help that could only be provided by industry leaders like themselves. Ken Hanzalik of 3M Occupational Health and Environmental Safety Division, Angela Taylor of TenCate, and Holly Blake of W.L. Gore & Associates all participated and assisted with testing for this study and I am very appreciative for their help. Jennifer Van Mullekom and Calvin Wei of DuPont assisted with the statistical analysis of this study and I want to thank them for their time and hard work. It should be acknowledged that this study was funded by a grant provided by the National Institute on Standards and Technology. I would also like to thank my family (Kim, Gene, and Brian Trenkamp) and fiancé, Daniel for their support and encouragement through the past two years. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends (especially Molly Mando for her editorial support) and co-workers in the Textile Testing Laboratory for their assistance.

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One: Introduction ...................................................................................................1

Problem ............................................................................................................................2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................3 Research Objectives .........................................................................................................4 Research Questions ..........................................................................................................5 Justifications .....................................................................................................................6 Study Limitations .............................................................................................................7 Assumptions .....................................................................................................................7

Chapter Two: Review of Literature .....................................................................................9 Introduction ......................................................................................................................9 A Firefighter’s Environment ............................................................................................9 Hazards of Fire Fighting ................................................................................................11 Previous Research on Post-Use Evaluation of Turnout Gear.........................................12 NFPA Standards .............................................................................................................15

NFPA 1851 ................................................................................................15 History............................................................................................15 Revision .........................................................................................15 Selection .........................................................................................15

NFPA Proposals .........................................................................................17 Leakage Evaluation ........................................................................17 Liner Inspection Frequencies .........................................................18 Cleaning and Maintenance .............................................................18 Retirement Criteria.........................................................................18 Reflective Trim ..............................................................................18

NFPA 1971 ................................................................................................19 Revision .........................................................................................19 Lifespan Recommendations and Problems ....................................20

Protective Ensemble .......................................................................................................20 Outer Shell .................................................................................................20 Moisture Barrier .........................................................................................20 Thermal Liner ............................................................................................21 Fabrics ........................................................................................................21

Outer Shell .....................................................................................21 PBI Fibers ..........................................................................21 Kevlar® and Nomex® .......................................................22

Moisture Barrier .............................................................................22 Crosstech® .........................................................................22

9

RT7100 ..............................................................................22 Thermal Liner ................................................................................22

Aramid Fibers ....................................................................22 E-89 ....................................................................................22

Reinforcements ..........................................................................................23 Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles ............................................................23 Design Issues of Turnout Gear .......................................................................................25 Post-Use Evaluation and Functional Design ..................................................................25 Summary ........................................................................................................................27

Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................29 Introduction ....................................................................................................................29 Research Design .............................................................................................................29 Sample ............................................................................................................................30 Methodology ..................................................................................................................31

Phase I ........................................................................................................31 Phase II.......................................................................................................31 New Fabric .................................................................................................32 Questionnaire .............................................................................................32

Sample Preparation ........................................................................................................32 Procedures ......................................................................................................................33

Visual Inspection .......................................................................................33 Evaluation of Closure System Functionality .............................................33 Light Evaluation.........................................................................................33 Flashlight Test ............................................................................................34 Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) .....................................................34 Total Heat Loss (THL)...............................................................................35 Thickness ...................................................................................................36 Flammability ..............................................................................................36 Leakage Evaluation ....................................................................................37 Tear Resistance ..........................................................................................37 Seam Breaking Strength ............................................................................38 Breaking Strength ......................................................................................38 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ........................................................39 Retroflectivity and Fluorescence Test .......................................................39

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................41 Chapter Four: Results and Discussion ...............................................................................42

Introduction ....................................................................................................................42 Visual Inspection of Turnout Gear .................................................................................42 Evaluation of Closure System Functionality ..................................................................45 Light Evaluation .............................................................................................................45 Flashlight Test ................................................................................................................46 Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) .........................................................................46

Flat Fabric ..................................................................................................47

10

Garments ....................................................................................................49 Total Heat Loss (THL) ...................................................................................................49

Flat Fabric ..................................................................................................50 Garments ....................................................................................................52

Thickness ........................................................................................................................58 Flammability ..................................................................................................................59

Outer Shells ................................................................................................60 Moisture Barriers .......................................................................................60 Thermal Liners ...........................................................................................60

Leakage Evaluation ........................................................................................................61 Tear Resistance ..............................................................................................................64


Seam Breaking Strength .................................................................................................67 Outer Shells ................................................................................................69 Moisture Barriers .......................................................................................72 Thermal Liners ...........................................................................................75

Breaking Strength ...........................................................................................................76 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ............................................................................78 Water Penetration vs. Leakage Evaluation.....................................................................84 Retroflectivity and Fluorescence Test ............................................................................85

Phase I ........................................................................................................86 Phase II.......................................................................................................88

Questionnaire .................................................................................................................91 Use .............................................................................................................91 Care ............................................................................................................92

Research Questions ........................................................................................................94 Research Question #1 ................................................................................94 Research Question #2 ................................................................................95

Thermal Protective Performance ...................................................95 Total Heat Loss ..............................................................................95 Flammability ..................................................................................95 Tear Resistance ..............................................................................96 Sewn Seam Strength ......................................................................96 Breaking Strength ..........................................................................96 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ............................................97 Retroflectivity and Fluorescence ...................................................97 Breaking Strength ..........................................................................97

Research Question #2a ...............................................................................97 Research Question #2b ..............................................................................98 Research Question #2c ...............................................................................98 Research Question #3 ................................................................................98

Total Heat Loss ..............................................................................99 Seam Breaking Strength ................................................................99 Breaking Strength ..........................................................................99

11

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ............................................99 Research Question #3a .............................................................................100 Research Question #4 ..............................................................................100

Total Heat Loss ............................................................................100 Flammability ................................................................................100 Tear Resistance ............................................................................100 Sewn Seam Strength ...................................................................100 Breaking Strength ........................................................................101 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ..........................................101

Summary ..................................................................................................101

Chapter Five: Conclusions ...............................................................................................102 Introduction ..................................................................................................................102 Limitations ...................................................................................................................108 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................108

Appendices

Appendix A ..................................................................................................................115 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................117 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................118 Appendix D ..................................................................................................................120 Appendix E ...................................................................................................................123 Appendix F ...................................................................................................................125

References ........................................................................................................................111

Vita ...................................................................................................................................224

12

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Regression Analysis for the Effect of Materials on Thermal Protective

Performance in Wash Cycles .............................................................................................47

Table 4.2 Regression Analysis for the Effect of Materials on Total Heat Loss in Wash

Cycles .................................................................................................................................50

Table 4.3 One-Way ANOVA with F-Test for Total Heat Loss Values.............................54

Table 4.4 One-Way ANOVA with F-Test for Hydrostatic Testing, Total Heat Loss, and

Thickness ...........................................................................................................................58

Table 4.5 Leakage Evaluation Dependence .......................................................................62

Table 4.6 One Way ANOVA for Tear Strength and Outer Shell ......................................66

Table 4.7 One-Way ANOVA for Seam Breaking Strength Variables ..............................69

Table 4.8 Hydrostatic Testing Dependence .......................................................................80

Table 4.9 Logistic Regression Table-Hydrostatic Testing and Years of Use ....................83

Table 4.10 Attribute Agreement Analysis-Cup Test and Hydrostatic Testing ..................85

Table 4.11 Fleiss’ Kappa Agreement between Leakage Evaluation and Hydrostatic .......85

13

List of Figures Figure 3.1. Retroflectivity Test Locations .........................................................................41

Figure 4.1. Outer Shell Evaluation Results ........................................................................44

Figure 4.2. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Outer Shell ......................48

Figure 4.3. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Moisture Barrier ..............48

Figure 4.4. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Thermal Liner .................49

Figure 4.5. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Outer Shell ..............................................51

Figure 4.6. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Moisture Barrier ......................................51

Figure 4.7. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles-Thermal Liner ..........................................52

Figure 4.8. Total Heat Loss Results in Comparison to NFPA 1971 ..................................53

Figure 4.9. Garment Total Heat Loss Performance and Retirement ..................................54

Figure 4.10. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use-Outer Shell ...................55

Figure 4.11. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use-Moisture Barrier ..........56

Figure 4.12. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss After Use .....................................57

Figure 4.13. Fitted Line Plot of Thermal Protective Performance and Total Heat Loss vs.

Thickness ...........................................................................................................................59

Figure 4.14. Overall Results of the Leakage Evaluation ...................................................61

Figure 4.15. Leakage Evaluation and Retirement Status of Samples ................................63

Figure 4.16. Leakage Evaluation vs. Retirement and Years of Use ..................................64

Figure 4.17. Tear Resistance of Outer Shell Samples .......................................................65

Figure 4.18. UL and Used Tear Strength (Outer Shells) ..................................................66

Figure 4.19. Tear Strength (Outer Shell) and Years of Use...............................................67

Figure 4.20. Seam Breaking Strength Evaluations ............................................................68

Figure 4.21. Overall Seam Strength Performance- Outer Shell .........................................69

Figure 4.22. Seam Strength-Outer Shell ............................................................................70

Figure 4.23. Chart of Seam Breaking Strength and Years of Use .....................................71

Figure 4.24. Outer Shell Seam Strength and Retirement ...................................................72

Figure 4.25. Overall Seam Strength-Moisture Barrier .......................................................73

Figure 4.26. Moisture Barrier Seam Breaking Strength ....................................................74

Figure 4.27. Chart of Moisture Barrier Seam Strength and Retirement ............................75

Figure 4.28. Breaking Strength and Retirement ................................................................77

14

Figure 4.29. Breaking Strength and Years of Use .............................................................78

Figure 4.30. Hydrostatic Test Results ................................................................................79

Figure 4.31. Hydrostatic Testing by Age Category ...........................................................81

Figure 4.32. Hydrostatic Testing by Years of Use and Retirement ...................................82

Figure 4.33. Evaluating Fabric Versus Seam Failures in Hydrostatic Testing ..................84

Figure 4.34. Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase I ....................87


Figure 4.36. The Color Box Values of Fluorescence: Phase I ...........................................88

Figure 4.37. Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase II ..................89

Figure 4.38.Average Pant Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase II ....................90

Figure 4.39. The Color Box Values of Fluorescence: Phase II .........................................91

Figure 4.40. Questionnaire-Gear Condition .......................................................................92

Figure 4.41. Cleaning Frequency-Questionnaire ...............................................................93

15

Chapter One

According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) structural fire fighting

includes any rescue activities, fire suppression, and property conservation in buildings, enclosed

structures, vehicles, marine vessels, or like properties that are involved in a fire or emergency

situation (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). In a structural fire firefighters frequently

encounter dangerous and extreme situations. Since firefighters are required to put themselves

in dangerous situations to protect and save others, many are injured and even killed every year

while on duty. In 2007 while responding to emergencies or fighting fires 80,100 firefighters

were injured and 103 were killed (National Fire Protection Association, 2009). A firefighter’s

turnout gear is the only thing protecting a firefighter’s body from the extreme temperatures,

hazardous chemicals and blood borne pathogens encountered when responding to an

emergency. Even though a firefighter’s structural fire fighting protective ensemble is designed

to protect the firefighter, it may also contribute to some of these injuries and deaths. Heat

stress may be aggravated by the discomfort of a protective ensemble, which inhibits the

firefighter from performing a task safely and properly (Bumbarger, 2000). Protective ensembles

include a coat, a pair of pants and other equipment worn or used by a firefighter when

responding to an emergency. The term turnout gear as used in this study refers only to the coat

and pants of the protective ensemble. Coat and pants of the turnout gear are composed of

three components: an outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner (National Fire Protection

Association, 2007). Turnout gear fabrics have been improved over the years and include several

different fabric combinations. Nomex®, Kevlar®, polybenzimidizole (PBI) and combinations of

the three are the most commonly used name brand fibers for the turnout gear’s outer shell.

Aramid batts, spunlaced nonwovens, and recycled batts are the most commonly used materials

for the turnout gear’s thermal liner. Moisture barriers are composed of polytetrafluoroethylene

(PTFE) films or membranes that are laminated to a fabric or nonwoven.

Firefighters typically place a high importance on weekly inspections of their equipment

such as trucks and hoses, but commonly forget about their turnout gear (Reed, 2003). To help

firefighters place a higher importance on their protective ensemble the NFPA created a standard

dedicated to the selection, care and maintenance of the protective ensembles. NFPA 1851,

Standard on Selection, Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire

Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2008 edition requires in section 6.2.1 protective ensembles

16

be inspected after each use no matter how long or rigorously the ensembles were used. If a

protective ensemble is not inspected or cleaned, or as needed after each use it could render the

ensemble susceptible to malfunction or worse failure causing harm to the firefighter. Some

particulates remaining on the turnout gear could pose health risks for the firefighter, especially

if the gear is not cleaned. NFPA Standard 1851 section 10.1.3 requires all structural turnout gear

be retired ten years from the date the ensemble was manufactured no matter if the ensemble

elements were used or not.

Problem

There was a time old, dirty and worn turnout gear was a status symbol in fire

departments (Schenck, 2003). Dirty turnout gear indicated a firefighter was a veteran who had

survived dangerous fires. The dirtier the turnout gear, the higher perceived status. The 2008

edition of NFPA 1851 addressed this issue with a required retirement age for turnout gear of ten

years after the date of manufacture.

Turnout gear used by firefighters for fighting structural fires is composed of multi layer

units consisting of an outer shell, moisture barrier and thermal liner. Each layer must work

properly as an individual component but the turnout gear composite must also work cohesively

as a single unit. Although a protective ensemble can protect a firefighter in hazardous

environments with harsh temperatures, it must be routinely inspected and properly maintained

according to NFPA 1851 or the firefighter could be at greater risk of injury or death. If

firefighters do not inspect or improperly clean and store their turnout gear, they could be

endangering their lives and the lives of their co-workers by using a damaged ensemble. With

the revision of NFPA 1851 in 2008 firefighters are required to retire their turnout gear after 10

years from the date of manufacture.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post use evaluation of structural

firefighting turnout gear that had been used for 2-3 years, 5-7 years and 9-10 years and/or

retired from medium and large fire stations. The research evaluated used firefighter’s turnout

gear according to the NFPA 1851 standard inspection protocol and some NFPA 1971 test

procedures. The results of the physical inspection and testing of the turnout gear will help

determine if the current recommended ten year wear life (retirement age) is appropriate by

assessing the performance criteria after three increments of time.

17

Research Objectives

The research was quasi experiment utilizing a factorial design to obtain quantitative

data. Factors addressed for the turnout gear composite are: thermal protective performance

(TPP) and total heat loss (THL). The factors addressed for each of the individual fabrics of the

ensemble are: flame resistance, tear resistance, and seam breaking strength. Water

penetration barrier evaluations were conducted on the moisture barrier layer, while

retroreflectivity and fluorescence testing were conducted on the reflective trim. Thermal

manikin testing was performed on selected samples to determine the protective performance of

the whole garment. The quality and performance of firefighter turnout gear coats and pants

that had been used were evaluated.

The research objectives for this study are:

1. To determine if the visual inspection protocol for structural turnout gear coats

and pants specified in NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance

of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,

2008 edition is predictive of the results of testing the ensemble and/or fabrics in

a laboratory setting.

2. To determine if the recommended ten year wear life (retirement age) specified

in NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective

Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2008 edition is

appropriate by evaluating the ensemble and fabrics using methods outlined in

NFPA 1851 and 1971.

3. To compare the durability and serviceability properties of different types of

outer shell fabrics, moisture barriers and thermal liners of used protective

ensembles/turnout gear.

Research Questions

To meet the research objectives the following research questions will be addressed:

1. Are the user inspection guidelines in NFPA 1851 appropriate to effectively

evaluate in “service” turnout gear for structural firefighting, including a visual

inspection, flashlight test, cup test and overall visual evaluation?

18

2. Do key performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam

strength, and water penetration) of used turnout gear of three age categories (2-

3 years, 5-7 years and 9-10 years and/or retired) for structural firefighting

change with use and/or age?

3. Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance properties (TPP, THL,

flammability, tear strength, seam strength, and water penetration) specified in

NFPA 1851 and 1971?

4. Is there a correlation between the results of turnout gear performance

properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength, and water

penetration) and the minimum requirements of NFPA 1971 and NFPA 1851?

Justifications

Firefighters face extremely hazardous conditions each time they respond to an

emergency. Some of the hazardous conditions include flashover temperatures reaching up to

1500°F, smoke filled with dangerous particulates, water and firegrounds with sharp objects and

unstable floors ("Firefighter and fire-resistant clothing and fabric," 2004; Hubbard, 2008).

According to the National Fire Protection Association a structural fire fighting protective

ensemble consists of multiple elements of compliant protective clothing and equipment that

when worn together provide protection from some risks, but not all risks, of emergency incident

operations (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). A protective ensemble that has been

properly inspected and cared for according to NFPA 1851 will protect the firefighter from heat,

moisture, and many common chemicals.

When firefighters respond to an emergency, it is inevitable their protective ensemble

will be exposed to hazardous particulates or contaminants. If the protective ensemble is not

properly inspected and cleaned according to NFPA 1851, particulates may linger on the

ensemble. Firefighters could contaminate their homes if particulates and contaminants were

transferred from their dirty turnout gear (James, 2000). More injuries occur when a firefighter

does not properly repair his or her protective ensemble according to NFPA 1851 procedures.

The improperly repaired ensemble may not perform the way it is supposed to perform and place

the firefighter wearing the ensemble at a higher risk of injury or death (as well as any

coworkers) (Zender, 2008).

19

Even though the protective ensemble is rugged enough to protect a firefighter in some

of the harshest conditions it requires careful cleaning. Care instructions for turnout gear

recommend it being washed on low speed and at warm temperature because the durability of

the components of the turnout gear may be compromised if washed on a higher speed or hotter

temperature. Additionally, some detergents or cleaning aids are flammable and places the

protective clothing at greater risk for catching on fire if not completely removed during cleaning.

Turnout gear should be hung to dry or air dried in a machine so the components of the turnout

gear are not damaged. If the moisture barrier is compromised then the firefighter is at a greater

risk for steam burns (Zender, 2008).

The number of injured and fatally wounded firefighters signifies how important the

proper inspection followed by maintenance, care and storage of turnout gear for structural fire

fighting is to the protection of firefighters when they are responding to an emergency. If the

findings of this research could prevent a single injury or one fatality from occurring then it will

have uncovered an issue that needs to be carefully researched and addressed.

Assumptions

For the purpose of this research it was assumed the seventy-one items selected for

testing were an acceptable representation of the types of fabric combinations available for

firefighter turnout gear. It was also assumed “use” was defined as years in service: 2-3 years, 5-

7 years, 9-10 years and/or retired. Structural turnout gear collected were an acceptable

representation from each of the three “use” categories. In addition, the assumption was made

that items selected for testing were an acceptable representation of medium to large sized fire

departments.

Limitations

For this study, the structural turnout gear chosen was limited. Ensembles were

limited by the number of used turnout gear garments collected by the manufacturers for

physical testing. The researcher had no control as to what garments she received or knowledge

of the number and types of emergencies the garments were worn during. There was no control

over how the firefighters cared for their garments including inspections, washing, drying, type of

machines used, maintenance and storage conditions. A questionnaire was given to each

firefighter participating in the study asking about the care and maintenance of the garment. The

researcher also had no control over how the firefighters completed the questionnaire. There

20

were so few responses the questionnaire had to be eliminated from the study. Therefore there

was no documentation as to how many and what types of emergencies the turnout gear was

worn to or how it had been cared for. Garments were an assortment of structural coats and

pants and had been used in a variety of circumstances; such as structural fires, car accidents,

and rescue situations. This affected the results because not all of the garments were subjected

to the same conditions or situations.

Since this study is limited to seventy-one garments, the number of tests was also limited

and will allow for greater statistical error. To improve the accuracy of the tests the same

number of samples were cut from approximately the same location of each garment.

21

Chapter Two

Review of Related Literature

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post use evaluation of firefighter turnout

gear. The research evaluated used firefighter’s turnout gear ensembles according to the NFPA

1851 standard inspection protocol and NFPA 1971. Literature was reviewed on fire fighting

environments, firefighter’s protective ensemble, turnout gear materials, evolution of standards,

design problems of the turnout gear for structural fire fighting and post-use evaluation

techniques.

Fire Fighting Environments

There are many dangers firefighters face when responding to an emergency.

Firefighters not only fight fires, but also provide emergency medical services (EMS) and perform

vehicle extraction. In actuality, seventy percent of all emergency calls are non-structural

firefighting, indicating firefighters face a wide range of contaminants and victims ("Firefighter

and fire-resistant clothing and fabric," 2004). Not only do the firefighters themselves have to

withstand harsh conditions but their protective ensemble must withstand flames, smoke,

extreme temperatures, moisture and chemical exposure. It is typical for a firefighter to be in

120ºF to 300ºF environments for lengthy periods of time when fighting a house fire ("Firefighter

and fire-resistant clothing and fabric," 2004). Even if a firefighter is not in direct contact with

flames they can be subjected to temperatures reaching 300°F which is hot enough to melt

plastic and cause burn injury. These high temperatures and harsh conditions are damaging to

the firefighters and their protective ensembles and equipment. In less than four minutes the

temperature of a house fire can reach over 1100°F ("Fire Facts about Fires - Maryland," n.d.).

With their protective apparel, firefighters are able to withstand flash temperatures of 600ºF to

1500ºF environments for only very short periods of time ("Firefighter and fire-resistant clothing

and fabric," 2004).

Firefighters are subjected to three types of heat when fighting a fire: conduction,

convection and thermal radiation. Conduction occurs when there is a direct transfer of heat

through contact with a hot object. An example of conduction would be a firefighter touching a

hot door knob in a burning building. Convection occurs when the air is heated to high

temperatures (Bumbarger, 2000). Convective heat is dangerous because it can occur when

there are no immediate signs of a fire. Convective heat increases the temperature of the

turnout gear allowing for conductive heat injuries during compression. The third type of heat is

22

thermal radiation which occurs when heat is transferred directly onto a material or object

simply by the radiant energy given off by the flames or hot objects (Lion Apparel, 2003a). All

three of these forms of heat affect a firefighter when he or she is fighting a fire. Hot

environments can impact the physical and mental performance of the firefighter. Heat stress

can affect the firefighter’s ability to think accurately and quickly in dangerous conditions

(Bumbarger, 2000).

Water is a key element to fighting almost every fire. Water is used in fighting fires

because when it is sprayed on a surface it evaporates and cools the surface. The cooling occurs

when the heat’s energy is used up while turning the liquid water to vapor ("Evaporative Cooling

Discussion," 2000). Water, which seems to be an aid, can actually cause a firefighter great harm.

Firefighters are at a greater risk of getting burns if their turnout gear is wet because water

conducts heat twenty-one times faster than air. When wet turnout gear is subjected to high

temperatures for lengthy periods of time the water can turn to steam. Steam is produced when

water is heated and expands 1700%. This process creates increased pressure on the fabrics of

the turnout gear putting the firefighter at greater risk for injury ("Firefighter and fire-resistant

clothing and fabric," 2004).

Smoke produced from a structural fire may contain toxins, chemical contaminates and

carcinogens which can make the firefighter sleepy, weak and confused (Zender, 2008). In only

four minutes a house with all lights on can become completely dark from the smoke ("Fire Facts

about Fires - Maryland," n.d.). Smoke is not only produced during the knockdown phase of a

fire but also during the overhaul phase. The knockdown phase is when the firefighters are

actually trying to get the fire under control and extinguished (Austin, Wang, Ecobichon, &

Dussault, 2001). After a fire has been extinguished and the firefighters are searching for hot

spots or hidden fires is the overhaul phase (Dills & Hagood, 2008). A study conducted in 2001 by

Austin, Wang, Ecobichon & Dussault had firefighters collect air during the overhaul phase, when

firefighters might not be wearing their protective breathing apparatus. Air collected at these

nine fires indicated benzene, a known carcinogen, toluene, naphthalene and other hazardous

chemicals were present in the air even after the fire had been extinguished (Austin, et al., 2001).

Dangerous chemicals present in the smoke and air during a fire and even after it has been

extinguished can be embedded into the yarns and fibers of firefighter turnout gear. Any

chemicals or particulates left on turnout gear may put other firefighters at risk if there is cross

contamination between turnout gear ensembles. Firefighters who wear soiled turnout gear are

23

at greater risk of injury and death than those who properly remove the chemical contaminants

from their turnout gear (Zender, 2008).

Not only do firefighters have to be aware of the high temperatures, water and smoke

but they must also be cautious when moving around the fireground. Fire ground is the location

of the fire. In 2007 it was reported that 38,340 firefighter injuries and 36 deaths occurred on

the fireground. The majority of deaths occurring on the fireground were at residential structural

fires (National Fire Protection Association, 2008c).

Firefighter’s Protective Ensemble

Protective clothing is meant to protect the wearer from hazardous conditions. There

are many jobs requiring workers to wear protective clothing such as boots, face shields, gloves

and coveralls. One of the most challenging professions requiring the use of protective clothing

is firefighting. Firefighters use protective clothing to increase protection for themselves from

high temperatures, dangerous bio-hazardous, carcinogens and punctures (James, 2000). The

type of protective clothing worn by an individual depends on the type of hazards they face.

There are two types of protective clothing; primary and secondary. Primary protective clothing

is typically worn as outerwear over other clothing and faces the brunt of the harsh conditions.

These garments are only worn for short periods of time while a worker is being exposed to a

hazardous environment. Garments are usually removed and if necessary spot cleaned at the

scene of the emergency or upon return to the fire station. An example of primary protective

clothing would be a firefighter’s protective ensemble or turnout gear. Secondary protective

clothing would be the clothing worn under the primary clothing. Unlike primary clothing the

secondary clothing is typically worn for extended periods of time. An example of this would be

the station wear worn by firefighters around the station and under their turnout gear, which

they are required to wear the entire time they are on duty. The combination of the primary and

secondary protective clothing helps to keep workers safe when faced with hazardous

environments (Gojdics, 2002).

Until the development of the first firefighter helmet in the 1730’s firefighters had no

protection against the harsh and hazardous environments. In the 1730’s Jacobus Turck

developed the first helmet which had a high crown, wide brim and was made of leather. In

1836, Henry T. Gratacap made improvements on the helmet by adding a front face shield, brim

with a long back tail, and a reinforced round dome (Hasenmeier, 2008). These features allowed

the firefighter to be better protected while fighting a fire. During the mid 1800’s there were not

24

only advancements being made to the helmet but also to the uniform. Firefighters’ uniforms

consisted of long wool coats with a stiff collar, a red cotton or wool undershirt and leather

boots. It wasn’t until the 1930’s when synthetic rubber was invented that firefighters added a

rubber coat over their wool coat and began to wear rubber boots. These advancements kept

the firefighter dry. More advancements were made to the coat and boots during and after the

World Wars by increasing the length of the coat and the height of the boots (Hasenmeier, 2008).

Today a firefighter’s protective ensemble used for fighting structural fires consists of a

coat, pants, boots, helmet, gloves, hoods and any other equipment a firefighter wears when

responding to an emergency. The coat of a protective ensemble is defined in NFPA 1971 section

3.3.119 as “providing protection to the upper torso, arms, excluding the hands and head”. NFPA

1971 defines structural firefighting pants as “the element of the protective ensemble that

provides protection to the lower torso and legs, excluding the ankles and feet” (National Fire

Protection Association, 2006).

Outer Shell: Coat & Pant

Coat and pants of structural fire fighting turnout gear consists of the same three

components: an outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner. Outer shell fabric is typically

made of flame resistant fibers. Some commonly used fibers are Kevlar®, Nomex®, PBI or

combinations of these fibers. The outer shell has two main jobs: to protect the firefighter from

direct flame contact and to protect the moisture barrier and thermal liner from physical hazards

("Globe Firefighter Suits : Outer Shell," 2009; Outer Shells," n.d.). Fabrics made of para-aramid

and meta-aramid fibers and yarns were developed for their strength to resist punctures and

heat resistance to keep the other layers safe. Para-aramid and meta-aramid fabrics are typically

blended with other high temperature resistant fibers and given a water resistant finish. PBI

fiber is often used in outer shells because of its resistance to extreme temperatures while also

providing comfort and flexibility to the firefighter ("Globe Firefighter Suits : Outer Shell," 2009).

The combination of the strength, heat resistance and water resistance allows the outer shell to

protect the other layers of the turnout gear ("DuPont Personal Protection NOMEX® & KEVLAR®

Firefighter Products Home," 2009). The purpose of the outer shell according to NFPA 1971 is to

“provide the outermost component of an element not including trim, hardware, reinforcing

material, pockets, wristlet material, accessories, fittings, or suspension systems”. It also assists

in protecting the firefighter from cuts and punctures.

Moisture Barrier: Coat & Pant

25

The purpose of the moisture barrier according to NFPA 1971 is to “prevent the transfer

of liquids” and in doing so, keeps the thermal liner dry. The main purpose of the moisture

barrier may be to prevent the transfer of liquids but it does much more. Moisture barriers stop

the transfer of external liquids not allowing them to reach the thermal liner or the firefighter.

Moisture barriers must also be breathable or allow the transfer of perspiration and other body

heat in the form of vapor to move away from the firefighter to the outside environment

("Moisture Barriers," n.d.). Moving metabolic heat away from the body and through the

moisture barrier helps to lower heat stress on the firefighter ("DuPont Personal Protection

NOMEX® & KEVLAR® Firefighter Products Home," 2009). It is extremely important that the

moisture barrier works correctly to prevent burns and exhaustion from overheating and excess

water weight, which makes it the most tested layer of the turnout gear ("Globe Firefighter Suits

: Moisture Barrier," 2009).

Thermal Liner: Coat & Pant

Thermal liners are typically made of aramid batts, spunlaced nonwovens, or recycled

batts. According to NFPA 1971 the thermal barrier is to “provide thermal protection” to the

firefighter from the searing temperatures present while fighting a fire. According to

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/, 70% of the thermal protection of the turnout gear is provided

by the thermal liner. The thermal liner has two main layers the nonwoven and the woven layer.

The nonwoven layer can consist of one to multiple layers of spunlace or a single batt. Air

trapped within and between the layers; of the thermal liner provides the majority of the thermal

insulation of the garment ("Thermal Liners," n.d.).

Retroreflective Trim: Coat & Pant

Another element of the structural fire fighting turnout gear is the retroreflective trim

which is located on the outer shell of the coat and pants. According to ASTM standards

retroreflective material is a material that has a thin continuous layer of small retroreflective

elements, which reflect rays close to the opposite direction of the incident rays, near the surface

of the material (ASTM, 2009). Retroreflective trim is an important element of the turnout gear

because it allows the firefighter to be seen easily not only by their co-workers but also by

motorists. In 2008 four firefighters were hit by vehicles and killed while on the job despite the

fact there was the retroreflective trim on their turnout gear (National Fire Protection

Association, 2009). Retroreflective trim is composed of “material that reflects and returns a

relatively high proportion of light in a direction close to the direction from which it came,”

26

according to NFPA 1971 (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Retroreflective trim

increases visibility and allows firefighters to be seen at nighttime and low visibility situations,

while the fluorescent portion of the trim is used for daytime visibility ("Firefighter and fire-

resistant clothing and fabric," 2004). 3M™ Scotchlite™ technology is one of the most widely

used reflective trims for firefighter turnout gear. The trim consists of millions of microspheres

with a mirror coating on half of each sphere. When a light source like a flashlight hits the trim it

is refracted through each of the microspheres back to the source making the trim highly visible

("How 3MTM ScotchliteTM Reflective Material Works," n.d.).

While the coat and pants protect the majority of the firefighter’s body, the extremities

are protected by the boots, helmet, hood and gloves. According to NFPA 1971 the “foot, ankle

and lower leg are to be protected by the boot.” The boot has the same components as many

shoes but also must have a puncture resistant device. The helmet provides protection to the

head according to NFPA 1971. The gloves for structural firefighting provide protection to the

hand and wrist according to NFPA 1971. The gloves provide minimal protection from the heat of

a fire, cuts, punctures and liquids. The hood provides limited protection to the

coat/helmet/SCBA facepiece interface area (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

Materials of Turnout Gear

Since firefighters not only have to face extreme temperatures but many other hazards

including chemicals, blood borne pathogens and moisture, their turnout gear must be multi-

functional to protect them (Horrocks, 2005). The level of protection increased with the

development of inherently flame resistant fibers such as Nomex®, Kevlar® and

polybenzimidazole (PBI) fibers in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. A materials trademark glossary of

common protective fabrics is located in Appendix E. Fabrics made of these materials are not

only thermally resistant, which is the ability to remain unchanged after being exposed to heat,

but also resistant to many other hazards such as moisture and chemicals (Adanur, 1995).

Outer Shell

Many outer shells are comprised of Nomex®, Nomex®/Kevlar® PBI/Kevlar® or

polybenzimidizole blended fibers. The outer shell has two main purposes to protect the

firefighter from direct flame contact and to protect the moisture barrier and thermal liner from

physical hazards ("Globe Firefighter Suits : Outer Shell," 2009; Outer Shells," n.d.). Para-aramid

fibers such as Kevlar® and meta-aramid fibers such as Nomex® were developed for their

27

strength and flame resistant properties. PBI fiber is used in an outer shell fabric because of its

resistance to extreme temperatures while also providing comfort and flexibility to the firefighter

("Globe Firefighter Suits : Outer Shell," 2009). Nomex® and Kevlar® belong to the aramid family

of fibers, while PBI belongs to the group. Since their introduction in the 1960s fabrics containing

aramid fibers have improved and are lighter in weight and stronger while maintaining their heat

resistance.

Ghosh and Barker conducted a study on the thermal protective performance (TPP) of

four single layer fabrics; Nomex®, Kevlar®, PBI/Kevlar® and PBI. Weights of the fabrics ranged

from 7.4 oz PBI to an 8.5oz Kevlar®. A TPP test was used for testing with an additional apparatus

mounted on the top of the tester that measured fabric strength with load of 1780 grams per

inch and 2500 grams per inch (gms/in). Testing showed with an added weight of 2500 gms/in

Nomex® broke in 4.3 seconds while it took PBI 19.3 seconds to break. This indicates Nomex® is

degraded by the high heat and suffered the greatest strength loss. PBI and Kevlar® had a

protection time of 7.2 seconds with 2500 gms/in while Nomex only had a protection time of 4.3

when mechanical failure occurred before heat transmission. This indicates PBI and Kevlar® had

the better resistance to strength loss than Nomex® (Ghosh & Barker, n.d.). The conditions used

in this study are very extreme and would represent only extremely harsh conditions.

Nomex®. Nomex® was introduced in 1961 but not commercialized until 1967. It is one

of the most widely used aramid fibers especially in firefighter turnout gear (Adanur, 1995;

Behnke & Blaustein, 1987). Nomex® is an inherently flame-resistant, high-temperature fiber will

not melt, drip or support combustion in air according to DuPont’s website. Today over three

million firefighters from around the world wear Nomex® as part of their protective ensemble

("Nomex® 40th Anniversary," 2009). .

Nomex® is a durable, strong flame resistant fabric is also flexible and comfortable for

firefighters to wear. It can be dyed in a wide range of colors. Most importantly it is inherently

flame resistant (Behnke & Blaustein, 1987). Nomex® fabric has been used in firefighter turnout

gear for three decades because of its thermal resistance (Jassal & Ghosh, 2002). Although

Nomex® has many good physical properties; its strength is improved by blending it with Kevlar®.

Nomex® IIIA fabric is a blend of 93% Nomex®, 5% Kevlar® and 2% of an anti-static fiber, which

reduces the firefighter’s risk of catching on fire.

Kevlar®. The commercialization of Kevlar® began in 1972. It is an organic fiber

produced from poly-paraphenylene tetephthalamide and is part of the aromatic polyamide

28

(aramids) family ("Technical Guide Kevlar® Aramid Fiber," 2000; Technical Information," 2009).

Kevlar® is used in the manufacturing of firefighter turnout gear because of its high strength. It

has a tenacity of 23 g/d (grams per denier is a more common measure of fiber strength) and a

high modulus and is tough and thermally stable with a decomposition temperature between

800 to 900°F (427 to 482°C). Kevlar® has a specific density of 0.052 lb/in³ (pounds per inches

cubed). Kevlar’s® tensile strength decreases when exposed to temperatures between 300°F to

350°F (149°C to 177°C) for lengthy periods of time ("Technical Guide Kevlar® Aramid Fiber,"

2000). The strength of the Kevlar® fibers helps keep firefighters safe from physical hazards

when responding to an emergency (Jassal & Ghosh, 2002). Unlike other organic fibers Kevlar®

does not shrink when exposed to hot air or water which is important in protective ensembles

because fit is critical in the safety of the firefighter (Behnke & Blaustein, 1987). Inherently flame

resistant, Kevlar® blended fabrics normally stop burning when the source is removed unless

debris continues to smolder. In a laboratory setting the burning stops when the heat source is

removed ("Technical Guide Kevlar® Aramid Fiber," 2000).

Kevlar® like most fibers is affected by ultraviolet (UV) light. For degradation to occur

there needs to be absorption by the polymer and sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds.

If either of those does not occur degradation does not happen. If Kevlar® fabric is exposed to

sunlight for lengthy periods of time it tends to turn from yellow to brown. Kevlar® fabric can

also loose mechanical properties if exposed to UV light for extended amounts of time.

Kevlar® fabrics have good stability against most chemicals in an array of exposure times,

temperatures and concentrations. Strong aqueous acids such as 10% hydrochloric acid and 90%

formic acid, bases like 10% sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite (chlorine bleach) can

degrade the fabric over long periods of time and elevated temperatures. Chemicals that have a

Ph of 7 (neutral) have virtually no effect on the fabric, but the farther from neutral a chemical is

the greater the degradation. Acids have a more severe degrading effect on Kevlar® than bases.

Because of its low elongation (3.6%), fabrics using Kevlar® blends are usually a rip stop

construction, which is when extra yarns are placed in the weave, but also results in an increase

in the trap tear strength (Corner, 2009). Kevlar® fabrics also have good abrasion resistance

making them great for hard work in the field. Kevlar® and Nomex® blended fabrics have a

combination of good thermal properties and great strength.

Polybenzimidazole (PBI). Polybenzimidazole (PBI™) was developed in the 1960s but was

not commercialized until the 1980s (Adanur, 1995; Horrocks, 2005). It is an organic fiber which

29

provides thermal stability for a wide range of high temperature applications according to

www.pbigold.com//. The PBI fiber is a 1.7 denier/filament (dpf) and is available in fiber lengths

of ¼ inch, 2 inches, 3 inches and 4 inches ("PBI : Flame Resistant Fibers >> Pbi Fibers," 2008).

Like a meta-aramid fabric it will not burn in air, melt or drip, and retains it mechanical properties

after being exposed to an ignition source. It has excellent thermal properties including the

ability to operate in temperatures over 200°C for lengthy periods of time. PBI’s degradation

temperature is in excess of 400°C while meta-aramid fabric degradation temperature is only

375°C (Horrocks, 2005). PBI is known for its good dimensional stability and low heat shrinkage.

Sodium Hypochlorite (chlorine bleach) degrades PBI fibers and reduces its strength (Adanur,

1995). PBI Matrix fabrics weigh 7.2 to 7.5 oz per sq yd and are plain woven fabrics reinforced

with filaments yarns of high strength para aramids. PBI™ Matrix™ garments were subjected to

full manikin testing with a ten second exposure and there was no flame penetration ("PBI

Matrix," 2005). It is also comfortable and flexible due in part to its light weight (Fahl & Faile,

1991). PBI fabric is typically used in its natural color of gold in firefighter turnout gear or it can

also be dyed a dark color such as black.

PBI™ fabric offers superior thermal properties to turnout gear. It also has excellent

abrasion resistance. PBI™ is typically blended with other fibers such as para-aramids to enhance

the mechanical properties of the fabric ("PBI : Flame Resistant Fibers >> Pbi Fibers," 2008).

Fabric made of a blend of PBI™ and Kevlar® has better tensile and tear strength than a 100%

PBI™ fabric ("Globe Firefighter Suits : Outer Shell," 2009).

Vertical flammability testing was conducted by Fahl and Faile (1991) on five flame

resistant fabrics; a 40% PBI/ 60% HS (high strength) aramid blend, 20% PBI/ 80% aramid blend,

100% aramid, 50% flame resistant polyester/ 50% flame resistant cotton and 100% flame

resistant cotton. After exposure, the PBI/HS aramid blend had the shortest tear length of 0.8

inches while the flame resistant polyester/cotton blend had the longest tear length of 4.6

inches. The same study tested comfort levels. The results indicated the PBI blends were lighter

in weight, had a higher air permeability and theoretical moisture regain than the 100% aramid

fabric. This indicates the PBI blend is more flexible and comfortable for the firefighter to wear

than traditional aramid fabrics (Fahl & Faile, 1991).

Moisture Barrier

The moisture barrier’s main purpose is to keep the firefighter dry of any liquids they

might encounter during firefighting operations, which could include water, common chemicals

30

or biological hazards. It not only keeps liquid water out but it must also allow moisture vapor

such as perspiration to escape. In only an hour a human can release a quarter of a cup of water

vapor at rest, four and a half cups at heavy exertion and seventeen cups at a full-out run

("Gore™ Fabric Performance: Breathable," 2009). When responding to an emergency

firefighters are not only exerting themselves but also doing it in extreme temperatures reaching

above 1,000°F ("Fire Facts about Fires - Maryland," n.d.). The breathability of the moisture

barrier is important in keeping the firefighter comfortable by allowing excess moisture to leave,

which cools the body and prevents heat stress, one of the leading causes of firefighter fatalities

("Gore™ Fabric Performance: Breathable," 2009; National Fire Protection Association, 2009).

Some of the most common trade names of moisture barriers include Stedair® 3000, Stedair®

4000, Crosstech®, Crosstech® 3-layer and Gore RT7100.

PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene). All moisture barriers are composed of at least two

layers but may have more depending on the style. The first layer is a film or membrane which is

laminated to a substrate. The substrate can be a woven, knit, spunbonded or needlepunched

fabric (Adanur, 1995). A moisture barrier made with a woven fabric allows the moisture barrier

to be thin and flexible but most importantly it has greater breathability. A moisture barrier with

nonwoven substrate fabric is light weight and flexible, but typically is not as breathable as a

woven substrate ("Globe Firefighter Suits : Moisture Barrier," 2009).

Original PTFE membranes were microporous, which means the pores were about 20,000

times smaller than a drop of water. Water cannot penetrate the barriers because the pores are

so small, however moisture vapor can escape to reduce heat build-up in the garment ("Gore™

Fabric Performance: Waterproof and Liquid Resistant," 2009). PTFE membranes are not only

waterproof but also resist contaminants because they are chemically inert. Other fabrics tend

to become porous and degrade from exposure to liquid chemicals while PTFE membranes do

not. The PTFE membranes are thin, lightweight, flame resistant and have some antistatic

properties. The antistatic properties are important because they decrease the risk of ignition in

flammable environments ("Gore™ Protective Fabrics: Chemicals and Biologial Hazards," 2009;

Gore™ Protective Fabrics: Membrane," 2009). PTFE fabrics are thermally stable, have a high

tensile strength, resist abrasion and are dimensionally stable. They also have resistance to

ultraviolet rays ("Applications of ePTFE: Products with Highly Valued Features, Functions, and

Benefits," 2009).

31

The moisture barrier fabric is waterproof until sewn into an end product. The holes

created when sewing a seam render the product susceptible to leaks; thus putting the wearer at

greater risk of injury. To prevent leaks seams are covered with a seam sealing tape to make the

moisture barrier waterproof. The seam tape is applied using a seam-sealing process which uses

a special designed hot-air welding machine. W. L. Gore and Associates has made several

advancements to the GORE-SEAM® tape and now offers over forty types ("Gore™ Quality

Systematic Seam Sealing," 2009).

Thermal Liner

The thermal liner is the inner most layer of the turnout gear and its main purpose is to

protect the firefighter from the extreme heat. Seventy percent of the thermal protection of a

turnout gear comes from the inner components of the garment ("The Inside Story on DuPont

Innovations," 2006). Some common trade names of thermal liners include Caldura®, Caldura®

SL2, Glide II™, Glide 2L Araflo E-89®, Aralite™, and Aralite®SL2. Currently, thermal liners are

made of a nonwoven insulation layer and a woven fabric that are quilted together. The

nonwoven layer allows for air to be held inside which helps to protect the firefighter from heat.

There are many different types of thermal liners. Some of the most common thermal liners

consist of needle punched battings quilted to a face cloth. Facecloth is a woven fabric that

protects the batting and helps to move moisture away from the body (Corner, 2009).

Nonwovens are quilted to a woven face fabric to increase durability and comfort (Adanur,

1995). This smooth face fabric increases the mobility of the firefighter and also makes donning

and doffing the turnout gear much easier.

Aramid Batt. Aramid batt is composed of aramid fibers which normally have five to ten

percent higher mechanical properties than other synthetic fibers (Jassal & Ghosh, 2002). All

members of the aramid family are inherently flame resistant and can withstand flash

temperatures of over 300°C (Horrocks, 2005). Meta-aramid fabrics are extremely poor

conductors of electricity making them great insulators for turnout gear ("How Nomex® works:

Explain that Stuff!," n.d.). Needle punched batts can be made from first grade aramid fibers or

recycled fibers. They improve the thermal insulation by creating air gaps (Corner, 2009).

Lighter weight batts increase firefighter comfort and reduce heat stress ("Globe Firefighter Suits

: Thermal Liner," 2009).

32

Recycled Batt. Recycled or reprocessed batts are needled battings quilted to a face

cloth. They are used by some departments for economic reasons. Recycled batts tend to be

less expensive than the other thermal liners.

Spunlace Batt. Spunlaced nonwovens (one or more layers) such as Nomex® E89™ are

comfortable to wear because they are thin, lightweight and flexible, which helps in reducing

heat stress on firefighters. Spunlaced nonwoven fabrics are thinner and lighter in weight than

an aramid or recycled batting (Corner, 2009). Thermal liners using spunlace batting offer the

firefighter good thermal protection and excellent wickability ("Globe Firefighter Suits : Thermal

Liner," 2009).

Evolution of Standards

National Fire Protection Association

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) was established in 1896 and was one of

the first organizations to conduct performance testing and create standards for firefighting

equipment. NFPA’s mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the

quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training,

and education. NFPA has developed, published and disseminated over 300 consensus codes

and standards (National Fire Protection Association, 2008a). The National Fire Protection

Association has 81,000 members from more than 100 countries. To keep its standards relevant

NFPA relies on over 6,000 professional volunteers from various backgrounds to serve on 230

committees. NFPA’s standards meet and receive accreditation from the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) (National Fire Protection Association, 2008b).

The National Fire Protection Association is aware codes and standards do not save lives

but, individuals understanding and utilizing the standards do. To promote understanding and

use of the codes and standards of the association, NFPA conducts public safety education and

professional development programs. Public safety education includes hazards guides, school-

based programs, videos, brochures, posters and several other items. Professional development

programs include: certified fire protection specialist, certified fire inspector, certified fire plans

examiner, seminars on fire and electrical safety, and other text and guides. To help learn from

the past the National Fire Protection Association also has an information resource which tracks

statistics from all of the nations fires including number of injuries, deaths, and causes of each of

those (National Fire Protection Association, 2008b).

NFPA 1971 Standard

33

To better protect firefighters the Sectional Committee on Protective Equipment for Fire

Fighters from the Committee on Fire Department Equipment developed a standard in 1973 for

firefighter protective ensembles. The tentative standard was NFPA 19A-T, Tentative Standard

on Protective Clothing for Fire Fighters. After two years of evaluations and revisions in

November of 1975 the first edition of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Clothing for Structural

Fire Fighting, was approved and put into use. NFPA standards are revised approximately every

five years and the seventh edition of the NFPA 1971 standard was approved in 2007 (National

Fire Protection Association, 2006). The 1971 standard was developed to be of assistance to

manufacturers in product development and quality control of protective ensembles (National

Fire Protection Association, 2007).

NFPA 1971’s purpose was to establish minimum levels of protection for firefighting

personnel assigned to fire department operations including but not limited to structural fire

fighting and proximity fire fighting, To achieve this purpose, the standard establishes minimum

requirements for structural fire fighting protective ensembles and ensemble elements designed

to provide fire fighting personnel limited protection from thermal, physical, environmental, and

blood borne pathogen hazards encountered during structural fire fighting operations (National


NFPA 1851 Standard

For many years firefighters had taken great pride in their turnout gear including how

dirty it was. A firefighter’s status often depended on how many fires they had fought and won

or how dirty their turnout gear was. Firefighters did not clean their turnout gear because they

did not want to wash away their status even though they were aware of the hazards of wearing

dirty garments (Stull, 1996; TRI/Environmental Inc., 1994). By not washing their garments

firefighters are carrying contaminates away from the fireground to the station and even to their

homes. A firefighter can actually continue to contaminate areas until the protective

ensemble/turnout gear is properly cleaned (Stull, 1996).

TRI/Environmental Inc. conducted a study in 1994 on the decontamination and cleaning

of used firefighter turnout gear. It not only looked at different types of decontamination

methods but also how much more effective cleaning was rather than natural aeration. Used

turnout gear as well as fabrics were evaluated in this study. It was found there were many

carcinogens remaining on the used turnout gear tested even twenty four hours after being

contaminated. Natural aeration at an elevated temperature proved to be a better cleaning

34

method for chemical contamination than conventional cleaning methods. The study showed

flaws in the common decontamination and cleaning methods for turnout gear and

recommended NFPA develop specific guidelines for cleaning turnout gear that all fire

departments follow (TRI/Environmental Inc., 1994).

Vogelpohl conducted a study in 1996 to further emphasize the need for better

understanding of the performance properties of turnout gear by an evaluation of used

firefighter’s turnout coats and fabrics. Vogelpohl evaluated twenty used firefighter coats

according to the specifications of NFPA 1971 standard. A few of the tests conducted on the

used coats were water resistance, tear, tensile strength and thermal protection. New fabrics

were also evaluated in the study after they were exposed to UV light for tensile strength and

surface abrasion. It was found the thermal properties of turnout gear met the minimal

requirements set by NFPA 1971, while the water resistant properties did not. The reason for

this is due to the large amount of abrasion that occurs to outer shell and moisture barrier every

time a firefighter moves. It was noted in this study future research needed to be conducted to

determine the wear life of turnout gear when the level of protection no longer meets the

standards specifications (Vogelpohl, 1996).

Four fire service organizations, SAFER (Sothern Area Fire Equipment Research), NAFER

(Northern Area Fire Equipment Research), CAFER (Central Area Fire Equipment Research) and

F.I.E.R.O. (Fire Industry Equipment Research Organization) developed the “PPE Care and Use

Guidelines” in 1994, to reduce health and safety risk of poorly maintained turnout gear.

Firefighters needed the help of the guidelines because there were new protective fabrics being

introduced to the fire service market. Organizations developed the guidelines but had no

mechanism for monitoring departments and making sure they were being followed (PPE Care

and Use Guidelines, 1994).

Specifications for the selection, use, cleaning and decontamination, storage, inspection,

repairs and the retirement of turnout gear were included in the guidelines. In the selection

chapter it was recommended a committee be developed of experienced members who know

and understand the needs of a firefighter. The committee should then identify their

department’s needs and gather information on the types of turnout gear available. The next

step was to solicit bids, evaluate the options and decided which bid to accept and the new

turnout gear are put into service. The final step in the selection process was to conduct a

35

follow-up evaluation to identify if the garments are meeting the needs of the department (PPE

Care and Use Guidelines, 1994).

The cleaning and decontamination chapter first looks at the health risks of

contaminated turnout gear. It also stresses soiled garments reflect radiant heat less effectively;

some are more likely to conduct electricity and can ignite even if the materials are flame

resistant. It was recommended in the guidelines turnout gear be cleaned at least annually,

unless it was exposed to hazards materials, in which case it was to be cleaned immediately. First

step in the cleaning process was to identify the type of contaminant, which determines what

type of cleaning needs to be conducted. General cleaning could have been conducted by the

individual while garments soiled with HazMat contaminants were required to be sent to a

cleaning facility. The guidelines gave a comparison of front loading and top loading washing

machines and a list of cleaning products recommended. It was also recommended turnout gear

not be dry cleaned because the solvents used could be damaging to the fibers and fabrics. The

guidelines then described how to clean garments by hand in a sink and by machine. Finally it

was recommended a record should be kept of the specifications of any cleanings (PPE Care and

Use Guidelines, 1994).

The chapter regarding inspections suggested a regular inspection of garments be

conducted by the same trained individuals so inconsistencies or problems with the turnout gear

would more likely be found. According to the guidelines minor field repairs could be made on

the outer shell and the thermal liner, but not the moisture barrier. It was recommended

turnout gear be retired when the repair cost exceeded 50% of the cost to replace the garment.

Until the development of NFPA 1851 there was no national standard; only recommendations on

the care and maintenance of firefighter turnout gear. Unfortunately, many recommendations

were not heeded.

With the 2001 publication of NFPA 1851, Standard on the Selection, Care, and

Maintenance of Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles, departments were required to

inspect, maintain and care for their protective ensembles (National Fire Protection Association,

2007). The purpose of the 1851 standard is to establish a program for structural fire fighting

protective ensembles and ensemble elements and for proximity fire fighting protective

ensembles and ensemble elements to reduce the safety risks and potential health risks

associated with poorly maintained, contaminated or damaged protective ensembles and

ensemble elements. Another purpose of the standard is to establish basic criteria for selection,

36

inspection, cleaning, decontamination, repair, storage and retirement of structural fire fighting

protective ensembles or ensemble elements and proximity fire fighting protective ensembles or

ensemble elements (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Visual Inspection. The current revision of 1851 requires all garments must have at least

a routine inspection conducted after each use in the field. If the garments are soiled they are to

be washed before an inspection to ensure the safety of the firefighter. The routine inspection

includes evaluations of the following: coat and trouser, hood elements, helmet elements, glove

elements, footwear elements, drag rescue device (DRD) components and interface components.

A DRD is a component integrated within the protective coat element to aid in the rescue of an

incapacitated firefighter (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). This study’s focus is to

evaluate the coat and trousers. The current edition of the 1851 standard requires the firefighter

to evaluate the coats and trousers for soiling, contamination, physical damage such as rips,

tears, missing hardware and thermal damage, damaged or missing reflective trim, broken

stitches and proper assembly of the outer shell, liner and drag rescue device which are all

integral components to the turnout gear (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Advanced inspections must be performed at least once a year by an organization’s

trained personnel or a verified independent service provider (ISP), which is an independent

third party utilized by an organization to perform any one or any combination of advanced

inspection, advanced cleaning, or repair services (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). A

trained member of the organization, or the verified ISP, must complete training and proof of

completion before he or she performs the advanced inspections.

Advanced inspection requires the following components of the protective ensemble be

evaluated: all separable layers of the garment, hood elements, helmet elements, glove

elements, footwear elements, interface components and DRD components (National Fire

Protection Association, 2007). The coat and trousers are evaluated for the following in the

advanced inspection: soiling, contamination, physical damage to each of the three layers (rips,

tears, etc.), damaged hardware and thermal damage, broken stitches and physical integrity.

Reflective trim is evaluated to make sure it is attached properly, there is no damage, and it is

still reflective. Wristlets are inspected for functionality which includes elasticity, stretching,

runs, cuts or burn holes. The closure system is evaluated for missing or damaged hardware as

well as hook and loop functionality. Labels on the shell and liner are evaluated for legibility and

matching serial numbers. Garments are then inspected for correct assembly and size

37

compatibility of the shell, liner and DRD. The ensemble is also evaluated for proper fit and

overlap of the coat and trouser (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Retirement of Turnout Gear. Section 10 of the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851 establishes a

minimum retirement age of ten years from the date of manufacture for structural gear, and five

years from date of manufacture for proximity fire fighting radiant reflective outer shells.

Although NFPA 1851 established a mandatory retirement age it continued to allow each

organization to develop its own standards for earlier than mandatory retirement date. Turnout

gear that is worn, damaged or contaminated to the extent an organization decides it is too

expensive to repair the garment is then retired. If turnout gear is exposed to CBRN, (chemical,

biological, and radiological particulate terrorism agents), it is to be retired immediately (National


The 1851 standard requires all garments not in accordance with the edition of the NFPA

standard current at the time of manufacturing, be retired. All retired garments should be

destroyed and disposed of unless an organization uses the ensemble for educational purposes

which do not involve a live fire (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Verification. NFPA 1851 requires all Independent Service Providers (ISP) and

organizations that perform advanced repairs must be verified by a certification organization. A

certification organization must be accredited according to the ISO Guide 65, General

requirements for bodies operating product certification systems. A certification organization is

not allowed to verify an ISP or an organization if it is owned by the company desiring

certification. An ISP or organization may not be certified if it is not in compliance with all

testing. It is also required an ISP or organization keep up-to-date manuals and data sheets and

all machines must be calibrated correctly (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

For an ISP or organization to be verified to conduct repairs they must have a quality

management program. Each ISP or organization is required to keep records of all data collected

during testing. All tests must be completely documented and entered in a system by the facility.

The system allows the facility to record all previous repairs and to know who authorized and

repaired the garment. Another benefit of requiring the repairs to be in a system is a permanent

record and the customer or another organization can be notified of changes or issues with a

garment (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Maintenance and Care of Protective ensemble/turnout gear. NFPA 1851 requires

departments to provide for the cleaning and decontamination of protective ensembles. After an

38

ensemble is used a firefighter is required to inspect it and determine the appropriate level of

cleaning. Ensembles contaminated by hazardous chemical should have a preliminary evaluation

conducted at the site of the emergency by departmental certified personnel. This allows items

to be isolated and tagged if needed so other ensembles do not become contaminated.

Ensembles contaminated by CBRN terrorist agents will not be cleaned, but immediately retired

and disposed of according to NFPA 1851 (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Similar to the inspection, there are routine cleaning and advanced cleaning and

decontamination requirements. Routine cleaning requires the individual firefighter be

responsible for cleaning his or her turnout gear at the incident. NOTE: cleaning can be

completed back at the station; not necessarily at the incident. Firefighters should first consult

the manufacturers care label in the garment. If a care label is not legible or missing then the

firefighter should follow the instructions in NFPA 1851 Section 7 (National Fire Protection

Association, 2007). NFPA 1851 states a firefighter first, inspect and clean the garment at the

emergency scene if it is contaminated. Garments not contaminated can be inspected and

cleaned at the station. All dry debris should be brushed off. If debris is not easily brushed off

then it may be scrubbed gently using a soft bristle brush and rinsed off. High-power hoses and

heavy scrubbing are not permitted. Garments may be cleaned in a utility sink specifically

designated for cleaning personal protective equipment (PPE) (National Fire Protection

Association, 2007). Machine washing constitutes the cleaning be elevated to an Advanced

Cleaning.

Advanced cleanings must be performed by the organization’s trained personnel or by a

verified ISP. The firefighter should first consult the manufacturer’s care label in the garment. If

a care label is not legible or missing then the firefighter should follow the instructions in NFPA

1851 Section 7 (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Advance cleaning should be

conducted by machine unless prohibited by the manufacturer’s label. NFPA 1851 states heavily

soiled areas are to be pretreated and no chlorine bleach or active cleaning agents may be used

on the ensembles unless approved by the manufacturer. Protective garments are to be washed

in warm water not exceeding 40°C (105°F) using a mild detergent. A garment should be

inspected after it is washed so it may be rewashed if necessary. Garments should be dried

according to manufacturer’s care label, but if the information is not available then the personnel

should follow NFPA 1851 Section 7.4. To air dry an ensemble it should be placed in a well

ventilated area out of the path of direct sunlight. If an ensemble is dried using a machine then

39

all closures including zippers, hooks, snaps and hook and loop should be closed and a “no heat”

or “air dry” cycle should be selected (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

After garments are cleaned and dried they are stored in an easily accessible location in

the firehouse. Garments should be stored in a clean, dry and well ventilated area. Garments

should not be stored in direct sunlight or temperatures below -32°C (-25°F) or above 82°C

(180°F) according to NFPA 1851. Ensembles may not be stored in airtight containers unless they

are new. Ensembles should not be transported or stored in areas with sharp objects in order to

avoid punctures. Also, ensembles should not be stored near contaminants such as oils, acids,

alkalis or any other chemicals that could damage the ensemble (National Fire Protection

Association, 2007).

Design Problems of the Turnout Gear

“Most firefighters have a love-hate relationship with their personal protective

ensembles” (Brehm, 2003). Pockets and hangers are necessary but, add to the weight of the

gear which is already considerable. Even though great improvements in firefighter turnout gear

utilizing the latest technologies and fabrics have been made; design flaws concerning weight,

movement and flexibility restrictions, and comfort may still exist.

Thermal Protection/Heat Stress

Protective ensembles are designed to help the firefighter withstand extreme

temperatures, but the gear can be very hot itself making it uncomfortable to wear (Brehm,

2003). Absorptive liners are appropriately named. They are made of a batting which absorbs

the perspiration the body produces, and in return cools the body. One problem with the

thermal liner absorbing the perspiration is the air in the liner is replaced with water which is a

better conductor of heat. Water also adds weight to the gear, by putting more strain on the

firefighter (Lion Apparel, 2003b).

Over the years improvements have been made to thermal liners. Even with these

advancements turnout gear can still be heavy, hold moisture and add more stress to an already

stressful situation (Goldman, 2005). Each of the three fabrics that make up the turnout gear has

been improved over the years yet heat stress and exertion are the leading cause in on duty

firefighter fatalities. National Fire Protection Association announced in 2007 of the 103 on duty

fatalities, 41 were stress related and of those 36 were sudden cardiac deaths (National Fire


Movement and Flexibility Restrictions

40

Firefighter turnout coats are normally 8” to 16” larger in circumference than the

firefighter’s body dimensions; however, the arms are only 3” to 4” larger (Lion Apparel, 2004).

Excess fabric is necessary to allow for “wiggle room” or mobility if the firefighter feels tingling

which signifies they are getting close to forming a burn. Conversely, the excess fabric makes it

more difficult for a firefighter to maneuver through dangerous situations. Reduction of fabric in

the arms enables the firefighter to move more freely. This is good because firefighters can use a

hose more accurately, but it also makes the arms more susceptible to burns because there is

less space for air to insulate (Lion Apparel, 2004).

Loss of Trim Reflectance

Retroreflective trim is an important element of the turnout gear because it allows the

firefighter to easily be seen not only by their co-workers but also by motorists. Even with the

retroreflective trim on their turnout gear four firefighters were hit by vehicles and killed while

on the job in 2008 (National Fire Protection Association, 2009). The retroreflective trim

increases visibility and allows firefighters to be seen in daylight and poor visibility situations, like

smoke filled houses and busy night streets ("Firefighter and fire-resistant clothing and fabric,"

2004). Without the trim on turnout gear the firefighter would be at a much greater risk of injury

Maintenance and Care

Stull (1996) observed dirty, stained, worn and torn firefighter protective ensembles are

seen as a “badge of honor” by firefighters. Every time a firefighter responds to an emergency he

or she takes the risk of contaminating the turnout gear. Combustion products commonly found

at a fire are carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, acid gases, and chromium. The fabric used in

turnout gear is porous and chemicals can permeate the fibers, coatings and materials. The

residual chemicals can affect the firefighter until such time as the gear is cleaned. Firefighters

are not only exposed to chemicals but also particulates such as soot, ash, lead and asbestos.

Biological agents such as blood and body fluids can also contaminate turnout gear. Firefighters

may only be directly exposed to these items while on site of a fire; however, if the chemicals and

particulates are absorbed into the fabrics then the firefighter could be exposed to them and to

others until the ensemble is properly cleaned (Stull, 1996). A study conducted in 1994 evaluated

used firefighter turnout gear and found a lethal dose of a carcinogen on some of the garments.

The research stated the contaminated coats came from the same department but if only one

fifth of the chemicals were absorbed by a firefighter’s body that firefighter would have less than

a 50% survival rate (TRI/Environmental Inc., 1994).

41

Kingsland conducted a study in 2003 on soil removal of turnout gear. Seven garments

were evaluated for possible contaminants remaining after the department had cleaned them. It

was found the washed garments had several contaminants including carcinogens potentially

hazardous to humans. The same study also included testing of typical cleaning methods. The

study showed Tide® detergent removed contaminants better than detergents designed for

cleaning protective clothing. Kingsland also found that a nine minute wash was more effective

than a twelve minute wash because there was less mechanical action (Kingsland, 2003).

If the protective turnout gear is not cleaned it puts the firefighter at greater risk for

injury. A soiled protective ensemble causes the firefighter to feel hotter in a fire because it

reflects less radiant heat. Dirty ensembles may also conduct electricity and ignite very easily. It

is important firefighters carefully clean their gear as necessary to remove any chemicals,

particulates and or biological agents (Stull, 1996).

A firefighter is advised to maintain and care for his/her ensemble according to NFPA

1851 standard, but many do not. Larger departments may provide a turnout gear cleaning

service for firefighters. This means a firefighter would turn in his/her ensemble to the

department to be cleaned at scheduled intervals. The department normally would clean the

garments when the firefighter was “off duty” or sometimes would give the firefighter another

ensemble to wear.

However, most firefighters, and especially volunteer firefighters, are responsible for

maintenance and care of their own turnout gear (Stull, 1996). Firefighters have the option of

using a vertical or horizontal axis washing machine when washing protective ensembles in their

homes. Vertical axis is commonly referred to as a top loader and has an agitator in the center of

the wash tub. Horizontal axis is commonly referred to as a front loader and does not have an

agitator. Since small departments and volunteers are faced with the maintenance of their own

garments they turn to the manufacturers of their firefighter turnout gear for maintenance and

care instructions. The top four manufacturers all provide care instructions for visual inspections,

routine cleanings and advanced cleanings on their websites and some include the contact

information for cleaning and repair facilities. Each website may highlight different key points

but all stress the importance of following the NFPA standard.

Comfort

Comfort plays a key role in how humans function or complete a task. It is not something

objectively measured, such as loss of trim or the proper maintenance of turnout gear. Comfort

42

consists of three interrelated areas: physical, physiological and psychological. All three of these

areas must work together or a human may not be able to function. Firefighter protective

ensembles which are heavy, hot and restrict mobility affect the comfort of the firefighter and

possibly jeopardize the quality of the firefighter’s work; nevertheless they use the protective

ensemble (Slater, 1996).

Today protective ensembles are not heavy enough to totally inhibit mobility but can

cause fatigue after long uses. An issue manufacturers of protective ensembles face is creating

protective gear which is light in weight, allows mobility and keeps the firefighter cool while

providing adequate protection to the firefighter. If the firefighter is not protected from the

hazardous environments then comfort is irrelevant (Slater, 1996).

Post-Use Evaluation Techniques

Post-use evaluation is the process of evaluating a product after it has been used. The

two post-use techniques that will be discussed are the functional clothing design process and

the post-occupancy evaluation. The functional clothing design is most commonly focused on

clothing while the post-occupancy evaluation focuses on buildings and environments (Preiser,

1988; Watkins, 1984).

Functional Clothing Design Process

Clothing design, especially protective clothing, entails more than a designer choosing a

style and a color scheme. Protective clothing designers must keep the needs of the users,

firefighters or first responders, in mind when designing new garments. Protective garments

must protect the wearer and be functional while still being aesthetically pleasing. In the

forward of her book Clothing. The Portable Environment, Watkins (1984) introduces the

“Functional Clothing Design Process and Strategy Selection” which was developed by Jackie

Dejonge from the ideas of J. Christopher Jones. The functional design process involves a holistic

approach to design which includes physical, social-psychological and aesthetic areas being

addressed. The functional design process consists of the following six steps. First step is to

define the problem in a general sense so an issue is not overlooked. Step two is to explore the

design situation. In this step observations are made about the areas on the garment where

improvements need to be made. The designer conducts brainstorming and a literature search.

Those processes help the designer to focus on only a few significant factors which help to define

the problem in more detail. The third step is to perceive the problem structure. The designer

must assess the activity, movement, impact, thermal, and social-psychological attributes of the

43

garment. It is important the designer assess all of these areas because the functions of each

depend on the other. The fourth step is to describe the specifications. In this step the

information collected in the assessments is organized, ranked and prioritized in order to help

establish design specifications. Step five is to establish design criteria. Textile testing and

construction evaluations occur during this step. Solutions are created and evaluated against the

specifications outlined in the previous step. If the solutions created meet the specifications then

they will be added to the design. The sixth and final step is the development of the prototype.

In The prototype is created and evaluated against the specifications developed in step four

(Watkins, 1984).

Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Post-occupancy evaluation, POE, is similar to the functional clothing design process in

that it evaluates products after they have been used; however it is most commonly used by

interior designers not clothing designers. POE is the evaluation of buildings after they have

been occupied for a while following a specific procedure. While clothing designers must use a

holistic approach when designing garments, which includes function, social-psychology as well

as aesthetic design, interior designers mainly focus on aesthetics (Preiser, 1988).

The post-occupancy evaluation model is divided into three major levels of effort and

three phases. The first level of the POE is indicative, the second investigative and the third

diagnostic. The first phase is planning, the second conducting and the third applying. The

purpose of the first level is to indicate to the designer the critical failures and successes with a

building’s design. The indicative level utilizes the least amount of effort and does not take much

time to complete. The purpose of the second level, investigative, is to evaluate and make

recommendations for improvements to the design. The second level requires more work and

effort than the first level. An investigative level is normally only conducted when major

problems are found during a level one assessment. The designer must spend more time at the

site collecting data and then analyze the data. The third level, which requires the most effort, is

the diagnostic level and is normally only conducted when critical issues are discovered in the

investigative level. The purpose of the diagnostic level is to do an in-depth analysis and make

recommendations that will not only improve a buildings aesthetics but similar structures for

years (Preiser, 1988).

Preiser notes several benefits to utilizing the post-occupancy evaluation model in the

book Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Some of the short-term benefits are being able to identify

44

problems and solutions with a building and improving the occupant’s feelings toward the space.

The mid-term benefits include significant cost savings throughout the building life cycle and

accountability for designers and building owners. Some of the long-term benefits are

improvements in the standards and guidance criteria and improved measurement through

quantification (Preiser, 1988). The benefits of the POE can easily be transferred as benefits of

utilizing the functional design theory when designing clothing. Used clothing can be evaluated

the same way an occupied building is evaluated by identifying poor design features and ways to

improve them.

Post-Use Evaluation

Post-use evaluation is the combination of two theories, the functional clothing

design process and post-occupancy evaluation. The post-occupancy evaluation assesses

something that already exists to determine which parts of that object were successful and

failures. The functional clothing design process focuses on a problem and evaluates the design

then a prototype is developed. Post-use evaluation assesses clothing after it has been used and

determines weak areas in the garment. New designs for those areas are then created and a new

garment is made. This design process could allow the National Fire Protection Association

Technical Committee to determine when a protective ensemble/turnout gear no longer protects

a firefighter properly. The majority of research conducted has been on the fibers, threads,

fabrics and elements that make up a structural firefighting protective ensemble not on the

ensemble as a whole.

A study conducted in 1994 evaluated firefighter turnout gear that had been used in the

field for three to six years. The garments were examined for cleaning methods and how they

affect the performance of the turnout gear. It was found in the study many contaminants were

still present after the turnout gear was cleaned by the firefighter or cleaning service. By

evaluating used turnout gear, this study found the commonly accepted cleaning methods were

not as effective as expected (TRI/Environmental Inc., 1994).

In 1996 Vogelpohl conducted a post-use study on twenty firefighter turnout gear coats

and several new fabrics. The garments were evaluated according to the specifications of NFPA

1971 standard. A few of the tests conducted on the used gear were water resistance, tear,

tensile strength and thermal protection. The new fabrics evaluated were exposed to UV light

and tested for tensile strength and surface abrasion. Vogelpohl found the thermal, heat and

flame resistant properties remained effective over time and met minimal requirements;

45

however, the water resistant properties had significantly diminished over time. The diminished

water resistant properties were linked to the large amount of abrasion that occurs to the

moisture barrier and outer shell with movement. The study noted more research should be

conducted to determine an approximate wear life (Vogelpohl, 1996).

Another study conducted by Coca et. al. in 2007 evaluated the comfort of a prototype

protective ensemble verses a standard protective ensemble. In the study eight healthy subjects

preformed tasks while wearing each of the protective ensembles while being monitored. After

studying the two ensembles worn by the subjects it was noted the prototype garment had too

many added stressors and the firefighter felt more comfortable in the standard protective

ensemble (Coca, et al., 2008). This study indicates faults in ensembles can be easily identified

after the ensemble has been used.

Summary

In the past, firefighter protective ensembles consisted of a helmet, coat and boots while

the modern ensembles are more complex. There have been many advancements made to the

modern turnout gear both in fabrics and construction techniques. Today firefighter protective

ensembles consist of three layers which each serve a specific purpose. These layers work

together to provide excellent protection for firefighters in the harsh and hazardous conditions.

To help firefighters care for the protective ensembles the National Fire Protection Association

developed NFPA 1851, Standard on the Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Structural Fire

Fighting Protective Ensembles (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Although there have been many advancements in firefighter turnout gear in recent

years there are still several design problems. The ensembles are heavy which puts more stress

on the firefighter limiting the length of time they can work (Slater, 1996). The ensembles have

several inches of excess fabric which make it difficult for the firefighter to move and can be

uncomfortable (Lion Apparel, 2004). To gain a better understanding of the problems with

firefighter protective ensembles post-use evaluation techniques like the functional clothing

design can be used to evaluate ensembles.

A limited amount of research has been conducted evaluating used protective

ensembles. The post-use evaluation of firefighter protective ensembles will combine some of

the principles of the functional clothing design and post-occupancy evaluation. In addition to

evaluations of the ensembles, physical testing will be conducted following NFPA’s 1851 and

1971 standards and, will compare used garment results to the requirements for new garments.

46

Chapter Three

Methodology

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post use evaluation of firefighter turnout

gear. The research evaluated firefighter’s turnout coats and pants according to the NFPA 1851,

2008 edition standard inspection protocol and NFPA 1971, 2007 edition testing methods. This

chapter reviews the experimental design and the sample. Test methods are also discussed in

this chapter.

Experimental Design

The research was a quasi experiment utilizing a factorial design to obtain quantitative

data. To evaluate used turnout gear, this study utilized the Functional Clothing Design Process

developed by J. DeJonge and the post-occupancy evaluation (POE) process initially developed as

an interior design research method for evaluating buildings (Watkins, 1984). Post-occupancy

evaluation is the process in which a building or space is evaluated after it has been used to

determine if the end-users’ needs had been met or if improvements can be made. The research

process began by considering the turnout gear as a used prototype since it was worn or “lived

in” by the firefighter during emergency firefighting situations. To comply with the requirement

of interviewing the user in a post-occupancy evaluation, a survey was sent to the donors of the

garments to establish how the garments were cared for. A visual inspection of the coat was

conducted according to NFPA 1851. Photographs were also taken during the visual inspection

to document any weak points found on the turnout gear. The research process then evaluated

the used turnout gear according to the test specifications in NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971. Testing

was conducted according to requirements specified in NFPA 1851, 2008 edition and NFPA 1971,

2007 edition. Test results were evaluated against the performance requirements specified in

the standards as well as compared to the results of testing on new, unused fabrics or

composites. It was determined from these evaluations if the turnout gear provided the

recommended levels of protection for firefighters and how the fabrics and composites

performance changes as the turnout gear is used.

Sample

The turnout gear tested in this study had been used by firefighters in the field. Seventy-

one garments were donated to the study. Specific garment details are listed in Table 3.1. The

garments were divided into two groups. The first group included 67 garments which were

assigned numbers 1 to 67. The second groups included four retired garments used for thermal

47

manikin testing and were labeled 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A. The remaining garments were divided into

three categories according to age, 2-3 years, 5-7 years and 9-10 years or retired. The age

categories were arbitrarily developed to divide the ten year life of the garment. Of the 71

garments collected 25 were 2-3 years old, seventeen were 5-7 years old and twenty four were 9-

10 years old or retired. Retired garments are those that the departments had decided to retire,

regardless of age. Garment fabric selections were based on type by selecting those most

commonly used by firefighters. Three outer shell fabrics included, Nomex®, Nomex®/Kevlar®

and PBI/Kevlar®. Three types of thermal liners included, aramid batt, recycled batt and E-89

(two or three layers). Three types of moisture barriers were PTFE membranes laminated to

Nomex® IIIA, PTFE membranes laminated to E-89 and a PTFE membrane laminated to E-89

which became obsolete with the 2007 edition of NFPA 1971.

Sample Preparation

The turnout gear were collected by the garment manufacturers who replaced donated

gear with new garments if the gear had not been retired. All ‘in use’ turnout gear were washed

and dried upon receipt by the manufacturer to remove soil and/or contaminants. The majority

of retired garments were not washed before testing, so that garments could be tested at the

state of retirement by the firefighter. When each garment was received in the lab it was

photographed. Photographs of dirty and clean garments and damages are located in Appendix

C. The front and back side of each layer of fabric was photographed as well as the labels and all

apparent damaged areas. All garments were stored in a dark room as protection from sunlight

until tested and/or specimens were cut from the garments. Except thermal protective

performance (TPP) specimens, all specimens were conditioned for a minimum of 24 hours at 70°

Fahrenheit ± 5° Fahrenheit (21° Celsius ± 3° Celsius) and at a relative humidity (RH) of 65% ± 5%

in accordance with ASTM D 1776, Standard Practice for Conditioning Textiles for Testing

(National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

48

Table 3.1

Garment Descriptions

Sample Outer Shell Moisture Barrier

Thermal Liner

Years of Use

1 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 7 (retired) 2 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 8 (retired) 3 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 7 (retired) 4 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 5 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 6 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 7 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 8 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 9 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3

10 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 11 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 12 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 13 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 14 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 15 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 16 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 17 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 18 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 19 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 20 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 5 – 7 21 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 – 3 22 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech PTFE Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 23 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech PTFE Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 24 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech PTFE Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 25 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech PTFE Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 26 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 8 (retired) 27 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 8 (retired) 28 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 7 (retired) 29 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 8 (retired) 30 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 2000 Recycled Batt 6 31 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 2000 Recycled Batt 6 32 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 2000 Aralite (Aramid) 7 33 Nomex/Kevlar Aquatech Aralite (Aramid) 9 (retired) 34 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 2000 Recycled Batt 3 35 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech PTFE E-89 4 (retired) 36 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech PTFE E-89 7 (retired)

49

Table 3.1 (Continued)

Garment Descriptions

Sample Outer Shell

Moisture Barrier

Thermal Liner Years of Use

37 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech PTFE E-89 7(retired)

38 Kevlar/PBI unknown unknown ? (retired) 39 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 7 (retired) 40 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 7 (retired) 41 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 5 (retired) 42 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aramid Quilt 5 – 7 43 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aramid Quilt 5 – 7 44 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 3000 E-89 2 – 3 45 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech E-89 2 – 3 46 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 47 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 48 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 49 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 50 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 51 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 52 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 53 Matrix PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 – 3 54 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1 (retired) 55 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1 (retired) 56 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1.5 (retired) 57 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1.5 (retired) 58 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1.5 (retired) 59 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1.5 (retired) 60 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 9-10 61 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 9-10 62 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 9-10 63 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 9-10 64 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 5-7 65 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 5-7 66 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 5-7 67 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura 5-7 1 A Basofil/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura (Aramid) 1 2 A Basofil/Kevlar Crosstech Caldura (Aramid) 1 3 A Nomex/Kevlar Sted 3000 Glide (Aramid) 1.5 4 A Nomex/Kevlar Sted 3000 Glide (Aramid) 1.5

50

Test Procedures

This research was designed to conduct a post use analysis of firefighter turnout gear. To

accomplish this objective test procedures followed the specifications recommended in the

National Fire Protection Association‘s 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of

Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2008 edition and

1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting,

2007 edition standards. The specific laboratory evaluations are shown in Table 3.2. Tests

conducted according to NFPA 1851 requirements enable firefighters, trained personnel and

verified ISPs to inspect, maintain and care for turnout gear. Tests conducted according to NFPA

1971 standards are used by manufacturers and certification organizations to ensure turnout

gear meet minimal specifications.

Visual Inspection

All 71 garments were evaluated before any destructive testing occurred. Prior to cutting

specimens, garments were visually evaluated utilizing NFPA 1851 advanced inspection criteria,

as a verified ISP or trained personnel. The advanced visual inspection used the same criteria as

trained personnel which allowed the researcher to evaluate how a garment would be rated in

the field. The visual inspection assesses the performance and condition of the garments

features. The specific coat and pant features are specified in section 6.3.5.1 of NFPA 1851, 2008

edition. The features include labels, retroreflective trim, closures such as snaps, hooks and

dees, zipper and hook and loop, seam seal tape and each individual layer of fabric (National Fire

Protection Association, 2007). Overall perceptions of cleanliness were inspected on each of the

individual layers of fabric.

Evaluation of Closure System Functionality. According to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851

the advanced visual inspection, the closure system of each garment was inspected. The closure

system includes hook and loop, zipper and hook and dees. The garments components were

evaluated for work performance. The closures should open/un-attach or close/attach but not

come loose on their own. All components were opened and closed. The results were recorded

as a pass or fail.

51

Table 3.2

Laboratory Evaluations Performed on Garments

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Ligh

t Eva

luat

ion

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.1

Leak

age

Eval

uatio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.2

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

NFP

A 18

51 A

.6.3

.5.1

Trim

Ret

rore

flect

ivity

NFP

A 19

71 8

.46

Ther

mal

Pro

tect

ive

Perf

orm

ance

NFP

A 19

71 8

.10

Tota

l Hea

t Los

s

NFP

A 19

71 8

.34

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

–

ou

ter s

hell

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- m

oist

ure

barr

ier

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- th

erm

al li

ner

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Tear

Res

istan

ce

NFP

A 19

71 8

.12

Sew

n Se

am S

tren

gth

NFP

A 19

71 8

.14

Wat

er P

enet

ratio

n

Barr

ier E

valu

atio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.3

1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

10 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 11 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 12 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 13 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 14 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 16 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 17 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

52

Table 3.2 (continued)


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Ligh

t Eva

luat

ion

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.1

Leak

age

Eval

uatio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.2

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

NFP

A 18

51 A

.6.3

.5.1

Trim

Ret

rore

flect

ivity

NFP

A 19

71 8

.46

Ther

mal

Pro

tect

ive

Perf

orm

ance

NFP

A 19

71 8

.10

Tota

l Hea

t Los

s

NFP

A 19

71 8

.34

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

–

ou

ter s

hell

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- m

oist

ure

barr

ier

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- th

erm

al li

ner

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Tear

Res

istan

ce

NFP

A 19

71 8

.12

Sew

n Se

am S

tren

gth

NFP

A 19

71 8

.14

Wat

er P

enet

ratio

n

Ba

rrie

r Eva

luat

ion

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.3

18 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 19 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 20 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 21 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 22 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 23 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 24 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 25 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 26 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 27 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 28 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 29 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 30 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 31 √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ 32 √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ 33 √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 34 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

53



Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Ligh

t Eva

luat

ion

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.1

Leak

age

Eval

uatio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.2

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

NFP

A 18

51 A

.6.3

.5.1

Trim

Ret

rore

flect

ivity

NFP

A 19

71 8

.46

Ther

mal

Pro

tect

ive

Perf

orm

ance

NFP

A 19

71 8

.10

Tota

l Hea

t Los

s

NFP

A 19

71 8

.34

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

-

ou

ter s

hell

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- m

oist

ure

barr

ier

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- th

erm

al li

ner

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Tear

Res

istan

ce

NFP

A 19

71 8

.12

Sew

n Se

am S

tren

gth

NFP

A 19

71 8

.14

Wat

er P

enet

ratio

n

Barr

ier E

valu

atio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.3

35 √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ 36 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 37 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 38 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 39 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 40 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 41 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 42 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 43 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 44 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 45 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 46 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 47 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 48 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 49 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 50 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 51 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

54



Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Ligh

t Eva

luat

ion

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.1

Leak

age

Eval

uatio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.2

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

NFP

A 18

51 A

.6.3

.5.1

Trim

Ret

rore

flect

ivity

NFP

A 19

71 8

.46

Ther

mal

Pro

tect

ive

Perf

orm

ance

NFP

A 19

71 8

.10

Tota

l Hea

t Los

s

NFP

A 19

71 8

.34

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

-

ou

ter s

hell

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- m

oist

ure

barr

ier

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- th

erm

al li

ner

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Tear

Res

istan

ce

NFP

A 19

71 8

.12

Sew

n Se

am S

tren

gth

NFP

A 19

71 8

.14

Wat

er P

enet

ratio

n

Barr

ier E

valu

atio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.3

52 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 53 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 54 √ √ √ √ √ √ 55 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 56 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 57 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 58 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 59 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 60 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 61 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 62 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 63 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 64 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 65 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 66 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 67 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

55



Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Ligh

t Eva

luat

ion

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.1

Leak

age

Eval

uatio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.2

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

NFP

A 18

51 A

.6.3

.5.1

Trim

Ret

rore

flect

ivity

NFP

A 19

71 8

.46

Ther

mal

Pro

tect

ive

Perf

orm

ance

NFP

A 19

71 8

.10

Tota

l Hea

t Los

s

NFP

A 19

71 8

.34

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

-

ou

ter s

hell

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- m

oist

ure

barr

ier

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Flam

e Re

sista

nce

- th

erm

al li

ner

NFP

A 19

71 8

.2

Tear

Res

istan

ce

NFP

A 19

71 8

.12

Sew

n Se

am S

tren

gth

NFP

A 19

71 8

.14

Wat

er P

enet

ratio

n

Barr

ier E

valu

atio

n

NFP

A 18

51 1

2.3

1A √ 2A √ 3A √ 4A √

56

Light Evaluation. In conjunction with the visual inspection, a light evaluation was

performed according to NFPA 1851; section 12.1 Light Evaluation of Liners. Light evaluations

were conducted on 71 garments which included those used for thermal manikin testing. The

standard requires a minimum of the front and back panels be evaluated, this tests include the

upper back, shoulders, waist and crotch areas (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). The

light source was a Smart Light 5000, which met the requirements of the standard by providing

enough light to show the changes in density but not enough heat to damage the moisture

barrier. Liners were removed from the outer shell so an accurate evaluation could be

conducted. The moisture barrier was oriented face down on the light source, so the light passed

through the thermal liner. Bright areas indicated thin spots or shifting of material and were

noted on the advanced visual inspection checklist as a “fail”. The garments without bright areas

were rated as “pass” (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). The areas that failed were

noted in the inspection form so leakage evaluation and water penetration tests could be

conducted in those areas.

Leakage Evaluation. Firefighters are often exposed to water when fighting a fire. The

leakage test evaluates the ability of the moisture barrier to resist water. The NFPA 1851

standard requires a minimum of three panels and three seams be evaluated, but due to lack of

space only two panels and two seams were evaluated. The coats were evaluated in four

locations; right front panel, left front panel, right shoulder seam and left under arm seam. Pants

were tested in four locations; right seat, left knee, seat seam and crotch seam. Sixty-seven

garments were tested. The garment liner was placed over a container allowing enough room for

the liner to have a concave appearance. The moisture barrier was positioned facing up; it was in

contact with the water/alcohol solution. According to NFPA 1851, section 12.2.3.1 the

water/alcohol solution is one part rubbing alcohol (70 percent isopropanol alcohol) and six parts

tap water. One cup of the solution was poured onto the test area and allowed to set for three

minutes. The liner was then examined for leaks. If results were questionable a paper towel was

placed on the underside of the moisture barrier to identify if any water was absorbed. If leaks

were noted the garment’s rating was “fail.” If no leaks occurred, the garment was assigned a

rating of “pass”. The garments were hung and allowed to dry in a dark room to ensure the

water/alcohol solution was completely evaporated before additional test were conducted


57

Flashlight Test. Retroreflective properties were evaluated by the flashlight test

according to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851 section A.6.3.5.1 (9). A test garment and a piece of

new trim were placed 40 ft (12 m) from the evaluator, in a dark room without outside light

interference. Trim on the front and the back were evaluated separately, but combined for one

rater per garment. Evaluators held a bright, focused flashlight at eye level, next to their temple

and aimed the light beam at the samples (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Two

raters compared the garments to the new sample and rated the garment “pass” or “fail”. Any

areas with weak reflectivity were noted.

Ensemble Testing

Manikin Test. Manikin testing was conducted according ASTM F1930 - 00(2008)

Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash

Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin to measure the thermal protection of a whole

garment during a controlled flash fire simulation. Manikin testing allows for the evaluation of

construction, style, fit, reinforcements, closure systems and fabric properties for the garment as

a whole. Testing was conducted at DuPont® using Thermo-man®, a six foot one inch tall

manikin. Thermo-man® is made of high temperature resin and fiber glass with 122 heat sensors

distributed across the body and head. There are no sensors on the hands or feet. Twelve

propane torches engulfed the manikin in a calibrated fireball for twelve seconds with an average

heat flux up to 3.0 cal/sq cm-sec.

Data is gathered by the sensors every half second during the flame exposure and thirty

to ninety seconds after the exposure to allow the heat to penetrate through the garments. A

skin model was used to calculate amount, degree and location of second and third degree

burns, based on estimates of human tissue tolerance to the intense heat and the calculated heat

flux at the surface of the sensors. Two tests rather than three were conducted, because of

garment cost and availability.

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP). Thermal protective performance was conducted

according to 2007 edition of NFPA 1971 section 8.10 and ISO17492, Clothing for protection

against heat and flame – determination of heat transmission on exposure to both flame and

radiant heat. Three TPP specimens were cut diagonally across the back of each coat. Due to

lack of space specimens were not taken from the pants. The trim was removed from the

specimens prior to testing. Specimens were 6 in. x 6 in. ± ¼ in. (150 mm x 150 mm ± 6mm),

which included all three layers of fabric but did not include seams or pleats. Specimens were

58

placed on the testing apparatus and exposed to a heat flux of 84 Kw/m², ± 2 Kw/m², (2.0

cal/cm²s, ± 0.05 cal/cm²). The TPP value, TPP time, FFF (fabric failure factor) and pain time were

recorded (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

Total Heat Loss (THL). Total heat loss (THL) was conducted according to ASTM F1868

Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a

Sweating Hot Plate Part C and the 2007 edition of NFPA 1971 section 8.34. Specimens were cut

from the back of each coat including all three layers of fabric which none were taken from the

pants due to the size of the specimen (20 inches x 20 inches). The test method requires there

be three specimens but due to the lack of size only one specimen could be taken from each

coat. Specimens included all three layers of fabric. All trim and pleats were removed so the

fabrics would lie as flat as possible on the hotplate. The test method requires specimens be flat,

but some specimens had seams because of the style or size of the coat (ASTM, 2002). The

specimens were sent to Southern Mills Tencate, in Union City, Georgia for testing. Before

testing the specimens were conditioned for a minimum of four hours at 77° Fahrenheit ± 13°

Fahrenheit (25° Celsius ± 7° Celsius) and at a relative humidity (RH) of 65% ± 5% in accordance

with NFPA 1971 Section 8.34.2. Testing was conducted on a SGHP-10.5 Sweating Guarded

Hotplate, the test plate, guard section and bottom plate were maintained at 35°C ± 5°C without

fluctuating more than ± 0.1°C. Air temperature flowing over the test plate was 25°C ± 0.5°C

without fluctuating more than ± 0.1°C during the testing process. Relative humidity was

maintained at 65 ± 4% without fluctuating more than ± 4% during the test and the air velocity

was held constant with fluctuations no greater than ± 0.1m/s during the testing process (ASTM,

2002). The average apparent intrinsic evaporative resistance, the average intrinsic thermal

resistance and total heat loss were calculated after testing was complete. Southern Mills

Tencate researchers stressed the results of the THL tests were not to be distributed as actual

composite data due to the lack of samples, seams, pleats, trim and damaged areas. Also NFPA

1971 specifies total heat loss testing should be conducted on new materials, without washing or

other preconditioning (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

Fabric Testing

Flame Resistance. Flame resistance was conducted according to ASTM D6413 – 99

Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Flame). NFPA 1971 section 8.2.8

specifies that five specimens be taken from each the warp and filling directions and no two

specimens test the same yarns. Due to the lack of space only one specimen was cut from each

59

garment tested. Specimens were cut from the front of the right sleeve of the coats and the back

of the left leg of the pants. Tests were performed on twenty outer shell specimens from each

age category and five liner specimens from each age category. In total seventy five specimens

were evaluated.

A Govmark VC-2 automatic standard vertical flammability tester and 99% pure methane

gas were used for testing the specimens. The gas pressure was held at 2.5 ± 0.25 lbf/in² (17.2 ±

1.7 kPa) and a 1.5in. (38 mm) flame was acquired by adjusting the valve. Specimens were

conditioned according to ASTM D1776 and were tested within 4 minutes of being removed from

the conditioning environment. Specimens were exposed to the flame for 12 ± 0.2 seconds and

evaluated for melting or dripping. Specimens were observed after the flame was removed for

the after flame time, afterglow time and char length.

Tear Resistance. Tearing strength was conducted according to ASTM D5587 – 07

Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by Trapezoid Procedure. Specimens were

taken only from the outer shell fabric. The test method requires a minimum of five specimens

be tested but due to lack of space only two specimens were tested. Specimens were cut from

the front side of the left sleeve of the coats and around the fly on the pants. Specimens were 3

in. x 6 in. (75 mm x 150 mm) with diagonal lines drawn on the specimen 4 in. (100 mm) apart on

one side and 1 in. (25 mm) apart on the other side. There was a 0.0625 in. (1.5 mm) slit in the

middle of the 1 in. section on the 6 in. side. Specimens were conditioned according to ASTM

D1776. The specimens were placed in a conditioning environment for a minimum of 24 hours at

70° Fahrenheit ± 5° Fahrenheit (21° Celsius ± 3° Celsius) and at a relative humidity (RH) of 65% ±

5% (1776). The tensile apparatus used was an Instron 33R4465 using a 400 lb load cell. When

the specimens were torn the force required to tear the fabric was recorded in lbf (pounds of

force) (ASTM, 2007).

Sewn Seam Strength. Seam breaking strength was conducted according to ASTM D1683

– 07 Standard Test Method for Failure in Sewn Seams of Woven Apparel Fabrics. The test

method requires a minimum of five specimens. Specimens were taken from the pants but due

to the lack of space only four specimens were tested. Two from the seat seams and two from

the inseams, one from each pant leg. The specimens were 8 in. x 4 in. (200 mm x 100 mm) with

the seam positioned parallel to the 4in. side and in the center of the specimen. Specimens were

conditioned according to ASTM D1776, in a conditioning environment for a minimum of 24

hours at 70° Fahrenheit ± 5° Fahrenheit (21° Celsius ± 3° Celsius) and at a relative humidity (RH)

60

of 65% ± 5% (1776). The tensile apparatus used was an Instron 33R4465 using a 1000 lb load

cell. When the specimens were torn the force required to cause seam failure was recorded in

lbf (pounds of force).

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation. Water penetration was conducted according to

the requirements of NFPA 1851 and ASTM D5512, Water Resistance of Coated Cloth; High

Range, Hydrostatic Pressure Method. NFPA 1851 Section 12.3.2.1 requires a minimum of six

specimens from each moisture barrier, three from the fabric and three from the seams. Due to

lack of space four specimens were cut from each garment, two from the fabric and two from the

seams. Testing locations on the coat were left and right front panels, right shoulder seam and

left under arm seam. Testing locations on the pants were the right seat, left knee, seat seam

and the crotch seam. The garments were conditioned according to ASTM D1776 before being

tested. The testing apparatus was a Gore Low-Pressure Hydrostatic Tester (LPHT) with an

evaluation area five inches in diameter. The specimens were clamped down and the water

pressure was held at a constant 1 psi (6.9kPa) for 15 seconds. Specimens were visually

inspected during the 15 seconds for any leaks or tears.

Retroreflectivity and Fluorescence Test. Retroreflectivity testing was conducted

according to the specifications of ASTM E809 Standard Practice for Measuring Photometric

Characteristics of Retroreflectors following the modifications of the 2007 edition of NFPA 1971

section 8.46.4.1. Forty-four garments (twenty-three coats and twenty-one pants) were

evaluated. Garment trim was evaluated in forty-six locations on each coat and twelve locations

on each pair of pants. A large number of locations were chosen to allow for a holistic

representation of the performance of the garment. The specific locations are shown in Figure

3.1. Testing was conducted at the 3M Visibility and Insulation Solutions Tech Service laboratory,

in St. Paul, Minnesota.

It should be noted the specifications of the NFPA standard are for new materials not

used materials. The minimum performance for new materials is 100 RA (Coefficients of

Retroreflective). The RA values were collected using a 3M Retrophotometer Rm-2 with 0.2

degree observation angle and five degree entrance angle and a ½” aperture after calibration to

an appropriate level retroreflector standard plaque at a testing distance of 50 ft (15.2 m).

Results were reported in candelas/lux/m2.

61

Figure 3.1 Retroreflectivity Test Locations

Data Analysis

To answer the research questions, statistical analysis was used with corresponding

charts and graphs to communicate the results. Specific techniques include descriptive statistics,

a two sample t-test, and interval plots by group for continuous data. The chi-square test of

independence and Fisher’s exact test were used to determine relationships between categorical

variables. A p-value <0.05 was needed to show a significant difference. Attribute agreement

analysis was employed to validate field tests versus laboratory tests where applicable. Six Sigma

benchmarks (p < 0.0001) were used to determine if an agreement was acceptable. In order for

there to be an acceptable agreement there must be an overall Kappa of 0.9 (p < 0.0001). Bar

graphs are used to communicate the details of the data. Levels of significance were calculated

using Minitab® statistical software.

62

Chapter Four

Results and Discussion

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post-use evaluation of firefighter turnout

gear. Garments were evaluated at various ages (2-3 years, 5-7 years, 9-10 years and retired) of

the life of turnout gear. Used firefighter’s turnout gear ensembles were evaluated according to

the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851 standard inspection protocol and the 2007 edition of NFPA 1971

performance properties (THL, TPP, tear strength, seam strength, flammability and water

penetration) testing protocol. The performance of in-use and retired garments was evaluated in

order to make recommendations on the useful life, future development and care and

maintenance of firefighter turnout gear.

Discussed in this chapter are the findings of the visual inspection and laboratory phase

of the research in which controlled conditions were employed to examine the used turnout

gear’s serviceable life, performance properties and care and maintenance. Specifically, this

chapter will present the results of the visual inspection of each garment according to the

protocol of the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851. This chapter will also show the results of the

laboratory evaluation of thermal protective performance (TPP), total heat loss (THL), manikin

test, tear strength, seam strength, flammability, water penetration and retroreflectivity and

fluorescence tests. A discussion of the research questions will follow.

Visual Inspection of Firefighter Turnout Gear

The visual inspection portion of this research included 71 garments containing multiple

fiber and fabric composites, as outlined in Table 3.1. Each of the garment’s three layers was

evaluated on appearance as well as function of closures (zipper, hook and dees and hook and

loop). The advanced inspection included visual inspection, evaluation of closure system

functionality, light evaluation, leakage evaluation (cup test) and a flashlight test, that can be

perform to ensure the turnout gear is working properly.

Visual Inspection

The visual inspection was conducted according to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851 section

6.3.5.1. The inspection checklist used to conduct the inspection is located in Appendix C.

Garments were inspected for label integrity, soiling, contamination and physical damages to any

layer. The moisture barrier was evaluated for loss of integrity by examining the seal tape and

abraded or cracked areas. Seams were inspected for strength and broken stitches. All materials

were evaluated for loss of material integrity due to ultraviolet, chemical or thermal degradation.

63

Wristlets were evaluated for loss of elasticity and functionality and the trim inspected for proper

attachment.

The visual inspection data is presented in Appendix D Tables D1 – D4. Overall

perceptions of cleanliness were inspected on each of the individual layers of fabric. Six

of 71 (8.45%) outer shell labels were not legible, while 8 of 71 (11.27%) liner labels were

not legible. The results indicated 67.60% or 48 of 71 outer shells were rated “good” for

cleanliness. However, 19.72% or 14 of 71 outer shells had holes, abrasion or thin spots.

Three moisture barriers were rated “poor cleanliness” and 29.58% or 21 garments of 71

were rated “fair.” No moisture barriers were observed as being excellently clean.

However, the seam seal tape was loose in three or more locations on 11.26% or 8 of 71

garments. In the inspection it was noted 21.23% or 15 of 71 thermal liners had

discoloration. All but one of the wristlets were rated serviceable.

Evaluation of Closure System Functionality.

According to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851, advanced visual inspection of turnout gear

includes inspections of the closure system, which consists of hook and loop, hook and dees and

zippers. The closures were evaluated for functionality. If functioning properly, the closures

should open/un-attach or close/attach and not separate on their own and were evaluated as a

“pass”. Non-functioning closures can increase the risk of injury by creating gaps in the ensemble

which may allow hot debris to get to flammable station wear or expose the user to radiant heat

or toxic substances and were evaluated as a “fail”. Over 95% of the closures passed this

evaluation. All but two garments in the 9-10 year/retired category had hook and loop closures

which were functional. Garments in all three age categories had threads matted in the hook

and loop; however, those closures were still serviceable. The zipper closure system worked

properly for all age categories of use with no failures. Threads from the stitching that attached

the zipper to the garment had partially loosened on two garments in the 9-10 year/retired

category; however, the zippers remained functional. Zipper function results are presented in

Appendix D Table D2. The closures in one garment in the 5-7 year category failed to function

due to the grommet that held the dee in place. Results of evaluating closure functionality are

presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

64

Years of UseHook and Loop - functionality

9-10/retired5-72-3FailPassFailPassFailPass

25

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

2

25

0

17

0

24

Years of Use & Hook and Loop Functionality

Figure 4.1 Hook and Loop Functionality

Years of UseClasp - functionality


20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

0

13

1

11

0

18

Years of Use & Clasp - Functionality

Figure 4.2 Clasp Functionality

65

Light Evaluation

Thermal liners were inspected for thin spots according to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851

section 12.1 “Light Evaluation of Liners.” The moisture barrier and thermal liner were placed on

a light source, so the light passed through the moisture barrier and the thermal liner. Any bright

areas signified the thermal liner had thin spots and was evaluated as a “fail”. If there were no

bright areas or holes the garment received a “pass” rating. Each coat’s front and back panels,

upper back, shoulders, sleeves and under arms were assessed. Each garment was assigned a

pass or fail rating. The evaluation areas for the pants were the seat, crotch and front panels. A

summary of results is reported in Figure 4.3. Of the ten garments assigned a failed rating, seven

were pants in which the majority of failures occurred in the crotch and seat and three failures

were coats. Results indicated the 2-3 year old category had more thin spots, holes or cuts than

the other two categories. Of the thermal liner batts 10% failed in the 2-3 year and 5-7year

categories, while 25% failed from the 9-10 year/retried category. It should be noted the 9-10

category had an extremely small sample size of four garments. For the E-89 liners 35% of the 2-

3 year category failed, while 8% of the 9-10 year/retired category failed. The two main types of

thermal liners evaluated were needle punched batts and spunlaced nonwoven E-89. It should

be noted that E-89 liners may have originally been thinner and increased in thickness with

age/use.

The light evaluation is very subjective because different types of thermal barriers allow

different amounts of light to pass through. The thin spots can be attributed to the abrasion

from excess fabric which allows the firefighter to have ‘wiggle’ room (Lion Apparel, 2004). It

should be noted repairs made to garments could have affected a garment’s performance.

66

Years of UseThermal - spots, holes, cuts

9-10/retired5-72-3PassFailPassFailPassFail

25

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts26

3

16

1

19

6

Years of Use & Thermal Liner - Spots, Holes, Cuts

Figure 4.3 Thermal Liner Light Evaluation of Spots, Holes & Cuts

Leakage Evaluation (Cup Tests)

To test the ability of the moisture barrier fabric to repel water, garments were subjected

to “Leakage Evaluation” (cup test) according to section 12.2 of the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851.

This test is non-destructive and conducted by the user in the field to determine if the moisture

barrier is working properly. A depression was made in the garment and one cup of a

water/alcohol mixture was placed on the specified areas and observed after three minutes for

any leaks. Leakage evaluations were performed on four locations on the coats: lower front right

and left panels, the right shoulder seam and the left under arm seam. The right seat, the left

knee, the seat seam and the crotch seam were the four locations tested on the pants. Each

location was assigned a pass or fail by two evaluators. If there were no leaks the location

passed, if a leak occurred, the location failed. All four locations were combined for one result

per garment. If any one location failed then the garment as a whole failed.

Figure 4.4 provides a summary of the results of the leakage evaluation. The right

shoulder seam on the coat and the crotch seam of the pants each had 12 failures. It should be

noted the majority of the failures occurred in seams where the seam seal tape was loose or

damaged. A total of 22 garments of 67 (32.84%) failed the test. Seven of 25 garments (28%) in

67

the 2-3 year category failed the leakage evaluation. In the 5-7 year category 7 of 17 garments

(41%) failed. In the 9-10 year/retired category, 8 of the 25 garments (32%) failed. The number

of failed garments did not consistently increase with age.

Four types of moisture barriers were evaluated. PTFE group A had a 31.58% failure rate

after 2-3 years of use; however, the 9-10 year/ retired category 25% failed. PTFE group B

moisture barriers passed after 2-3 years of use; 18.18% in the 9-10 year/retired category failed.

Moisture barriers that did not fit into one of these two categories were grouped together and

had a 100% failure rate for all age categories.

Years of UseGarment Result


20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

8

17

7

10

7

18

Years of Use & Leakage Evaluation

Figure 4.4 Leakage Evaluation of Moisture Barrier

Flashlight Test

To inspect reflectivity of the trim the flashlight test was conducted according to the

2008 edition of NFPA 1851. This test is non-destructive and can be conducted by a firefighter in

the field. The evaluator stood 40 ft (12 m) from the turnout gear and shined a bright focused

flashlight on the trim. The trim was inspected for light reflectance and the presence of dark

areas, which indicated that the reflectance trim was not reflecting light as it was designed. The

trim received a “pass” rating if it was reflective in all locations. Trim that was not reflective

68

received a “fail” rating. The data showed for all garments the trim passed the flashlight test.

However, four garments had small areas not as bright as the other areas of trim. These areas

were further inspected and the presence of soiling was noted. Two of the garments had some

loss of reflectivity on the lettering on the back of the coat due to soiling. The other two

locations of weakened reflectivity on the ankles of pants were due to soiling and extensive heat

damage.

Laboratory Evaluation of Firefighter Turnout Gear

The laboratory evaluation portion of this research included the testing of 67 garments

containing multiple fiber and fabric composites, as outlined in Table 3.1. Tests were conducted

on the ensemble and on the individual fabric layers. Performance properties of the garments

were analyzed; pockets, hooks or any other company specific features were not tested, as this

study was developed to analyze the turnout gear, not its features. The garments were divided

into three age categories (2-3 years, 5-7 years and 9-10 years/retired) to determine the effect of

time on turnout gear. For presentation of this data, multiple raters and replications of samples

were averaged together, and summaries are displayed as graphs or charts.

Ensemble Testing

Manikin Test. A manikin test was conducted to evaluate the thermal protection of

retired garments. Two sets of retired turnout gear were tested on the Thermo-Man® at

DuPont®. This is a destructive test thus the garments used in this test were only visually

evaluated and manikin tested. The turnout gear was placed on Thermo-Man®, which had 122

sensors on the body and exposed to a fireball for ten seconds, with an average heat flux of 2.0

cal/sq cm-sec. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the burn type and location for each set of turnout gear.

The results indicate a 5% predicted burn injury for both sets of turnout gear. Burn areas

were limited to the head and one area of the leg indicating the retired garments still offered

protection comparable to new garments. The head was not protected by a hood or helmet

during this test. The TRI/Environmental Inc. study conducted in 1994 on the decontamination

and cleaning of used firefighter turnout gear showed the need for early retirement of chemically

contaminated gear. It should be noted the garments used for this test were retired after only

one year of service, due to their use in a chemical fire. Even though the test did not predict a

burn injury, it does not take into account the firefighter being exposed for more than ten

seconds, compression/movement and moisture which would typically occur at an actually fire.

69


Evaluation System

Front Back




No Information

Total Burn Injury

5%


Garment 1A/2A


®

Figure 4.5 Burn Injury Prediction for Garments 1A/2A


Evaluation System

Front Back




No Information

Total Burn Injury

5%


Garment 3A/4A

Exposure Time = 10.0 sec Test # R090804J

®

Figure 4.6 Burn Injury Prediction for Garments 3A/4A

70

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP). Thermal protective performance was conducted

according to ISO17492, Clothing for protection against heat and flame – determination of heat

transmission on exposure to both flame and radiant heat, as specified in NFPA 1971, to

determine if the thermal performance of the garment changes with time. TPP is a destructive

test and was performed on the coats, but not the pants. The 6 in. x 6 in. test specimens

included all three layers of fabric and were placed on the testing apparatus and exposed to a

heat flux of 84 Kw/m², ± 2 Kw/m², (2.0 cal/cm²s, ± 0.05 cal/cm²). The TPP value, TPP time, FFF

(fabric failure factor) and pain time were recorded. The data is shown in Appendix D Table D5.

The results showed all garments met or exceeded the NFPA minimum requirement of 35

cal/cm2. The highest thermal protective performance value was 60.03 cal/cm2 and the lowest

was 45.13 cal/cm2. The median TPP value was 51.3 cal/cm2, which was an average of 21%

increase in measured TPP values over the manufacturer’s 2000 certification value. These results

are consistent with the understanding that materials will bulk up with use and washing.

Total Heat Loss (THL). To test the ability of the garment’s fabric composite to transfer

heat and moisture vapor; the total heat loss (THL) test was conducted according to ASTM F1868

Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a

Sweating Hot Plate Part C. Specimens were cut from the back of each coat. A specimen

included all three layers of fabric. All trim and pleats were removed so fabrics would lie as flat

as possible on the hotplate. The test method requires specimens be flat, but some specimens

had seams because of the style or size of the coat. Specimens were not taken from the pants

due to the size of the specimen (20 inches x 20 inches). The test method requires three

specimens but due to the size of the specimen only one was cut from each coat. All specimens

were tested at Southern Mills Tencate, in Union City, Georgia, and tested on a SGHP-10.5

Sweating Guarded Hotplate. The average apparent intrinsic evaporative resistance, the average

intrinsic thermal resistance and total heat loss were calculated after testing was completed.

Southern Mills Tencate researcher, stressed the results of the THL test were not to be

interpreted as actual composite data due to the lack of samples, seams, pleats, trim and

damaged areas. Also NFPA 1971 specifies total heat loss testing should be conducted on new

materials, with no wash or other preconditioning and for this study all garments had been used

and/or washed.

THL data is presented in Table D6 in Appendix D. In summarizing the results, the

average THL was 211 W/m2 with an overall loss of 11% versus the manufacturer’s certification

71

values reported in 2000. An 11% decrease in THL values compared to a 21% increase in TPP

values was not consistent with testing TPP and THL on new fabric composites. This could be due

to the sampling location (compression of SCBA and lack of panel flexing), seaming or moisture

barrier damage; which could be contributing to the unusually high THL results. One 9-10

year/retired garment’s TPP values was 56.2 cal/cm2 and its THL 114.6 W/m2, which did not meet

the NFPA requirements. It should be noted that this garment had heavy soiling and was retired.

Fabric Testing

Flammability. To evaluate the flame resistance of each fabric layer ASTM D6413 – 99

Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Flame) was used. Section 8.2.8

of the test method was followed as per NFPA 1971. Due to the lack of space only one specimen

was cut from each garment tested. Tests were performed on twenty outer shell specimens from

each age category and five liner specimens from each age category. Specimens were exposed to

the flame for 12 ± 0.2 seconds. During flame exposure specimens were evaluated for melting or

dripping. After the flame was removed specimens were evaluated for after flame time,

afterglow time and char length. This data is shown in Table D7 in the Appendix D.

All outer shell and thermal liner samples had a zero seconds after flame time in all age

categories. Although, there is not an afterglow time requirement in NFPA 1971, it was noted the

Kevlar®/Nomex® fabrics maintained nearly the same time for all age categories which was 3.2

sec range. PBI®/Kevlar® fabrics had an increase in after glow time in relation to use and/or age.

The 2-3 year age category had an average time of 18.9 sec while the 9-10 year/retired category

had an average time of 45.9 sec. These results do not seem to follow the performance trend of

the study conducted by Fahl and Faile in 1991 stating PBI® blended fabrics performed the best in

flammability testing among other flame resistant fabrics (Fahl & Faile, 1991). There was one

failure on a 9-10 year/retired moisture barrier sample.

The char length was evaluated and all samples passed. The longest char length was 3

1/8 inches on a moisture barrier sample from the 9-10 year/retired category. The char length

results for the outer shell ranged from 0 inches in all age categories to 9/16 inches in the 9-10

year/retired category. The average char length for the outer shell ranged from 1/7 inch for the

5-7 year category to 2/7 inch for the 9-10 year/retired category, which are below the NFPA

minimum requirement. The char length changes on the outer shell from eight samples with 0

inch char length in the 2-3 year category to only 3 samples in the 9-10 year/retired category.

The moisture barrier’s char length results range from 5/8 inch in the 2-3 year category to 3 ¾

72

inches in the 9-10 year/retired category, which meet the NFPA minimum of four inches. The

moisture barrier char length average ranges from 1 1/2 inch in the 2-3 year category to 2.17

inches in the 9-10 year/retired category. The char length range for the thermal liner is 0 inches

to 11/32 in the 5-7 year category. The thermal liner’s char length averages range from 0 inches

in the age categories 2-3 and 5-7 to 0.11 inch in the 9-10 year/retired category.

Tear Strength. To measure the tearing strength of the outer shell ASTM D5587 – 07

Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by Trapezoid Procedure was used. Due to

space restrictions only two specimens, one filling and one warp, were tested from each

garment. Specimens were cut according to the test method with diagonal lines drawn on the

specimen 4 in. (100 mm) apart on one side and 1 in. (25 mm) apart on the other side. There was

a 0.0625 in. (1.5 mm) slit in the middle of the 1 in section on the 6 in. side. By using a 400 lb load

cell, specimens were torn and the force required to tear the fabric was recorded in lbf (pounds

of force) (ASTM, 2007).

Results of the tearing strength test are presented in Appendix D in Table D8. The vertical

tearing strength averages range from 38.58 lbf for the 2-3 year category to 32.83 lbf for the 9-10

year/retired category. Vertical tearing strength for all three age categories exceeded the NFPA

minimal requirement of 22 lbf; however, there are two garments in the 9-10 year/retired

category that tore below the minimum. Breaking the categories down even further into the two

outer shell fabrics, Nomex®/Kevlar® and PBI®/Kevlar®, gives an indication of the significant loss

in tearing strength performance of the PBI®/Kevlar® over time. The vertical tearing strength

average for PBI®/Kevlar® decreased from 40.3 lbf (2-3 year category) to 29.4 lbf (9-10

year/retired category). The horizontal tearing strength had similar results as the vertical with

the strength decreasing from 40.1 lbf to 29.3 lbf for PBI®/Kevlar®. The horizontal tear strength

averages range from 38.08 lbf for the 5-7 year category to 32.97 lbf in the 9-10year/retired

category. The horizontal tearing strength means for all three age categories exceeded the NFPA

minimum, but one 2-3 year garment and one 9-10 year/retired garment tore below the

minimum.

Sewn Seam Strength. ASTM D1683 – 07 Standard Test Method for Failure in Sewn

Seams of Woven Apparel Fabrics was used to determine the strength of sewn seams. Specimens

were cut from the pants, but due to the lack of space, only four specimens were tested. Two

specimens tested were from the seat seams and two were from the inseams. The specimens

were torn using a 1000 lb load cell. When the specimens were torn the force required to cause

73

seam failure was recorded in lbf (pounds of force). The raw data is presented in Table D9 in

Appendix D.

Over one-half, 56.09%, of the outer shell seat seam samples tested exceeded the NFPA

minimum requirement of 75 lbf, however, only 42.59% of the inseams met the specified

requirement. In the 2-3 year category 50% of the inseams were rated as a pass while in the 9-10

year/retired category only 33.33% met the specification. The Nomex®/Kevlar® outer shell fabric

seat seam had averages ranging from 147.5 lbf (2-3 year category) to 173.6 (9-10 year/retired

category). These results indicate an increase in strength over time. The PBI®/Kevlar® outer shell

inseam samples had an inverse trend of the Nomex®/Kevlar®. The averages ranged from 140.9

lbf (9-10 year/retired category) to 168.8 lbf (2-3 year category) for the PBI®/Kevlar®. The

majority, 65.61%, of the moisture barrier samples evaluated for seat seam strength met or

exceeded the NFPA minimum. On the other hand, only 58.47% of the inseam seams met the

standard. The thermal barrier seam strength samples yielded the best performance results of

the three composite layers with 96.43% of them exceeding the requirement.

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation. The second test used to test the ability of the

moisture barrier fabric to repel water, is “Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation” according to

section 12.3 of the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851. This test is non-destructive and conducted by a

trained person, the manufacturer, or trained ISP to determine whether the moisture barrier is

functioning properly. Results for this test are located in Appendix D Table D10. In this test each

of the specified areas was clamped down and water was forced onto the fabric or seam at a rate

of one psi (pound per square inch) and evaluated after fifteen seconds for any leaks. The

location was assigned a pass or fail rating. If no leak were detected, the location passed; if a

leak was found, the location failed the evaluation. Results of the testing from the four were

combined in order to provide one result per garment. If any one location failed then the

garment as a whole failed. Leakage evaluations were performed on four locations on the coats.

The lower front right and left panels, the right shoulder seam and the left under arm seam were

inspected and evaluated. On the pant, tests were conducted on the right seat, the left knee, the

seat seam and the crotch seam. The results of the moisture barrier performance were

categorized by the years of use and are recorded in Figure 4.7.

The results show that there were more failures located in the seams than on the fabric.

The higher number of seam failures could be due to loose or damaged seam seal tape or excess

stress and abrasion on those locations. The crotch seam in the pants had the most failures for

74

the three age categories and locations. In the 2-3 year category 8 garments of the 15, 53.33%,

failed. In the 9-10 year/retired category 6 of 9, 66.67%, garments failed. The data indicates

65.67% of the garments failed water penetration testing.

Years of UseGarment Result


18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

17

8

10

7

17

8

Years of Use & Water Penetration

Figure 4.7 Effect of Years of Use on the Performance of the Moisture Barrier

Retroreflectivity and Fluorescence Test. To test the performance ability of the

retroreflective trim the “Measurement of Coefficient of Retroreflection” was conducted

according to 2007 edition of NFPA 1971 section 8.46.4.1. The coats were tested in 46 locations

and the pants in 12 locations. These results are recorded in Figure 3.1. The retroreflective

results were recorded as RA (candelas/lux/m2) and the fluorescent results were recorded on a

color box and cap Y value. A cap Y value is the whiteness of an object; which is measured on a 0

to 100 scale with 0 being perfect black and 100 being perfect white. One coat did not have trim

on the upper arm; therefore, it is missing twelve data points. The majority of new trim starts at

approximately 500 RA or higher, which is well above the 100 RA NFPA 1971 requirement.

The results indicate the average RA value for the coats was 337 while the average value

for pants was 310. A summary of the averages according to age is found in Figures 4.8 and 4.9.

There is natural and measurement variability present in the data, but also certain sources of bias

must be considered. The 2-3 year age category included garments with a more recent variant of

trim material with a significantly lower initial RA values and potentially different wear properties.

75

Figure 4.8 The Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age

Figure 4.9 The Average Pant Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age

76

The fluorescent properties did not degrade due to the exposure to heat, flame, sunlight

and care procedures. Some garments in the 5-7 years and 9-10 years and retired garments

categories had color box and cap Y values almost equivalent to new trim values. Garments with

stains or discoloration of the trim caused a shift in both the color box and cap Y values. These

results are shown in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10 The Color Box Values for Fluorescence

Research Questions

Research Question #1. Are the user or inspector guidelines in NFPA 1851 appropriate to

effectively evaluate in “service” turnout gear for structural firefighting, including a visual

inspection, flashlight test, leakage evaluation (cup test) and overall visual evaluation?

To answer this research question, statistical analyses of each of the following

tests are presented: flashlight test and retroreflectivity, leakage and water penetration

and visual evaluation. A summary of the practical implications of the statistical tests are

discussed at the conclusion of this section.

Flashlight Test and Retroreflectivity. The flashlight test was conducted on

seventy-one garments. All garments were reflective thus passing the flashlight test.

77

Four garments had dark areas but still passed. Two of the dark areas were on the ankle

and two were on the fire department’s name on the back of the coat. The loss of

reflection the back of the coats was attributed to abrasion and soiling; the loss of

reflectivity on the ankle was due to extreme soiling and heat damage. The

instrumentally measured retroreflectivity test results agreed with the flashlight test in

that all of the garments passed. The instrumental reflectivity showed a few locations

had weakened in intensity, but all pass the NFPA minimal requirement of 100RA. The

results confirm the flashlight test allowed the firefighter to effectively evaluate trim

reflectance on their turnout gear according to NFPA 1851. Even though all garments

passed, the flashlight test would enable the inspector to view weak areas that might

need repair in the future.

Leakage and Water Penetration. In order to ensure acceptable performance

evaluation of gear in the field, a high degree of agreement between the cup test and the

hydrohead test would be expected. In other words, if the cup test indicates a pass, the

hydrohead test would indicate a pass and vice versa. Disagreement occurs when one

test indicates a pass and the other indicates a fail. Of the seventy-one garments

evaluated forty-three or 60.56% matched. For both the leakage and water penetration

evaluations the seam locations had a higher rate of failure than the fabric locations. In

order to validate the measurement system, an attribute agreement study was

conducted using Fleiss’s Kappa and results are presented in Table 4.1. Fleiss’s Kappa

characterizes the degree of agreement over and above agreement by chance. Six Sigma

benchmarks were used to determine if an agreement was acceptable. For there to be

an acceptable agreement there must be an overall Kappa of 0.9. Fleiss’s Kappa for the

cup test and the hydrohead test was 0.28 and was found to be significantly different

from the 0.9 benchmark at p<0.0001. Figure 4.11 shows a bar graph with the

breakdown of false positives and false negatives with respect to the cup test. Most

alarming is the number of false positives. In other words, the cup test in the field

indicates the moisture barrier is a “pass” whereas the laboratory test indicates a “fail”.

78

Table 4.1

Statistical Results from Fleiss’s Kappa Test

Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P (vs > 0) Fail 0.21 0.12 1.75 0.04 Pass 0.21 0.12 1.77 0.04 Overall 0.28 0.10 2.77 0.00

Leakage EvaluationWater Penetration

FailPassFailPassFailPass

25

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

19

3

25

20

Water Pentration Results vs. Leakage Evalation Results

Figure 4.11 Water Penetration Results vs. Leakage Evaluation Results

Since the results of the Fleiss’s Kappa test indicate the tests do not agree a Chi-

Square Test of Independence/Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted and results are

presented in Table 4.2 to determine if there was a trend over time for either of these

leakage tests. This indicated there was no dependence on years of use and the leakage

test and the water penetration test; however, there was significance in the moisture

barrier type and the cup test. There was also a slight significance in the moisture barrier

type and the water penetration test with a p-value of 0.06. It must be noted the C and

D moisture barriers were deleted from the data set due to the low number garments

received containing this type of moisture barrier. The skewed results were attributed to

79

low number of garments and a high failure rate as shown in Figure 4.12. The deletion of

these two types of moisture barriers changed the significance of the leakage test from a

p-value of 0.01 to 0.64 but the water penetration test remained unchanged (0.06).

Table 4.2

Statistical Results from Chi-Square Test

Years of Use Moisture

Leakage (Cup

0.76 0.01*/0.641

Water Penetration 0.85 0.06*/0.061

*Fisher’s Exact Test in SAS due to violations of assumptions on the Chi-squared test. 1p-value after moisture barriers C and D were deleted from the data set

Moisture BarrierWater Penetration

DCBAFailFailPassFailPassFail

100

80

60

40

20

0

Perc

ent o

f Gar

men

ts

100100

55.56

44.44

30.23

69.77

Percent within levels of Moisture Barrier.

Water Penetration Results

Figure 4.12 Water Penetration Results

In summary, the leakage evaluation and water penetration tests had a significant

difference suggesting the firefighter could not effectively inspect his/her turnout by

performing the leakage evaluation (cup test). Furthermore, there are no significant

trends with respect to the passes and failures of the cup test and the water penetration

80

test over time. Leakage evaluation had significant results PTFE C and PTFE D samples

included. This is due to the high failure rates (100%) of the low sample size in these

categories (n=4 and n=1, respectively). The other moisture barriers have roughly the

same failure rate. Water penetration had borderline significant results overtime in both

with and without PTFE C and D samples included. There were a lower percentage of

failures in PTFE A.

Visual Inspection. Prior to any cutting specimens, garments were visually

evaluated utilizing NFPA 1851 advanced inspection criteria, as a verified ISP or trained

personnel. The advanced visual inspection used the same criteria as trained personnel

which allowed the researcher to evaluate how a garment would be rated in the field.

A summary of results are presented in Figures 4.13 – 4.15. Overall perceptions

of cleanliness were inspected on each of the individual layers of fabric. Examples of the

clean and dirty garments for each age category and damages are located in Appendix B.

The analyzed results indicated 67.60% or 48 of 71 outer shells were rated “good” for

cleanliness. One outer shell was rated “excellent” in the 2-3 year category, while eight

thermal liners were assigned an “excellent” rating. Three moisture barriers were rated

“poor cleanliness” and 29.58% or 21 garments of 71 were rated “fair.” No moisture

barriers were observed as being excellently clean. These results indicate the poor

cleanliness of the moisture barrier is linked to the poor performance of the moisture

barrier in the water penetration test.

81

Years of Use

Shell - Cleanliness

9-10/r

etired5-72-3

Excellent

GoodFairPoor

Excelle

ntGood

FairPoor

Excelle

ntGood

FairPoor

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

0

21

7

10

9

6

21

18

5

1

Outer Shell - Cleanliness

Figure 4.13 Outer Shell Cleanliness

Years of Use

Moisture Barrier - Cleanliness

9-10/r

etired5-72-3

GoodFair

PoorGood

Fair

PoorGood

FairPoor

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

19

8

2

12

4

1

16

9

0

Moisture Barrier - Cleanliness

Figure 4.14 Moisture Barrier Cleanliness

82

Years of Use

Thermal - Cleanliness

9-10/re

tired5-72-3Excelle

ntGood

Fair

Excellent

GoodFair

Excellent

GoodFair

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts

3

21

5

1

11

54

19

2

Thermal Liner - Cleanliness

Figure 4.15 Thermal Liner Cleanliness

Research Question #2. Do key performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear

strength, seam strength and water penetration) of used turnout gear of three age

categories (2-3 years, 5-7 years and 9-10 years and/or retired) for structural firefighting

change with use and/or age?

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP). Summary results for the thermal

protective performance are presented in Figure 4.16. There was not a trend in relation

to the years of use with the 2-3 year category ranging from 45.5 cal/cm2 to 58.0 cal/cm2

while the 9-10 year/retired category ranged from 45.1 cal/cm2 to 60.0 cal/cm2. The

interval bars overlap one and other which indicates no statistical difference between the

TPP performance with use and/or age. There was high variability in each age category

which can be seen in Figure 4.16 with multiple sample results outside of the 95%

confidence interval, above or below the interval bar.

83

9-10/retired5-72-3

60.0

57.5

55.0

52.5

50.0

47.5

45.0

Years of Use

TPP

- cal

/cm

2

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of TPP Results - After Use

Figure 4.16 TPP Results by Age Category

Total Heat Loss (THL). A summary of the THL results by age categories are shown

in Figure 4.17. An inspection of the THL results indicates the means for all age

categories were higher than the NFPA minimum requirement. The average for all 31

garments evaluated was 211 W/m2. The average THL rating for the 2-3 year category is

221.7 W/m2, the average for the 5-7 year category is 195.2 W/m2 and the average for

the 9-10 year/retired category is 209.3 W/m2. One outlier was observed in the 9-10

year/retired category to be below the NFPA THL minimum of 130 W/m2. The outlier was

investigated further and it was noted in the visual inspection the garments was retired

and the outer shell cleanliness was poor. The low average for the 5-7 age category

could be due to the low number of samples tested. These results do not show a

statistical significance in the change in THL values with use and/or age because the

interval bars overlap. It should be noted these results do not represent true THL

composites. Samples were cleaned, had seams, pleats and trim which violates typical

THL composite protocol.

84

9-10/retired5-72-3

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Years of Use

THL

- W/m

2

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of THL Results - After Use

Figure 4.17 THL Results by Age Category

Flammability. Specimens were observed after the flame was removed for after flame

time, afterglow time and char length. A summary of the after flame time by age category and

composite layer are presented in Figure 4.18. All outer shell and thermal liner samples had an

after flame time of zero seconds for all age categories. There is no statistical significance

present because all of the samples passed and the interval bars completely overlap one another.

The one failure well outside the 95% confidence interval was investigated further and was noted

being moderately dirty all over and having damage to the thermal liner.

Char length results are summarized in Figure 4.19 by age category and

composite layer. The char length was evaluated and all samples passed showing a

relationship, although not statistically significant, between use and/or age and moisture

barrier char length. This relationship can be seen in Figure 4.17 with the stair step

pattern of the interval bars. The thermal liner’s char length averages range from 0

inches in the age categories 2-3 and 5-7 to 0.11 inch in the 9-10 year/retired category

with a slight increase in length with age. The relationship between thermal barrier char

length and age is not as predominate as the moisture barrier but it exist. Again, this

85

relationship is not statistically significant. However, it suggested that actual garments

age be recorded in the future studies so that a linear regression can be performed to

determine the more definitive presence of a trend over time.

Years of UseThermal_LinerMoisture_BarrierOutershell

9-10/retired5-72-39-10/retired5-72-39-10/retired5-72-3

15

10

5

0

-5

Tim

e - s

econ

ds

95% CI for the MeanIndividual Value Plot of After Flame Time

Figure 4.18 Results for After Flame by Age Category and Composite Layer

86

Years of UseThermal_LinerMoisture_BarrierOutershell


3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Char

Len

gth

- inc

hes

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Char Length

Figure 4.19 The Interval for Char Length by Age Categories and Composite Layer

Tear Strength. The vertical tear strength results indicate a slight significance

between the tear performance and use and/or age, which can be seen in Figure 4.20

with the interval bars gradually decreasing in tearing strength with each age category.

The relationship is only slightly significant because the majority of the interval bars

overlap. The horizontal tear strength does not show a significant relationship between

the tear performance and use and/or age, which is shown in Figure 4.21. It should be

noted the standard deviations range from 8.28 to 11.15 signify a great deal of variance

in the results, which may be caused by small number of samples.

87

9-10/retired5-72-3

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Years of Use

Tear

Stre

ngth

- lb

f

Interval Plot of Tear Strength - Veritical95% CI for the Mean

Figure 4.20 Results of Vertical Tear Strength by Age Category

9-10/retired5-72-3

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Years of Use

Tear

Stre

ngth

- lb

f

Interval Plot of Tear Strength - Horizontal95% CI for the Mean

Figure 4.21 Results of Horizontal Tear Strength by Age Category

88

Seam Strength. The results analyzed for seam strength indicated there was a

borderline relationship between the seam strength performances of the outer shell seat

seam and the use and/or age of the garment which can be seen in Figure 4.22, where

the interval bars make a slight staircase pattern but overlap. The lack of statistical

significance between the thermal liners or moisture barriers seat seams and use and/or

age are shown in Figure 4.23 when the interval bars overlap and do not have a

continuous stair step pattern. The inseam seam for the thermal liners had borderline

statistical significance which can be seen in the same Figure where the interval bars

increase in a staircase pattern with use and/or age.

Years of UseThermalMoistureOutershell


225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seat Seam Strength

Figure 4.22 Results of Seat Seam Strength by Age Category

89

Years of UseThermalMoistureOutershell


200

175

150

125

100

75

50

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Inseam Seam Strength

Figure 4.23 Results of Inseam Seam Strength by Age Category

Water Penetration. The analysis of the water penetration results indicated there

was not a change in moisture barrier performance for coats in relation to use and/or

age. The coats in the 2-3 age category had a 35.0 failure rate while garments in the 5-7

age category only had a 18.75% failure rate. However, the pants have a slight

relationship with use and/or age. Garments in the 2-3 year age category had a 42.0%

failure rate, the 5-7 category had a 47.22% failure rate and garments in the 9-10

year/retired category had a 50% failure rate. These results indicate there is a slight

relationship between moisture barrier performance in the pants and use and/or age.

Research Question #3. Do “retired” garments, pass or fail the performance properties

(TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength and water penetration) specified in

NFPA 1851 and 1971?

Thermal Protective Performance. Figure 4.24 show the distribution of the results

along with the confidence intervals for the retired garment’s TPP results. A two-sample

t-test and confidence intervals on the mean TPP were used to evaluate the significant

differences in TPP means for retired verses non-retired turnout gear. The p-value was

90

0.66 indicating no statistically significant difference in the TPP means of retired and non-

retired turnout gear. Using a larger sample appropriately stratified for different use

profiles across the fabric types may yield significant results in future studies. Note the

interval bars in Figure 4.24 completely overlap which indicates no statistically significant

difference. Furthermore, the intervals do not cover the pass/fall limit of 35 set by the

NFPA standard. This indicates each category is significantly above the pass/fail limit.

NoYes

60.0

57.5

55.0

52.5

50.0

47.5

45.0

Retired

TPP

Valu

e A

vera

ge =

cal

/cm

²

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of TPP Value Average of Retired Garments

Figure 4.24 Summary of TPP Results for Retired Garments

Total Heat Loss (THL). Figure 4.25 shows the distribution and the p-value for the retired

garment’s THL results and there is only one garment below the NFPA minimum of 130 W/m2.

There was one sample which tested out of the 95% confidence interval with a THL value of

114.6W/m2 and is considered an outlier. A seam or pleat might have caused the outlier. It also

needs to be noted the results from the THL testing not be taken as composite results due to the

fact the material had been washed and had pleats, seams and trim. Also it should be noted the

low number of garments tested results in low statistical power. A two-sample t-test and CI were

conducted on the results to identify if there was a relationship between the retired and non-

retired garments. The results found a p-value of 0.40 indicating no statistical significance

between the retired and non-retired garments due to the small sample size.

91

Another two-sample t-test was conducted and a confidence interval computed on the

data to determine if there was a relationship between the percent of THL lost according to the

manufacturer’s certification values reported in 2000 for new fabric and the retired and non-

retired garments. A borderline significant difference was found in the percent of THL lost from

the 2000 (year) initial results and retired garments with a p-value of 0.08. These results are

shown in Figure 4.26.

NoYes

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Retired

THL

Resu

lts -

W/m

2

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of THL Results - After Use

Figure 4.25 Summary of THL Results of Retired Garments

92

NoYes

30

20

10

0

-10

Retired

THL

% L

oss

afte

r 200

0

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of THL % Loss after 2000

Figure 4.26 Percent of THL Lost from the 2000 Data for Retired Garments

Flammability. A summary of the retired garment’s after flame time are shown in Figure

4.27 by composite layer. There is no statistical significance present as seen in the over-lapping

interval bars. Note all samples passed except for one, which was noted in the visual inspection

as being dirty. The retried garment’s char length results are summarized in Figure 4.28 by

composite layer. The char length results show a relationship between use and/or age and

moisture barrier char length. There is no statistical significance between the NFPA minimum

and after flame time or char length since all samples passed except one, the outlier.

93

RetiredThermal_LinerMoisture_BarrierOutershell

NoYesNoYesNoYes

20

10

0

-10

-20

Tim

e - s

econ

ds

2

95% CI for the MeanIndividual Value Plot of After Flame Time

Figure 4.27 After Flame Results of Retired Garments with Minimum

RetiredThermal_LinerMoisture_BarrierOutershell

NoYesNoYesNoYes

5

4

3

2

1

0

Char

Len

gth

- inc

hes

4

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Flammability Char Length

Figure 4.28 Char Length Results of Retired Garments with Minimum

94

Tear Strength. The retired garments tearing strength results and minimum NFPA

requirement are summarized in Figures 4.29 and 4.30. Looking at the results all but two

garments, 1.49%, met or exceeded the minimum requirement. The standard deviation

for the vertical tear data was 9.93, while the standard deviation for the horizontal tear

data was 9.27. The high standard deviation was linked to the small number of garments

tested.

NoYes

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Retired

Tear

Stre

ngth

- lb

f

22

Interval Plot of Tear Strength - Veritical95% CI for the Mean

Figure 4.29 Vertical Tearing Strength Results for Retired Garments with Minimum

95

NoYes

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Retired

Tear

Stre

ngth

- lb

f

22

Interval Plot of Tear Strength - Horizontal95% CI for the Mean

Figure 4.30 Horizontal Tearing Strength Results for Retired Garments with Minimum

Seam Strength. The seam strength results for retired garment’s seat seam and

inseam are summarized in Figures 4.31 - 4.33. The findings indicate half of the retired

outer shell and moisture barrier seams are below the NFPA performance standard. All

thermal liners exceed the minimum requirement set by NFPA. A two-sample t-test of

seam strength indicated no significance in the seat or inseam seam strength in

relationship to performance and retired garments.

96

RetiredInseamSeat

NoYesNoYes

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf

150

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength - Outershell

Figure 4.31 Retired Garments Outer Shell Seam Strength Results with Minimum

RetiredInseamSeat

NoYesNoYes

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf 75

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength - Moisture Baarrier

Figure 4.32 Retired Garments Moisture Barrier Seam Strength Results with Minimum

97

RetiredInseamSeat

NoYesNoYes

150

125

100

75

50

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf

75

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength - Thermal Liner

Figure 4.33 Retired Garments Thermal Liner Seam Strength Results with Minimum

Requirement

Water Penetration. The water penetration results are summarized in Figure 4.34.

The results indicate thirteen of twenty-one retired garments, 61.90%, failed water

penetration testing, while the overall average for all garments was 65.67%. A paired t-

test indicated no statistical significance with a p value of 0.708. The water penetration

test fails to meet the NFPA requirements because over half the samples failed.

98

Retirement StatusWater Pentration Results

NotRetiredFailPassFailPass

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Num

ber o

f Gar

men

ts31

1513

8

Retired & Water Penetration

Figure 4.34 Water Penetration Evaluations of Retired Garments

Research Question #4. Do ‘in use’ garments, pass or fail the performance properties

(TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength and water penetration) specified in

NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971?

The results of evaluating used turnout gear’s performance (TPP, THL,

flammability, tear strength, seam strength and water penetration) were compared to

the standards of NFPA to answer this question.

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP). The TPP results are presented in Figure

4.35. The analysis of the TPP results showed all garments exceeded the NFPA minimum

of 35 cal/cm2 by at least 5 cal/cm2. In the 2-3 year category values ranged from 45.5

cal/cm2 to 58.0 cal/cm2 with a mean of 50.01 cal/cm2. While the 5-7 year category

average was 52.67 and the 9-10 year category average was 51.73 cal.cm2. There is high

variability within each of the categories, which is shown in Figure 4.35 . As expected all

garments in the three age categories passed the TPP performance requirements

according to NFPA 1971, due to the garments being worn and washed.

99

9-10/retired5-72-3

60

55

50

45

40

35

Years of Use

TPP

Valu

e A

vera

ge =

cal

/cm

²

35

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of TPP Value Average

Figure 4.35 TPP Results with Minimum

Total Heat Loss (THL). The THL findings indicated all garments exceed the NFPA

minimum of 130 W/m2 by at least 30 W/m2, except for one garment in the 9-10

year/retired category which can be seen in Figure 4.36. The “failed” garment was

further investigated and was noted as being moderately dirty and having thermal liner

damage. The one “failed” garment is considered an outlier because it is extremely far

outside of the 95% confidence interval. There was a decrease in the THL average from

221.68 W/m2 in the 2-3 year category to 195.15 W/m2 in the 5-7 year category. An

increase occurred from the 5-7 year category to 209.26 W/m2 for the 9-10 year

category. These results indicate the garments in all age categories passed the THL

performance requirements according to NFPA 1971.

100

9-10/retired5-72-3

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Years of Use

THL

R

esul

ts -

Afte

r Use

130

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of THL Value Average

Figure 4.36 THL Results with Minimum

Flammability. The after flame and char length results are located in Figures 4.37

and 4.38. The after flame time shows all samples passed except for one 9-10

year/retired moisture barrier, which is considered an outlier because it did not fall in the

95% confidence interval. The “failed” garment was investigated further and a note was

made in the visual inspection that the garment was soiled. Results indicate NFPA 1971

flammability requirements for after flame time were met by garments in all three age

categories.

The average char length for the three types of fabrics met the NFPA

requirements. Outer shell char length averages ranged from 0.15 in the 5-7 year

category to 0.29 in the 9-10 year category. While the moisture barrier and thermal liner

averages increased with age, but remained under the NFPA maximum. Samples in all

three age categories met or fell below the 4 inch char length. The results from the after

flame time and the char length indicate flammability tests for all three age categories

pass the NFPA 1971 performance standards.

101

Years of UseThermal_linerMoisture_barrierOutershell


15

10

5

0

-5

Afte

r Fla

me

Tim

e - s

econ

ds

2

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Flammability - After Flame Time

Figure 4.37 After Flame Results with Minimum

Years of UseThermal_linerMoisture_barrierOutershell


4

3

2

1

0

Char

Len

gth

- inc

hes

4

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Flammability - Char Length

Figure 4.38 Char Length Results with Minimum

102

Tear Strength. The tearing strength results are summarized in Figures 4.39 and

4.40. The average vertical tearing strength for the 2-3 year category was 38.58 lbf. The

average decreased slightly to 37.52 lbf for the 5-7 year category and even more to 32.83

lbf for the 9-10 year/retired category. Tearing strength analysis also indicated all but

two vertical samples in the 9-10 year/retired category met or exceeded the NFPA

minimum requirement for tear strength. Two “failed” garments were from the 9-10

year/retired category.

The average horizontal tearing strength was 37.96 lbf. Average tearing strength

increased to 38.08 lbf for the 5-7 year category and decreased to 32.97 for the 9-10

year/retired category. Two horizontal tearing samples, one in the 2-3 year category and

one in the 9-10 year/retired category, tore below the minimum. Performance

requirements for tearing strength passed the NFPA 1971 requirements due to 97.02% of

samples meeting or exceeding the minimum, 22 lbf.

9-10/retired5-72-3

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Years of Use

Tear

Stre

ngth

- Ve

ritic

al

22

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Vertical Tearing Strength Average

Figure 4.39 Vertical Tearing Strength Results with Minimum

103

9-10/retired5-72-3

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Years of Use

Tear

Stre

ngth

- H

orizo

ntal

22

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Horizontal Tearing Strength Average

Figure 4.40 Horizontal Tearing Strength Results with Minimum

Seam Strength. Seam strength results are found in Figures 4.41 – 4.43. Seat

seam strengths for the outer shell averaged from 157.83 lbf for the 2-3 year category to

163.98 lbf in the 5-7 year category. The inseam seam strength averages ranged from

139.8 lbf in the 5-7 year category to 147.82 lbf in the 2-3 year category, which are below

the NFPA minimum of 150 lbf. In total there was a 50% failure rate for both the seat

and inseam outer shell seams.

The moisture barrier’s seat seam averages ranged from 70.96 lbf for the 5-7 year

category to 75.85 lbf for the 2-3 year category. The inseam seam of the moisture barrier

had a constant decrease in strength with the years of use and/or age. Averages began

at 75.44 lbf in the 2-3 year category to 71.04 lbf for the 9-10 year/retired category. For

the moisture barrier 35.94% failed to meet the NFPA minimum requirement, 75 lbf.

Seat and inseam seam strength results for the thermal liner average above the

NFPA requirement of 75 lbf. The seat seam averages ranged from 113.87 lbf in the 2-3

year category to 116.60 lbf in the 5-7 year category. While the inseam averages ranged

from 93.70 lbf to 111.23 lbf. The thermal liner had 90.63% or twenty-nine of thirty-two

104

garments meet the minimum showing the seam strength performance properties for

the thermal liner pass NFPA 1971.

The results for all three composite layers combined indicates the seam strength

performance does not meet the NFPA 1971 required minimum of 150 lbf for the outer

shell seams and 75 lbf for the moisture barrier and thermal liner seams. However, the

thermal liner by itself would meet the NFPA requirement with a 90.63% passing rate.

Years of UseInseamSeat

9-10/retired5-72-39-10/retired5-72-3

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf

150

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength - Outershell

Figure 4.41 Outer Shell Seam Strength with Minimum

105


9-10/retired5-72-39-10/retired5-72-3

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf 75

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength - Moisture Baarrier

Figure 4.42 Moisture Barrier Seam Strength with Minimum


9-10/retired5-72-39-10/retired5-72-3

150

125

100

75

50

Tens

ile S

treng

th -

lbf

75

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength - Thermal Liner

106

Figure 4.43 Thermal Liner Seam Strength with Minimum

Water Penetration. The results of the water penetration testing are presented in

Figure 4.7 on page 67. The results of this study agree with the results of the 1996 study

conducted by Vogelpohl in which the moisture barriers had leaks and did not perform

properly. In the 2-3 year and 9-10 year/retired categories 17 of 25 garments, 68%,

failed due to water penetrating at least one location. While the 5-7 year category had

58.82% fail. The results showed 65.67% of the garments had some type of water

penetration and failed to meet the performance requirements established in NFPA

1851.

107

Chapter Five

Conclusions

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post-use evaluation of firefighter turnout

gear collected from medium and large fire stations. Garments were evaluated at various ages

(2-3 years, 5-7 and 9-10 years or retired) of the life of turnout gear. Used firefighter’s turnout

gear ensembles were evaluated according to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851 standard inspection

protocol and the 2007 edition of NFPA 1971 performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability,

tear strength, seam strength and water penetration) testing protocol. The performance of in-

use and retired garments was evaluated in order to make recommendations on the useful life,

future development and care and maintenance of firefighter turnout gear. The research

objectives for this study are:

To determine if the visual inspection protocol for structural turnout gear coats and pants

specified in NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective

Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2008 edition is

predictive of the results of testing the ensemble and/or fabrics in a laboratory setting.

The garments were visually inspected according to the advanced visual

inspection in NFPA 1851. Legibility and proper attachment of the labels was part of the

visual inspection. Each layer of fabric was evaluated for cleanliness, holes, abrasion,

thermal damage, broken stitches and discoloration. Changes in material texture and

strength were also noted. The seam seal tape on the moisture barrier was assessed for

loose or damaged areas. Closure systems were inspected for functionality. The

flashlight test was conducted on the trim for retroreflectivity. Leakage evaluation was

performed on the moisture barrier. Garments were assigned a pass fail rating for each

of these tests.

The flashlight test typically performed by the firefighter, or trained personnel

showed 100% of the garments were reflective, which was confirmed by the

retroreflective test with 100% passing. The results confirm the flashlight test allows the

firefighter to effectively evaluate trim reflectance on their turnout gear according to

NFPA 1851. The leakage test which is typically performed by trained personnel or

certified ISP indicated 32.84% of garments failed while the water penetration evaluation

108

showed 65.67% failed. The difference in two test results indicated that the leakage (cup

test) was not representative of the water penetration laboratory test.

To determine if the recommended ten year wear life (retirement age) specified in NFPA

1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for

Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2008 edition is appropriate by

evaluating the ensemble and fabrics using methods outlined in NFPA 1851 and 1971.

The performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam

strength and water penetration) were assessed to determine if they met NFPA 1971 and

NFPA 1851 minimum requirements. All the TPP values, including retired garments, met

or exceeded the NFPA minimum requirement. THL results showed all garments

exceeded the NFPA 1971 requirement. Flammability and tearing strength results had a

few “failures”, while the majority of samples passed and met the NFPA set limits. The

outer shell seam strength met the NFPA requirement 50% of the time; while the

thermal liner failed less than 10% of the time and the moisture barrier failed 35.94% of

the time. Overall the seam strength testing would not meet the NFPA minimum

requirement for the recommended ten year wear life. The water penetration values

had a 65.67% failure rate showing the majority of samples would not meet the NFPA

requirement. Based on the results of this study TPP, THL, flammability and tear strength

confirm the recommended ten year wear life of a garment is appropriate. However,

seam strength and water penetration results do not confirm the recommended ten year

wear life due to high rate of failure.

To compare the durability and serviceability properties of different types of outer shell fabrics,

moisture barriers and thermal liners of used protective ensembles/turnout gear.

Flammability, tearing strength, seam strength and water penetration results were

evaluated to compare the durability and serviceability properties of different types of outer

shell fabrics, moisture barriers and thermal liners of used turnout gear. Flammability results

showed the Kevlar®/Nomex® fabrics maintained nearly the same after glow time for all age

categories unlike PBI®/Kevlar® fabrics which had an increase in after glow time in relation to use

and/or age. Tearing strength results indicate the significant loss in tearing strength performance

of the PBI®/Kevlar® over time, while the Kevlar®/Nomex® did not. Seam strength results

109

showed the Nomex®/Kevlar® outer shell fabric seat seam had averages ranging from 147.5 lbf

(2-3 year category) to 173.6 lbf (9-10 year/retired category); indicating an increase in strength

over time. The PBI®/Kevlar® outer shell inseam samples had an inverse trend of the

Nomex®/Kevlar®. The averages ranged from 140.9 lbf (9-10 year/retired category) to 168.8 lbf

(2-3 year category) for the PBI®/Kevlar®. In conclusion the results indicated the

Kevlar®/Nomex® fabrics evaluated performed better over time than the PBI®/Kevlar® fabrics.

The leakage evaluation had significant results PTFE C and D samples included. This is due to the

high failure rates (100%) of the low sample size in these categories (n=4 and n=1, respectively).

The other moisture barriers have roughly the same failure rate. The water penetration had

borderline significant results overtime in both with and without fabric PTFE C and D samples

included. There were a lower percentage of failures in PTFE A.

Limitations

One limitation was the small sample size especially when the garmetns were

divided into age categories or fabric types. A lager sample size would allow for a better

representation of each category and statistical proof to be more reliable.

The researcher had no control over the garments she received or the knowledge

about the garment’s use in the field and how it was cared for and stored. A survey on

the use, maintenance and storage was to be filled out and turned in with each garment;

however, the response was so poor the survey had to be excluded from the evaluation.

Recommendations for Future Research

Recommendations for future research are based on the findings of this research.

The results could help a firefighter better prepare him or her self when facing an

emergency situation. Before starting the research, study goals and corresponding

statistical hypotheses, and analysis plans should be designed. A power analysis should

then be conducted prior to starting the reasearch using the goals of the new study and

historical data from this study and others to ensure that all hypotheses are testable or

participants understand the detectable effects.

Collection of garments with details on the use such as number of fires and types

of fires, care and storage would allow the researcher to have a clearer understanding of

the garments and be able to better analyze the data. It is suggested the actual garment

110

age be recorded in future studies so that a linear regression can be performed to

determine the more definitive presence of a trend over time. A special cause

investigation should be included in future studies of this type, to investigate reasons for

passes/failures. In order to reduce the high variability in some test it may be benifical in

averaging some samples. If similar studies were conducted in the future it would be

recommended to include volunteer firefighter garments. Also as technologies and

garments are improved and introduced, a longitudinal study could be undertaken to

effectively account for stratification factors and trends over time.

111

Appendix A

Definition of Terms

Advanced Cleaning: The thorough cleaning of ensembles or elements by washing with cleaning

agents (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Ensemble Elements: The compliant products that provide protection to the upper and lower

torso, arms, legs, head, hands, and feet (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Fluorescence: The process by which radiant flux of certain wavelengths is absorbed and

reradiated, non-thermally in other usually longer, wavelengths

Independent Service Provider (ISP): An independent third party utilized by an organization to

perform any one or any combination of advanced inspection, advanced cleaning, or repair

services (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Liner System: The moisture barrier and thermal barrier components as used in a garment


Maintenance: The inspection, service, and repair of protective clothing and equipment,

including the determination for removal from service (National Fire Protection Association,

2007).

Moisture Barrier: The component of an ensemble element or item that principally prevents the

transfer of liquids (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Outer Shell: The outermost component of an ensemble element or item, not including trim,

hardware, reinforcing material, pockets, wristlet material, accessories, fittings, or suspension

systems (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Particulates: Finely divided soiled matter that is dispersed in air (National Fire Protection

Association, 2006).

Post-use evaluation: the process of evaluating garment in a systematic and rigorous manner

after it has been constructed and used for some time (Preiser, 1988).

Retirement: The process of permanently removing an ensemble element from emergency

Routine Cleaning: The light cleaning of ensembles or ensemble elements performed by the end

user without taking the elements out of service (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Retroreflection/Retroreflective: The reflection of light in which the reflected rays are

preferentially returned in the direction close to the opposite of the direction of the incident

rays, with this property being maintained over wide variations of the direction of the incident

rays (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

112

Service Life: The period for which compliant product can be useful before retirement (National


Soiled/Soiling: The accumulation of materials that are not considered hazardous materials,

body fluids, or CBRN terrorism agents but that could degrade the performance of the ensemble

or ensemble element (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Structural Fire Fighting: The activities of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation in

buildings, enclosed structures, vehicles, marine vessels, or like properties that are involved in a

fire or emergency situation (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Structural Fire Fighting Protective Coat: The element of the protective ensemble that provides

protection to the upper torso and arms, excluding the hands and head (National Fire Protection

Association, 2007).

Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensemble: Multiple elements of compliant protective clothing

and equipment that when worn together provide protection from some risks, but not all risks, of

emergency incident operations (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Structural Fire Fighting Protective Garments: The coat, trouser, and coverall elements of the

protective ensemble (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Structural Fire Fighting Protective Trousers: The element of the protective ensemble that

provides protection to the lower torso and legs, excluding the ankles and feet (National Fire


Tensile Strength: The force at which a fiber or fabric will break when pulled in one dimension


Thermal Barrier: The component of an ensemble element or item that principally provides

thermal protection (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

Trim: Retroreflective and fluorescent materials attached to the outermost surface of the

protective ensemble for visibility enhancement. Retroreflective materials enhance nighttime

visibility, and fluorescent materials enhance day-time visibility (National Fire Protection

Association, 2006).

Turnout gear: the term used by many firefighters to refer to their outer system of protective

clothing. "Turnout gear" or “bunker gear” can refer, depending on the context, to just the

trousers, boots and jacket, or the entire combination of personal protective equipment. The

terms are derived from the fact that the pants and boots are traditionally kept by the

firefighter's bunk at the fire station to be readily available for use ("Bunker Gear,").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouser�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacket�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunk�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_station�

113

114

Appendix B

Photographs of Garments

Figure B1 Good and Poor Cleanliness – Outer Shell

115

Figure B2 Good and Poor Cleanliness – Liners

116

Figure B3 Damages

117

Appendix C

Inspection Checklist

ADVANCED INSPECTION CHECKLIST

Coat/Pant Identification: __________________________

Date Inspected:_______________________________

Inspector:___________________________________

LABELS YES NO Comments

Review labels to determine if shell and liner are compatible (serial #, date of mfr, material components, etc)

Inspect labels on shell to evaluate legibility Inspect labels on shell to determine if it is properly attached

Inspect labels on liner to evaluate legibility Inspect labels on liner to determine if it is properly attached

OUTER SHELL 1. Cleanliness

Overall Soiling (if localized, identify) 2. Physical Damage

Overall Evaluation Thin spots, holes, cuts, abrasions, rips, and tears Thermal damage (charring, burn holes, melting, discoloration) – 1” or larger

Examine for missing or broken stitches Discoloration Changes in material texture Changes in material strength Determine if knit wristlet is serviceable 3A. Closure Systems – Outer

Missing or damaged hardware Inspect and test for functionality Inspect for corrosion and/or damage Evaluate proper attachment 3B. Closure Systems – Inner Missing or damaged hardware

118

Inspect and test for functionality Inspect for corrosion and/or damage Evaluate proper attachment

4. Reflective Trim

Determine if trim is securely attached to t

Inspect for damage – 1” or larger

Conduct Flashlight Test at cuff area on pants and coats

*Prior to cutting liner perform the light evaluation (see Pg. 3 of Proposal – Testing Grid)

Moisture Barrier 1. Cleanliness

Overall Soiling (if localized, identify)

O t id O l

2. Physical Damage

Overall Evaluation

Thin spots, holes, cuts, abrasions, rips, and

Thermal damage (charring, burn holes, melting)

Examine seam seal tape

Discoloration

Changes in material texture

Changes in material strength

Thermal Liner 1. Cleanliness


2. Physical Damage

Overall Evaluation

Thin spots, holes, cuts, abrasions, rips, and


Examine for broken stitches - quilting

Discoloration



Extra Samples that Need to be Cut:

119

120

Appendix D

Data Tables

Table D1

Visual Inspection – Labels, Liner Attachment and Trim

Background Information Labels Liner Attachment Trim

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Year

s of U

se

Out

er sh

ell f

abric

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

ther

mal

line

r fab

ric

Shel

l & L

iner

labe

ls m

atch

Shel

l lab

el le

gibi

lity

Shel

l lab

el a

ttac

hed

Line

r lab

el le

gibi

lity

Line

r lab

el a

ttac

hed

Miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/da

mag

e

Prop

er a

ttac

hmen

t

Secu

rely

att

ache

d

Dam

age

1" o

r gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

1 3* 2* 2* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 2* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 9 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 13 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 14 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 15 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 16 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 17 2 3 1 1 2

1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1

18 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 19 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 20 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 21 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 22 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 23 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 24 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 25 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

121

*Codes located in Data Key

Table D1 (continued)

Visual Inspection – Labels and Closures


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Year

s of U

se

Out

er sh

ell f

abric

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

ther

mal

line

r fab

ric

Shel

l & L

iner

labe

ls m

atch

Shel

l lab

el le

gibi

lity

Shel

l lab

el a

ttac

hed

Line

r lab

el le

gibi

lity

Line

r lab

el a

ttac

hed

Miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/da

mag

e

Prop

er a

ttac

hmen

t

Secu

rely

att

ache

d

Dam

age

1" o

r gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

26 3 2 1 2 2

1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 27 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 28 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 29 3 2 1 2 2

2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1

30 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 31 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 32 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 33 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 34 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 35 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 36 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 37 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 38 3 3

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1

39 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 40 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 41 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 42 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 43 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 44 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 45 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 46 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 47 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 48 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 49 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 50 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 51 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1

122

52 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1


Visual Inspection – Labels and Closures


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Year

s of U

se

Out

er sh

ell f

abric

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

ther

mal

line

r fab

ric

Shel

l & L

iner

labe

ls m

atch

Shel

l lab

el le

gibi

lity

Shel

l lab

el a

ttac

hed

Line

r lab

el le

gibi

lity

Line

r lab

el a

ttac

hed

Miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/da

mag

e

Prop

er a

ttac

hmen

t

Secu

rely

att

ache

d

Dam

age

1" o

r gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

53 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 54 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 55 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 56 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 57 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 58 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 59 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 60 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 61 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 62 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 63 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 64 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 65 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 66 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 67 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1A 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2A 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3A 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 4A 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

123

Table D2

Visual Inspection - Closure Functionality

Garm

ent N

umbe

r Closures

Hook

/loop

- m

issin

g or

dam

aged

Hook

/loop

- fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/loop

- pr

oper

att

achm

ent

Zipp

er -

miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Zipp

er -

func

tiona

lity

Zipp

er -

corr

osio

n/da

mag

e

Zipp

er -

prop

er a

ttac

hmen

t

Clas

p - m

issin

g or

dam

aged

Clas

p - f

unct

iona

lity

Clas

p - c

orro

sion/

dam

age

Clas

p - p

rope

r att

achm

ent

1 1* 2* 2* 2* 1* 2* 1*

2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

3 1 2 2

2* 1* 1* 1* 4 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

6 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

7 1 1 2 2 1 2 1

8 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

9 2 1 1

2 1 1 1 10 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

11 2 1 1

2 1 1 1 12 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

13 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 14 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

15 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

16 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

17 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 18 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

19 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 20 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

21 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

22 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

23 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 24 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

25 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 *Codes are located in Data Key

124


Visual Inspection - Closure Functionality

Garm

ent N

umbe

r Closures

Hook

/loop

- m

issin

g or

dam

aged

Hook

/loop

- fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/loop

- pr

oper

att

achm

ent

Zipp

er -

miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Zipp

er -

func

tiona

lity

Zipp

er -

corr

osio

n/da

mag

e

Zipp

er -

prop

er a

ttac

hmen

t

Clas

p - m

issin

g or

dam

aged

Clas

p - f

unct

iona

lity

Clas

p - c

orro

sion/

dam

age

Clas

p - p

rope

r att

achm

ent

26 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 27 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

28

2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 29

2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

30 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

31 3 1 1

1 2 1 1

32 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 33 2 1 1 2 1 2 2

34 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 35 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

36 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

37 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

38 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

39 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

40 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

41 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

42 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 43 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

44

2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 45 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

46 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 47 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

48 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

49 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

50 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 51 2 1 1

1 1 2 1

52 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

125


Visual Inspection - Closure Functionality Ga

rmen

t Num

ber

Closures Ho

ok/lo

op -

miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Hook

/loop

- fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/loop

- pr

oper

att

achm

ent

Zipp

er -

miss

ing

or d

amag

ed

Zipp

er -

func

tiona

lity

Zipp

er -

corr

osio

n/da

mag

e

Zipp

er -

prop

er a

ttac

hmen

t

Clas

p - m

issin

g or

dam

aged

Clas

p - f

unct

iona

lity

Clas

p - c

orro

sion/

dam

age

Clas

p - p

rope

r att

achm

ent

53 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 54 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

55 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

56 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

57 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

58 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

59 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 60 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

61 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 62 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

63 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 64 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

65 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 66 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

67 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 1A 2 1 1

2 1 2 1

2A 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 3A 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

4A 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

126

Table D3

Visual Inspection – Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r Outer Shell

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Brok

en st

itche

s

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

Knit

wris

tlet i

s ser

vice

able

1 3* 3* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 1* 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2

10 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 11 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 12 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 14 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 16 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 17 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 18 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 19 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 21 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 22 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2

*Codes are located in Data Key

127


Visual Inspection – Outer Shell Ga

rmen

t Num

ber

Outer Shell Cl

eanl

ines

s

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Brok

en st

itche

s

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

Knit

wris

tlet i

s ser

vice

able

26 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 27 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 28 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 29 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 30 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 31 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 32 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 34 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 35 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 36 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 37 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 38 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 39 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 40 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 41 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 42 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 43 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 44 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 45 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 46 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 47 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 48 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 49 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 50 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1

128

51 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 52 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 2


Visual Inspection – Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Outer Shell

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Brok

en st

itche

s

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

Knit

wris

tlet i

s ser

vice

able

53 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 54 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 55 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 56 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 57 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 58 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 59 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 60 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 61 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 62 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 63 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 64 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 65 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 66 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 67 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1A 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3A 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 4A 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

129

Table D4

Visual Inspection – Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner

Garm

ent N

umbe

r Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Seal

tape

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Brok

en st

itche

s qui

lting

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

1 2* 3* 2* 2* 1* 1* 2* 2* 2* 3* 2* 2* 2* 2* 1* 1* 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 6 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 7 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 9 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2

10 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 12 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 14 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 18 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 21 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 23 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 24 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 25 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2

*Codes are located in Data Key

130


Visual Inspection – Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner

Garm

ent N

umbe

r Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Seal

tape

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Brok

en st

itche

s qui

lting

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

26 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 27 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 28 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 29 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 30 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 31 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 32 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 34 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 35 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 37 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 38 3 3 2 1

2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2

39 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 41 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 42 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 43 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 44 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 45 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 46 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 47 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 48 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 49 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 50 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 51 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 52 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

131


Visual Inspection – Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner Ga

rmen

t Num

ber

Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner Cl

eanl

ines

s

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Seal

tape

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, h

oles

, cut

s

Ther

mal

dam

age

Brok

en st

itche

s qui

lting

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge m

ater

ial t

extu

re

Chan

ge m

ater

ial s

tren

gth

53 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 54 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 55 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 56 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 57 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 58 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 59 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 61 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 62 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 63 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 64 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 65 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 66 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 67 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1A 3 3 2 2

1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

2A 2 2 2 2

1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3A 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4A 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2

132

Table D5

Data Key Ba

ckgr

ound

Info

rmat

ion

Garment Number Years of Use 1 - 2-3yrs 2 - 5-7yrs 3 - 9-10yrs.

Retired 1 - Yes 2 - No

Outer shell fabric

1 - Nomex 2 - Nomex/Kevlar

3 - Kevlar/PBI 4 - Basofil/Kevlar

Moisture Barrier

1 - Crosstech/Crosstech PTFE/Stedair 4000 2 - RT7100/Stedair 3000

3 - Stedair 2000 4 - Aquatech

thermal liner fabric 1 - Aramid Batt

2 - E-89 3 - Recycled Batt

Labe

ls

Shell & Liner labels match 1 - Yes 2 - No Shell label legibility 1 - Yes 2 - No

Shell label attached 1 - Yes 2 - No Liner label legibility 1 - Yes 2 - No Liner label attached 1 - Yes 2 - No

Shel

l

Shell - Cleanliness 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent Shell - Overall Evaluation 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent Shell - spots, holes, cuts 1 - Yes 2 - No

Shell - thermal damage 1 - Yes 2 - No Shell - broken stitches 1 - Yes 2 - No Shell - discoloration 1 - Yes 2 - No Shell - ∆ material texture 1 - Yes 2 - No Shell - ∆ material strength 1 - Yes 2 - No Knit wristlet is serviceable 1 - Yes 2 - No

133


Data Key

Clos

ures

Hook/loop - missing or damaged 1 - Yes 2 - No

Hook/loop - functionality 1 - Yes 2 - No Hook/loop - proper attachment 1 - Yes 2 - No Zipper - missing or damaged 1 - Yes 2 - No Zipper - functionality 1 - Yes 2 - No Zipper - corrosion/damage 1 - Yes 2 - No Zipper - proper attachment 1 - Yes 2 - No Clasp - missing or damaged 1 - Yes 2 - No Clasp - functionality 1 - Yes 2 - No Clasp - corrosion/damage 1 - Yes 2 - No Clasp - proper attachment 1 - Yes 2 - No

Line

r Atc

hmt. Liner Atch - missing or damaged 1 - Yes 2 - No

Liner Atch - functionality 1 - Yes 2 - No Liner Atch - corrosion/damage 1 - Yes 2 - No Liner Atch - proper attachment 1 - Yes 2 - No

Trim

Trim - securely attached 1 - Yes 2 - No Trim - damage 1" or greater 1 - Yes 2 - No Trim - Flashlight Test 1 - Pass 2 - Fail

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Moisture Barrier - Cleanliness 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent Moist. Bar. - Overall Evaluation 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent Moist. Bar. - spots, holes, cuts 1 - Yes 2 - No

Moist. Bar. - thermal damage 1 - Yes 2 - No

Moisture Barrier - seal tape 1 – loose in 3 +

2 – loose in 1 +

3 - securely atch.

Moisture Barrier - discoloration 1 - Yes 2 - No Moist. Bar. - ∆ material texture 1 - Yes 2 - No Moist. Bar. - ∆ material strength 1 - Yes 2 - No

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Thermal - Cleanliness 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent Thermal - Overall Evaluation 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent Thermal - spots, holes, cuts 1 - Yes 2 - No

Thermal - thermal damage 1 - Yes 2 - No Thermal - brk. stitches quilting 1 - Yes 2 - No Thermal - discoloration 1 - Yes 2 - No Thermal - ∆ material texture 1 - Yes 2 - No Thermal - ∆ material strength 1 - Yes 2 - No

134


Data Key TH

L THL Results - After Use THL Company Initial - 2000

THL % Loss THL Company Initial - 2007 THL % Loss

TPP

TPP Time Average - sec. TPP Value Average = cal/cm² FFF Value Average = (cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)

Pain Time Average - sec. Company - original TPP 2000 Company - original TPP 2007

Cup

Test

Coat - right panel 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Coat - left panel 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Coat - right shoulder seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Coat - left underarm seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - right seat 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - left knee 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - seat seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - crotch seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Entire Garment Average 1 - Pass 2 - Fail

Hydr

osta

tic T

est

Coat - right panel 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Coat - left panel 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Coat - right shoulder seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Coat - left underarm seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - right seat 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - left knee 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - seat seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Pant - crotch seam 1 - Pass 2 - Fail Entire Garment Average 1 - Pass 2 - Fail

Trim

Re

flect

ivity

Front 1 - Pass 2 - Fail

Back 1 - Pass 2 - Fail

Entire Garment Average 1 - Pass 2 - Fail

135

Table D6

TPP Results

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value

FFF Value Pain Time

TPP Time

Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time

Average Company Information

sec. cal / cm² (cal / cm²) /

(oz / yd²) sec. sec. cal / cm²

(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)

sec. Original TPP - 2000

Original TPP - 2007

1 A 28.5 56.7 6.3 20.4

27.7 55.2 6.1 19.6 48.9 41.2 B 26.9 53.6 5.9 18.9 C 27.7 55.3 6.1 19.5

2 A 31.1 61.9 6.8 22.3

30.1 60.0 6.6 21.3 48.9 41.2 B 27.9 55.6 6.1 19.5 C 31.4 62.6 6.9 22

4 A 27.7 55.1 6.1 20.6

28.2 56.1 6.2 20.7 48.9 41.2 B 28.1 56 6.2 20.6 C 28.7 57.2 6.3 21

5 A 29.9 59.5 6.6 22.1

30.0 59.8 6.6 22.0 48.9 41.2 B 29.4 58.6 6.5 21.3 C 30.7 61.2 6.8 22.6

6 A 27.4 54.7 6 20

27.6 55.1 6.1 19.9 48.9 41.2 B 27.7 55.2 6.1 19.6 C 27.8 55.4 6.1 20.1

7 A 26.6 52.9 5.8 18.5

26.2 52.1 5.7 18.3 48.9 41.2 B 25.9 51.6 5.7 18.2 C 26.1 51.9 5.7 18.2

136


TPP Results

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value

FFF Value Pain Time

TPP Time

Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time




(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)


Original TPP - 2007

12 A 24.6 49 5.4 17.2

24.9 49.7 5.5 17.4 39.5 40.8 B 24.1 48 5.3 16.6 C 26.1 52 5.7 18.3

13 A 25.1 49.9 5.5 17.7

24.9 49.5 5.5 17.5 38 40.8 B 25 49.7 5.5 17.6 C 24.5 48.8 5.4 17.2

15 A 24.1 48.1 5.3 17.3

24.1 48.3 5.3 17.4 38 40.8 B 24.3 49 5.4 17.9 C 24 47.9 5.3 16.9

16 A 25.7 51.1 5.6 17.9

25.9 51.5 5.7 17.9 39.5 40.8 B 25.6 50.9 5.6 17.6 C 26.3 52.4 5.8 18.1

21 A 24.3 48.4 5.3 17.3

24.8 49.3 5.4 17.5 38 40.8 B 25.2 50.1 5.5 17.8 C 24.8 49.4 5.4 17.5

28 A 25.6 51.7 5.7 17.5

24.8 50.2 5.5 17.0 36.2 36.6 B 24 48.5 5.3 16.4 C 24.9 50.3 5.5 17

137


TPP Results

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value

FFF Value Pain Time

TPP Time

Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time




(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)


Original TPP - 2007

29 A 25.6 51.8 5.7 17.5

26.3 53.3 5.9 18.2 36.2 36.6 B 26.1 52.9 5.8 17.9 C 27.3 55.1 6.1 19.2

30 A 27.3 55.3 6.1 19.7

29.2 59.0 6.2 20.9 B 31.2 63.1 7 22.3 C 29 58.7 5.5 20.8

33 A 26.9 54.4 6 19.4

27.8 56.2 6.2 20.0 42.9 B 29.1 58.8 6.5 20.9 C 27.4 55.4 6.1 19.7

34 A 29 58.6 6.5 20.7

28.7 58.0 6.4 20.4 B 27.5 55.6 6.1 19.4 C 29.6 59.9 6.6 21

35 A 23.2 47 5.2 15.6

22.7 46.0 5.1 15.4 39.2 B 23.3 47.2 5.2 16 C 21.7 43.9 4.8 14.7

36 A 23.1 46.7 5.1 16

22.3 45.1 5.0 15.3 39.2 B 22.5 45.4 5 15.1 C 21.4 43.3 4.8 14.8

138


TPP Results

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value

FFF Value Pain Time

TPP Time

Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time




(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)


Original TPP - 2007

37 A 23.7 47.8 5.3 15.6

23.0 46.4 5.1 15.4 39.2 B 22.6 45.6 5 15.2 C 22.7 45.9 5.1 15.3

38 A 22.2 44.8 4.9 15.7

23.0 46.5 5.1 16.6 B 23.4 47.3 5.2 16.9 C 23.5 47.5 5.2 17.3

40 A 24 48.5 5.3 16.4

23.7 47.9 5.3 16.1 41 B 22.9 46.3 5.1 15.6 C 24.2 48.9 5.4 16.4

41 A 23.1 46.7 5.1 15.9

23.2 46.9 5.2 16.0 41 B 22.7 46 5.1 15.7 C 23.7 48 5.3 16.3

42 A 21.6 43.6 4.8 15

21.7 43.9 4.9 15.0 40.7 36.6 B 21.4 43.2 4.8 14.5 C 22.2 45 5 15.5

45 A 22.9 46.3 5.1 15.5

22.6 45.7 5.0 15.2 44.7 36.9 B 21.9 44.2 4.9 14.6 C 23.1 46.6 5.1 15.5

139


TPP Results

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value

FFF Value Pain Time

TPP Time

Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time




(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)


Original TPP - 2007

48 A 22.8 46.1 5.1 15.7

22.7 45.8 5.1 15.6 39.9 B 22.4 45.2 5 15.3 C 22.8 46.1 5.1 15.7

49 A 22.8 46.2 5.1 15.8

22.5 45.5 5.0 15.6 39.9 B 22.1 44.7 4.9 15.3 C 22.5 45.5 5 15.6

50 A 22.2 44.9 4.9 15.4

23.3 47.2 5.2 16.0 39.9 B 23.7 48 5.3 16.4 C 24 48.6 5.4 16.3

51 A 22.5 45.4 5 15.4

24.7 49.6 5.5 16.9 39.9 B 28.5 57.6 6.4 19 C 23 45.8 5 16.4

55 A 29.1 58.1 6.4 21.3

29.5 58.8 6.5 21.6 B 31 61.6 6.8 22.8 C 28.4 56.6 6.2 20.6

56 A 27.6 55 6.1 19.5

28.4 56.5 6.2 20.1 B 29.6 59 6.5 20.9 C 27.9 55.5 6.1 19.9

140


TPP Results

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value

FFF Value Pain Time

TPP Time

Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time




(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)


Original TPP - 2007

59 A 26.5 52.8 5.8 19.2

27.6 55.1 6.1 19.8 B 27.5 54.9 6.1 19.6 C 28.9 57.6 6.4 20.6

141

Table D7

THL Results

Coat Outer Shell

Moisture Barrier Thermal

Liner Years of

Use

THL Results - After Use

THL Company

Initial - 2000 THL % Loss after 2000

1 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 7 (retired) 197.3 209.6 5.9

2 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 8 (retired) 176.2 209.6 15.9

4 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 2 - 3 210.7 209.6 -0.5

5 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 5 - 7 165.9 209.6 20.8

6 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 2 - 3 202 209.6 3.6

7 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aralite (Aramid) 5 - 7 178.1 209.6 15

12 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 5 - 7 198.5 245.7 19.2

13 Kevlar/PBI

Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 - 3 206.5 193.1 -6.9

15 Kevlar/PBI

Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 - 3 215.7 193.1 -11.7

16 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 5 - 7 203.2 245.7 17.3

21 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aralite (Aramid) 2 - 3 206.5 193.1 -6.9

28 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 7 (retired) 233.7 275.6 15.2

29 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 8 (retired) 236.2 275.6 14.3

30 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 2000 Recycled Batt 6 208.8

33 Nomex/Kevlar Aquatech Aralite (Aramid) 9 (retired) 114.6 151.3 24.3

34 Nomex/Kevlar Sted 2000 Recycled Batt 3 175.3

35 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech E-89 4 (retired) 229.9 275.3 16.5

142


THL Results

Coat Outer Shell

Moisture Barrier Thermal

Liner Years of Use


THL Company

Initial - 2000 THL % Loss after 2000

36 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech E-89 7 (retired) 234.8 275.3 14.7

37 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech E-89 7(retired) 257.1 275.3 6.6

38 Kevlar/PBI unknown unknown ? (retired) 196.7

40 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 7 (retired) 239.7 276.4 13.3

41 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 5 (retired) 223.3 276.4 19.2

42 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Aramid Quilt 5 - 7 216.4 288.6 25

45 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech E-89 2 - 3 228.1 268 14.9

48 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 - 3 253.3



51 Kevlar/PBI Crosstech Glide/Araflo Quilt E-89 2 - 3 249

55 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1 (retired) 203.1 56 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1.5 (retired) 179.9 59 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 3000 Meta-Aramid Quilt E-89 1.5 (retired) 207.2

143

Table D8

Flammability

Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length After Flame After Glow Char Length After Flame After Glow Char Length

2 0 22.6 1/2

3 0 51.4 1/2

4 0 36.9 5/32 0 6.7 5/8 0 30.9 0

5 0 18.8 1/2

6 0 12 1/2 0 2 2 15/16 0 34.4 0

7 0 62.2 11/32

8 0 13.5 3/8

9 0 10.8 3/8

10 0 5.5 1/4 1.7 2 2 0 2.2 0

11 0 20 1/8 0 4.9 1 1/2 0 24.2 0

12 0 16.4 1/32 0 1.2 3 3/4 0 0 0

13 0 13.2 1/8

14 0 6 0

15 0 12.7 1/16

16 0 8.4 0 Note. After Flame - seconds, After Glow - seconds, Char Length - inches

144


Flammability


17 0 12.4 0 0 1.6 1 1/4 0 2.7 0

18 0 9.4 5/32

19 0 11.3 1/16

20 0 22.6 0

21 0 24.9 3/32

22 0 45 1/2 0 0 1 15/16 0 0.8 0

23 0 11.5 1/2

24 0 21.1 3/8 0 0.7 15/16 0 21.5 0

25 0 18.4 1/8

26 0 18 9/16 13.5 0 2 5/8 0 33.1 1/4

27 0 18.5 3/8 0 1.4 2 3/4 0 7.4 5/32

28 0 18.7 7/16

29 0 16 5/32

30 0 15.4 17/32

31 0 10.1 1/4 Note. After Flame - seconds, After Glow - seconds, Char Length - inches

145


Flammability


32 0 44.4 13/32

33 0 12.6 1/2 0 6.4 1 0 45.8 0

34 0 30.1 1/4

35 0 37.6 9/32

36 0 57.9 9/32

37 0 27.6 17/32

39 0 73.4 0

40 0 17.5 1/4

41 0 126.1 1/32

42 0 38.7 0 0 2.2 1 1/2 0 4.7 0

43 0 23.1 0 0 1.2 1 1/4 0 2.3 11/32

44 0 15.7 1/4 0 23.2 1 1/4 0 27.8 0

45 0 40.8 0

46 0 29.5 9/32

47 0 24.9 3/32 Note. After Flame - seconds, After Glow - seconds, Char Length - inches

146


Flammability


48 0 16.4 13/32

57 0 16.8 3/8

58 0 14.8 3/8

59 0 30.4 1/2

60 0 12.3 1/8 0 2.3 3 1/8 0 31.8 1/8

61 0 14.7 0 0 1.3 1 5/16 0 93.9 0

62 0 20 0

63 0 72.2 3/32

64 0 43.9 0

65 0 19.4 1/8

66 0 1.1 0

67 0 99.3 0 Note. After Flame - seconds, After Glow - seconds, Char Length - inches

147

Table D9

Tearing Strength

Sample # Vertical Horizontal Sample # Vertical Horizontal 1 43.81 32.46 35 36.42 35.57 2 10.80 10.25 36 36.25 29.13 3 22.45 33.94 37 28.17 24.06 4 26.54 21.17 38 28.97 30.65 5 27.95 25.91 39 27.42 35.95 6 39.01 37.27 40 28.33 25.68 7 50.28 38.47 41 32.94 27.17 8 42.51 35.60 42 60.85 50.71 9 38.58 41.52 43 50.73 66.60

10 34.25 31.98 44 38.38 36.60 11 36.08 45.26 45 77.35 52.43 12 33.83 31.87 46 22.17 37.12 13 36.89 36.81 47 23.83 58.65 14 49.91 49.05 48 38.41 34.94 15 30.98 33.21 49 47.86 26.61 16 36.35 33.50 50 45.62 38.72 17 33.82 35.90 51 47.12 29.87 18 38.04 42.41 52 30.12 37.35 19 36.42 41.83 53 44.49 45.04 20 32.44 35.80 54 46.40 44.94 21 35.35 37.36 55 48.18 43.92 22 33.20 29.53 56 42.25 39.99 23 27.64 33.62 57 44.39 45.59 24 30.85 31.08 58 44.34 47.85 25 34.93 32.89 59 43.82 44.42 26 24.95 31.69 60 27.37 27.66 27 27.55 23.72 61 28.90 29.93 28 27.61 28.24 62 30.94 35.09 29 26.76 33.03 63 17.44 21.38 30 30.63 28.92 64 33.99 34.92 31 34.29 41.53 65 35.32 37.49 32 45.75 39.70 66 30.81 31.70 33 44.40 41.90 67 30.53 37.08 34 48.24 48.24

Note. Results are in pounds of force (lbf)

148

Table D10

Seam Strength

Outer Shell

Sample #

Seat Seam 1

Seat Seam 2

Average Seat Seam

Inseam 1

Inseam 2

Average Inseam

3 143.0 162.1 152.6 111.9 163.8 137.9 8 146.7 149.6 148.2 133.6 112.5 123.1 9 157.0 131.5 144.3 160.3 74.4 117.4

10 157.7 194.7 176.2 165.0 112.1 138.6 11 190.9 220.0 205.5 80.8 108.9 94.9 14 148.2 169.1 158.7 145.7 145.5 145.6 17 135.8 140.5 138.2 119.6 168.9 144.3 18 184.8 170.3 177.6 172.0 164.3 168.2 19 190.9 193.6 192.3 133.9 193.9 163.9 20 142.8 145.1 144.0 90.4 121.1 105.8 22 108.8 96.2 102.5 190.5 166.7 178.6 23 93.8 168.8 131.3 114.7 141.3 128.0 24 152.5 156.1 154.3 195.6 185.9 190.8 25 200.2 206.9 203.6 162.0 145.6 153.8 26 117.3 181.1 149.2 134.2 147.9 141.1 27 154.5 116.7 135.6 147.2 173.8 160.5 31 139.8 123.0 131.4 109.0 90.6 99.8 32 133.6 150.0 141.8 158.2 165.0 161.6 39 142.0 151.9 147.0 109.3 151.6 130.5 43 194.2 213.6 203.9 180.7 206.2 193.5 44 153.1 143.2 148.2 157.0 182.6 169.8 46 161.1 204.7 182.9 98.2 125.5 111.9 47 203.8 125.7 164.8 102.9 90.0 96.5 52 141.2 125.6 133.4 114.1 170.3 142.2 53 150.4 185.3 167.9 183.7 176.2 180.0 54 214.5 202.5 208.5 182.5 152.8 167.7 57 205.7 175.4 190.6 153.5 162.0 157.8 58 202.1 208.6 205.4 142.4 152.3 147.4 61 115.7 134.1 124.9 134.4 123.6 129.0 62 141.0 160.9 151.0 132.1 71.5 101.8 65 167.7 161.3 164.5 165.5 173.4 169.5 67 178.7 162.3 170.5 166.8 133.7 150.3

149

Note. Results are recorded in pound of force (lbf)


Seam Strength

Moisture Barrier

Sample #

Seat Seam 1

Seat Seam 2

Average Seat Seam

Inseam 1 Inseam 2

Average Inseam

3 36.4 35.1 35.8 43.0 50.3 46.7 8 73.7 61.2 67.5 68.8 63.3 66.1 9 81.4 82.9 82.2 75.6 72.7 74.2

10 77.4 68.1 72.8 85.9 72.3 79.1 11 73.0 75.1 74.1 75.2 67.1 71.2 14 81.4 75.5 78.5 74.7 76.0 75.4 17 83.0 80.5 81.8 64.6 48.7 56.7 18 79.9 79.2 79.6 74.7 95.2 85.0 19 73.7 81.6 77.7 62.6 77.1 69.9 20 82.3 90.5 86.4 94.6 74.0 84.3 22 86.5 71.2 78.9 65.9 86.1 76.0 23 78.3 76.5 77.4 76.7 90.7 83.7 24 79.8 95.1 87.5 74.1 80.9 77.5 25 79.8 82.2 81.0 81.7 82.2 82.0 26 86.5 80.7 83.6 71.3 74.4 72.9 27 70.7 85.6 78.2 76.4 63.9 70.2 31 51.1 49.2 50.2 52.1 51.5 51.8 32 53.9 57.7 55.8 62.0 66.1 64.1 39 82.5 76.4 79.5 83.8 85.7 84.8 43 79.8 79.1 79.5 93.6 81.5 87.6 44 37.4 34.9 36.2 39.6 41.1 40.4 46 77.7 80.7 79.2 89.1 85.0 87.1 47 78.7 78.1 78.4 70.6 78.8 74.7 52 82.6 74.0 78.3 85.3 88.5 86.9 53 81.2 78.5 79.9 79.4 76.0 77.7 54 77.0 73.4 75.2 80.8 72.2 76.5 57 76.3 68.8 72.6 76.9 76.1 76.5 58 62.4 33.6 48.0 35.2 49.6 42.4 61 83.1 79.9 81.5 85.0 87.2 86.1 62 92.4 86.4 89.4 85.1 81.8 83.5 65 80.8 74.9 77.9 74.0 87.6 80.8 67 55.1 65.8 60.5 94.5 70.9 82.7

150

Note. Results are recorded in pounds of force (lbf)


Seam Strength

Thermal Liner

Sample #

Seat Seam 1

Seat Seam 2

Average Seat Seam

Inseam 1

Inseam 2

Average Inseam

3 112.6 110.5 111.6 99.3 82.0 90.7 8 97.6 114.2 105.9 84.1 93.4 88.8 9 107.2 118.6 112.9 115.1 92.7 103.9

10 108.8 127.8 118.3 101.9 100.6 101.3 11 89.9 94.4 92.2 115.8 111.9 113.9 14 149.9 150.9 150.4 70.9 127.4 99.2 17 121.3 138.6 130.0 113.9 68.8 91.4 18 62.3 70.5 66.4 60.6 76.2 68.4 19 128.3 140.1 134.2 121.8 103.2 112.5 20 114.3 135.3 124.8 117.4 112.7 115.1 22 140.0 104.7 122.4 100.3 108.1 104.2 23 109.8 157.5 133.7 88.0 85.2 86.6 24 99.4 129.3 114.4 106.1 108.6 107.4 25 131.8 139.9 135.9 110.7 96.1 103.4 26 103.7 99.6 101.7 72.7 94.8 83.8 27 91.6 91.8 91.7 92.5 114.6 103.6 31 108.9 119.3 114.1 103.3 118.3 110.8 32 118.0 118.2 118.1 114.7 117.0 115.9 39 86.5 88.8 87.7 88.8 110.8 99.8 43 90.7 97.7 94.2 91.9 86.6 89.3 44 102.4 94.5 98.5 98.3 84.5 91.4 46 118.9 108.0 113.5 87.2 108.9 98.1 47 106.2 93.5 99.9 101.8 88.1 95.0 52 133.3 107.2 120.3 55.3 63.9 59.6 53 131.1 98.1 114.6 94.2 93.0 93.6 54 130.6 107.9 119.3 141.9 122.8 132.4 57 132.8 131.4 132.1 120.2 131.1 125.7 58 133.4 134.1 133.8 126.7 133.9 130.3 61 166.7 144.5 155.6 144.4 128.1 136.3 62 108.3 124.0 116.2 92.0 105.5 98.8 65 114.3 149.6 132.0 94.6 126.2 110.4 67 114.0 88.6 101.3 93.7 121.7 107.7

151

Note. Results are recorded in pound of force (lbf)

Table D11


Moisture Barrier Fabric Moisture Barrier Seam Overall Average

Sample #

Rater 1

Rater 2 Average Sample #

Rater 1

Rater 2 Average

1A Pass Pass Pass 1C Pass Pass Pass Pass

1B Pass Pass Pass 1D Pass Pass Pass 2A Pass Pass Pass 2C Pass Pass Pass

Pass 2B Pass Pass Pass 2D Pass Pass Pass 3A Pass Pass Pass 3C Pass Pass Pass

Fail 3B Pass Pass Pass 3D Fail Fail Fail 4A Pass Pass Pass 4C Pass Pass Pass






Pass 9B Pass Pass Pass 9D Pass Pass Pass

10A Pass Pass Pass 10C Pass Pass Pass Fail

10B Pass Pass Pass 10D Fail Fail Fail 11A Pass Pass Pass 11C Pass Pass Pass





Coat

Pant

A - Right Panel A - Right Seat

B -Left Panel B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam D - Crotch Seam

152




Sample #

Rater 1


Rater 1

Rater 2 Average















Coat Pant





153




Sample #

Rater 1


Rater 1

Rater 2 Average



Pass 29B Pass Pass Pass 29D Pass Pass Pass 30A Fail Fail Fail 30C Fail Fail Fail

Fail 30B Pass Pass Pass 30D Pass Pass Pass 31A Pass Pass Pass 31C Fail Fail Fail

Fail 31B Pass Pass Pass 31D Fail Fail Fail 32A Pass Pass Pass 32C Fail Fail Fail

Fail 32B Pass Pass Pass 32D Fail Fail Fail 33A Fail Fail Fail 33C Fail Fail Fail

Fail 33B Fail Fail Fail 33D Fail Fail Fail 34A Pass Pass Pass 34C Fail Fail Fail

Fail 34B Pass Pass Pass 34D Pass Pass Pass 35A Pass Pass Pass 35C Pass Pass Pass



Pass 37B Pass Pass Pass 37D Pass Pass Pass 38A Pass Pass Pass 38C Fail Fail Fail





Coat Pant





154




Sample #

Rater 1


Rater 1

Rater 2 Average







Pass 47B Pass Pass Pass 47D Pass Pass Pass 48A Fail Fail Fail 48C Pass Pass Pass





Fail 52B Fail Fail Fail 52D Fail Fail Fail 53A Pass Pass Pass 53C Pass Pass Pass



Fail 55B Pass Pass Pass 55D Pass Pass Pass

Coat

Pant





155




Sample #

Rater 1


Rater 1

Rater 2 Average






Pass 60B Pass Pass Pass 60D Pass Pass Pass 61A Fail Fail Fail 61C Fail Fail Fail

Fail 61B Fail Fail Fail 61D Fail Fail Fail 62A Pass Pass Pass 62C Pass Pass Pass

Fail 62B Pass Pass Pass 62D Fail Fail Fail 63A Pass Pass Pass 63C Fail Fail Fail






Coat

Pant





156

Appendix E

Material Trademark Glossary

Advance™ - a p-aramid/m-aramid blended outer shell manufactured by Southern Mills

Aquatech™- a polyurethane moisture barrier manufactured by Coated Fabrics International

Araflo™ - an apertured spunlaced nonwoven sold by Lion Apparel

Aralite™ - a aramid batt thermal liner manufactured by Southern Mills

Crosstech® - a ePTFE moisture barrier manufactured by W.L. Gore

Kevlar® - a high strength p-aramid fiber manufactured by DuPont

Nomex® - a m-aramid fiber manufactured by DuPont

Nomex® E89™ - a spunlaced nonwoven manufactured by DuPont

PBI - a polybenzamidazole fiber manufactured by PBI Fibers

PBI Matrix™ - a p-aramid filament reinforced p-aramid/PBI outer shell

RT7100™ - a ePTFE moisture barrier manufactured by W.L. Gore

Scotchlite™ - a reflective trim manufactured by 3M

Stedair™ 3000 - a ePTFE moisture barrier manufactured by Stedfast

157

References

Adanur, S. (1995). Safety and Protective Textiles. In S. Adanur (Ed.), Wellington Sears Handbook of Industrial Textiles (pp. 415-425, 439). Lancaster, Pennsylivania: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.

Applications of ePTFE: Products with Highly Valued Features, Functions, and Benefits (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.gore.com/en_xx/technology/timeline/applications_eptfe.html

ASTM (2002). Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate (Vol. F 1868 - 02, pp. 1-8). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.

ASTM (2007). Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by Trapezoid Procedure (Vol. D5587 - 07a, pp. 6). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

ASTM (2009). Standard Practice for Describing Retroreflection (Vol. E 808, pp. 10). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Austin, C. C., Wang, D., Ecobichon, D. J., & Dussault, G. (2001). Characterization of volatile organic compounds in smoke at municipal structural fires. [Article]. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part A, 63(6), 437-458.

Behnke, W. P., & Blaustein, M. A. (1987). Nomex® and Kevlar® Aramid Fibers for Flame Protection. Paper presented at the 32nd International SAMPE Symposium.

Brehm, D. (2003). Firefighter, Protect Thyself. Fire Chief, 47, 1. Bumbarger, S. (2000). Heat Stress Reducing the Hazards of High Heat. Occupational Health &

Safety. Bunker Gear (November 12, 2009). Retrieved November 17, 2009, from

http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ Coca, A., Roberge, R., Shepherd, A., Powell, J. B., Stull, J. O., & Williams, W. J. (2008). Ergonomic

comparison of a chem/bio prototype firefighter ensemble and a standard ensemble. Corner, C. (2009). Turnout Gear 101 Outershells & Thermal Barriers. Dills, R. L., & Hagood, C. (2008). Chemical Composition of Overhaul Smoke After Use of Three

Extinguishing Agents. Fire Technology, 44(4), 419-437. DuPont Personal Protection NOMEX® & KEVLAR® Firefighter Products Home (2009). Retrieved

6-22, 2009, from

http://www.gore.com/en_xx/technology/timeline/applications_eptfe.html�

http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/�

158

http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/Nomex/firefighter/firefighter_products.html

Evaporative Cooling Discussion (2000). In A. I. Incorporated (Ed.). Fahl, N., & Faile, M. (1991). Polybenzimidazole Blends in Protective Apparel. Fire Facts about Fires - Maryland (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2009, from http://www.redcross-

cmd.org/Chapter/fireFactsMD.html Firefighter and fire-resistant clothing and fabric (2004). Textile Journal, 121(3), 36-42. Ghosh, T. K., & Barker, R. L. (n.d.). Thermal Protective Performance of PBI and Aramid Fabrics:

Measuring the Effect of Mechanical Stress. Journal of Industrial Fabrics, 9. Globe Firefighter Suits : Moisture Barrier (2009). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/moisture-barrier/default.aspx Globe Firefighter Suits : Outer Shell (2009). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/outer-shell/default.aspx Globe Firefighter Suits : Thermal Liner (2009). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/thermal-liner/default.aspx Gojdics, R. (2002). Personal Protective Clothing: Purchasing flame-resistant secondary clothing.

Professional Safety, 47(10), 56. Goldman, R. E. (2005). Personal protective systems for first responders. [Article]. Ashrae Journal,

47(2), 50-+. Gore™ Fabric Performance: Breathable (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.3-Breathable/2.2.3-Breathable?sectorid=1169509172163

Gore™ Fabric Performance: Waterproof and Liquid Resistant (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.1-Waterproof/2.2.1-Waterproof?sectorid=1169509172163

Gore™ Protective Fabrics: Chemicals and Biologial Hazards (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.4-ChemBio/2.2.4-ChemBio?sectorid=1169509172163

Gore™ Protective Fabrics: Membrane (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.1.1-Membrane/2.1.1-Membrane?sectorid=1169509172163

http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/Nomex/firefighter/firefighter_products.html�


http://www.redcross-cmd.org/Chapter/fireFactsMD.html�


http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/moisture-barrier/default.aspx�

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/outer-shell/default.aspx�

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/thermal-liner/default.aspx�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.3-Breathable/2.2.3-Breathable?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.3-Breathable/2.2.3-Breathable?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.1-Waterproof/2.2.1-Waterproof?sectorid=1169509172163�


http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.4-ChemBio/2.2.4-ChemBio?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.4-ChemBio/2.2.4-ChemBio?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.1.1-Membrane/2.1.1-Membrane?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.1.1-Membrane/2.1.1-Membrane?sectorid=1169509172163�

159

Gore™ Quality Systematic Seam Sealing (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/Services_Fire&Safety/Systematic-Seam-Sealing?sectorid=1169509172163

Hasenmeier, P. (2008). The History of Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment. Fire Engineering.

Horrocks, A. R. (2005). Thermal (heat and fire) Protection. In R. A. Scott (Ed.), Textiles for Protection (pp. 398-403, 411-423). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited.

How 3MTM ScotchliteTM Reflective Material Works (n.d.). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.janesville.bz/3mscotchlite.html

How Nomex® works: Explain that Stuff! (n.d.). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.explainthatstuff.com/nomex.html

Hubbard, B. (2008). Slip, Trip, and Fall Injuries on the Fireground: Are We Walking on the Problem? [Journal Articel]. Fire Engineering, 161(1), 119-120.

The Inside Story on DuPont Innovations (2006). (pp. 2): DuPont. James, P. Z. (2000). FAQs & fables about protective clothing. Occupational Health & Safety,

69(7), 42. Jassal, M., & Ghosh, S. (2002). Aramid fibres - An overview. Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile

Research, 27, 290 - 306. Kingsland, C. (2003). Analysis of Soil Removal from Firefighting Turnout Gear: an Evaluation of

Care and Maintenance Procedures. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Lion Apparel (2003a). Understanding High Heat and Fire. e-facts, MMIII(1). Retrieved from

http://www.lionpsg.bz/library/0103eFacts.pdf. Lion Apparel (2003b). Wet and Dry Thermal Liners: Part 1. Retrieved November 24, 2008:

http://www.lionpsg.bz/library/0803eFacts.pdf Lion Apparel (2004). Steam Burns & Reflective Trim.

http://www.lionpsg.bz/library/0504eFacts.pdf Moisture Barriers (n.d.). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from

http://www.janesville.bz/MoistureBarriers.html National Fire Protection Association (2006). NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for

Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (pp. 126). Quincy, MA: NFPA. National Fire Protection Association (2007). NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and

Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting 2008 Edition (pp. 50). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Assiciation.

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/Services_Fire&Safety/Systematic-Seam-Sealing?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/Services_Fire&Safety/Systematic-Seam-Sealing?sectorid=1169509172163�

http://www.janesville.bz/3mscotchlite.html�

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/nomex.html�

http://www.lionpsg.bz/library/0103eFacts.pdf�



http://www.janesville.bz/MoistureBarriers.html�

160

National Fire Protection Association (2008a). NFPA :: About NFPA Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=143&URL=About%20Us.

National Fire Protection Association (2008b). NFPA :: About NFPA :: Overview Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=495&URL=About%20Us/%20Overview&cookie%5Ftest=1

National Fire Protection Association (2008c). NFPA :: Research :: Fire statistics :: The U.S. fire service Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=955&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service

National Fire Protection Association (2009). NFPA :: Research :: Fire statistics :: The U.S. fire service Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=955&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service

Nomex® 40th Anniversary (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www2.dupont.com/Nomex/en_US/news_events/40th_anniv.html

Outer Shells (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2009, from http://www.janesville.bz/OuterShells.html PBI : Flame Resistant Fibers >> Pbi Fibers (2008). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from

http://www.pbigold.com/pbi_fiber/pbi_fibers PBI Matrix (2005). (pp. 2). Charlotte, NC: PBI Performance Products, Inc. PPE Care and Use Guidelines (1994). PPE Use and Care Group. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., White, E. T. (1988). Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. Reed, J. L. (2003). Maintaining Turnout Gear. Fire Engineering, 90 - 92. Schenck, J. (2003). Focus on Protective Apparel Reviving Turnout Gear. Occupational Health &

Safety, 72(8), 14. Slater, K. (1996). Comfort or Protection: The Clothing Dilemma (Vol. 5th). Fredricksburg, VA:

American Society for Testing and Materials. Stull, J., Dodgen, C., Connor, M., McCarthy, R. (1996). Evaluating the Effectivness of Different

Laundering Approaches for Decontaminating Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing. In J. S. J. a. S. Z. Mansdorf (Ed.), Performance of Protective Clothing (Vol. 5th, pp. 641). Fredricksburg, VA: American Society for Testing and Materials.

Technical Guide Kevlar® Aramid Fiber (2000). In DuPont (Ed.).

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=143&URL=About%20Us�

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=495&URL=About%20Us/%20Overview&cookie%5Ftest=1�


http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=955&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service�




http://www2.dupont.com/Nomex/en_US/news_events/40th_anniv.html�

http://www.janesville.bz/OuterShells.html�

http://www.pbigold.com/pbi_fiber/pbi_fibers�

161

Technical Information (2009). Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www2.dupont.com/Kevlar/en_US/tech_info/index.html

Thermal Liners (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2009, from http://www.janesville.bz/ThermalLiners.html TRI/Environmental Inc. (1994). Decontamination of Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing

and Equiptment. Austin, Texas: U.S. Fire Administration. Vogelpohl, T. L. (1996). Post-Use Evaluation of Fire Fighter's Turnout Coats. Unpublished Master

of Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Watkins, S. M. (1984). Clothing the Portable Environment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University

Press. Zender, D. (2008). Maintaining Firefighter Ensemble for Safety and Compliance. Fire

Engineering.

http://www2.dupont.com/Kevlar/en_US/tech_info/index.html�

http://www.janesville.bz/ThermalLiners.html�

162

VITA

Deena Grace Cotterill was born on October 31, 1985, in Maysville, Kentucky. She

attended St. Patrick High School and graduated May 2004. In December 2007, Deena received a

Bachelor of Science in Merchandising Apparel, and Textiles from the University of Kentucky.

Throughout her undergraduate and graduate careers, Deena has been employed by the Textile

Testing lab as a lab technician for three years and lab manager for a year and a half. As an

undergraduate, Deena was awarded the Merchandising, Apparel, & Textiles 2007

Undergraduate Student of Excellence. Upon entering graduate school Deena was awarded a

Teaching Assistantship in the Department of Merchandising, Apparel and Textiles. In December

2008, she received her Green Belt certification in Six Sigma. Deena was awarded the School of

Human and Environmental Sciences Graduate Student of Excellence in April 2009.

163

ABSTRACT OF THESIS

POST USE ANALYSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR PHASE II

This research was designed to expand the data set and analysis of post-use fire fighters turnout gear to include garments obtained from volunteer departments. Garments were categorized as less than four years of age, greater than five years of age, and/or retired. Inspection and procedures required by NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971 were followed to perform a thorough investigation of turnout gear. Care and maintenance was evaluated by following washing protocols in NFPA 1851; washed fabric was evaluated for performance properties (THL, TPP, and water penetration). 76 garments from Phase II were evaluated for performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength, breaking strength, and water penetration) and visually inspected (closure system functionality, light evaluation, leakage evaluation, flashlight test). 65 questionnaires were administered. Ten-year retirement, care, and use were objectives to evaluate. Data was combined with that obtained from Phase I to create a representative sample of fire departments as a whole. The results of the leakage evaluation did not validate similar results with water penetration testing. TPP, THL and flammability supported the ten year wear life; however, tear resistance, breaking strength, seam strength, and hydrostatic did not support the ten-year retirement.

KEYWORDS: Turnout Gear, Post Use, Durability, Firefighter, NFPA Standards, Volunteer

____________________________________

____________________________________

164

POST USE ANALYSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR PHASE II

By

Stacy Lynn Trenkamp

_____________________________________ Director of Thesis

____________________________________

Director of Graduate Studies

____________________________________ Date

165

RULES FOR USE OF THESIS Unpublished theses submitted for the Master’s degree and deposited in the University of Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but quotations or summaries of parts may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgements. Extensive copying or publication of the thesis in whole or in part also requires the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky.

A library that borrows this thesis for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature of each user.

Name

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Date

166

THESIS

Stacy Lynn Trenkamp

The Graduate School


2011

167

POST USE ANAL-YSIS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR- PHASE II

________________________________________

THESIS ________________________________________

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the

College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky

By

Stacy Lynn Trenkamp

Lexington, Kentucky

Director: Dr. Elizabeth Easter Professor of Merchandising, Apparel, and Textiles

Lexington, Kentucky

April 18, 2011

168

MASTER’S THESIS RELEASE

I authorize the University of Kentucky Libraries to reproduce this thesis in whole or

in part for purposes of research.

Signed: __________________________

Date: __________________________

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by numerous individuals including faculty, fire fighting industry leaders, family, friends, and student co-workers. First, I would like to acknowledge and thank my major professor, Dr. Elizabeth Easter, for her invaluable hard work, expertise, guidance, patience, and dedication to this study. I would also like to thank Dr. Scarlett Wesley and Dr. Min-Young Lee for their suggestions along the way and for participating as members on my thesis committee. Tricia Hock of Fire-Dex, Karen Lehtonen of Lion Apparel, Patricia Freeman of Globe Manufacturing, and Richard Young of DuPont devoted so much time and effort to this study and I want to thank them for the suggestions and help that could only be provided by industry leaders like themselves. Ken Hanzalik of 3M Occupational Health and Environmental Safety Division, Angela Taylor of TenCate, and Holly Blake of W.L. Gore & Associates all participated and assisted with testing for this study and I am very appreciative for their help. Jennifer Van Mullekom and Calvin Wei of DuPont assisted with the statistical analysis of this study and I want to thank them for their time and hard work. It should be acknowledged that this study was funded by a grant provided by the National Institute on Standards and Technology. I would also like to thank my family (Kim, Gene, and Brian Trenkamp) and fiancé, Daniel for their support and encouragement through the past two years. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends (especially Molly Mando for her editorial support) and co-workers in the Textile Testing Laboratory for their assistance.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One: Introduction ...................................................................................................1

Problem ............................................................................................................................2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................3 Research Objectives .........................................................................................................4 Research Questions ..........................................................................................................5 Justifications .....................................................................................................................6 Study Limitations .............................................................................................................7 Assumptions .....................................................................................................................7

Chapter Two: Review of Literature .....................................................................................9 Introduction ......................................................................................................................9 A Firefighter’s Environment ............................................................................................9 Hazards of Fire Fighting ................................................................................................11 Previous Research on Post-Use Evaluation of Turnout Gear.........................................12 NFPA Standards .............................................................................................................15

NFPA 1851 ................................................................................................15 History............................................................................................15 Revision .........................................................................................15 Selection .........................................................................................15

NFPA Proposals .........................................................................................17 Leakage Evaluation ........................................................................17 Liner Inspection Frequencies .........................................................18 Cleaning and Maintenance .............................................................18 Retirement Criteria.........................................................................18 Reflective Trim ..............................................................................18

NFPA 1971 ................................................................................................19 Revision .........................................................................................19 Lifespan Recommendations and Problems ....................................20

Protective Ensemble .......................................................................................................20 Outer Shell .................................................................................................20 Moisture Barrier .........................................................................................20 Thermal Liner ............................................................................................21 Fabrics ........................................................................................................21

Outer Shell .....................................................................................21 PBI Fibers ..........................................................................21 Kevlar® and Nomex® .......................................................22

Moisture Barrier .............................................................................22 Crosstech® .........................................................................22

v

RT7100 ..............................................................................22 Thermal Liner ................................................................................22

Aramid Fibers ....................................................................22 E-89 ....................................................................................22

Reinforcements ..........................................................................................23 Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles ............................................................23 Design Issues of Turnout Gear .......................................................................................25 Post-Use Evaluation and Functional Design ..................................................................25 Summary ........................................................................................................................27

Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................29 Introduction ....................................................................................................................29 Research Design .............................................................................................................29 Sample ............................................................................................................................30 Methodology ..................................................................................................................31

Phase I ........................................................................................................31 Phase II.......................................................................................................31 New Fabric .................................................................................................32 Questionnaire .............................................................................................32

Sample Preparation ........................................................................................................32 Procedures ......................................................................................................................33

Visual Inspection .......................................................................................33 Evaluation of Closure System Functionality .............................................33 Light Evaluation.........................................................................................33 Flashlight Test ............................................................................................34 Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) .....................................................34 Total Heat Loss (THL)...............................................................................35 Thickness ...................................................................................................36 Flammability ..............................................................................................36 Leakage Evaluation ....................................................................................37 Tear Resistance ..........................................................................................37 Seam Breaking Strength ............................................................................38 Breaking Strength ......................................................................................38 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ........................................................39 Retroflectivity and Fluorescence Test .......................................................39

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................41 Chapter Four: Results and Discussion ...............................................................................42

Introduction ....................................................................................................................42 Visual Inspection of Turnout Gear .................................................................................42 Evaluation of Closure System Functionality ..................................................................45 Light Evaluation .............................................................................................................45 Flashlight Test ................................................................................................................46 Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) .........................................................................46

Flat Fabric ..................................................................................................47

vi

Garments ....................................................................................................49 Total Heat Loss (THL) ...................................................................................................49

Flat Fabric ..................................................................................................50 Garments ....................................................................................................52

Thickness ........................................................................................................................58 Flammability ..................................................................................................................59


Leakage Evaluation ........................................................................................................61 Tear Resistance ..............................................................................................................64


Seam Breaking Strength .................................................................................................67 Outer Shells ................................................................................................69 Moisture Barriers .......................................................................................72 Thermal Liners ...........................................................................................75

Breaking Strength ...........................................................................................................76 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ............................................................................78 Water Penetration vs. Leakage Evaluation.....................................................................84 Retroflectivity and Fluorescence Test ............................................................................85

Phase I ........................................................................................................86 Phase II.......................................................................................................88

Questionnaire .................................................................................................................91 Use .............................................................................................................91 Care ............................................................................................................92

Research Questions ........................................................................................................94 Research Question #1 ................................................................................94 Research Question #2 ................................................................................95

Thermal Protective Performance ...................................................95 Total Heat Loss ..............................................................................95 Flammability ..................................................................................95 Tear Resistance ..............................................................................96 Sewn Seam Strength ......................................................................96 Breaking Strength ..........................................................................96 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ............................................97 Retroflectivity and Fluorescence ...................................................97 Breaking Strength ..........................................................................97

Research Question #2a ...............................................................................97 Research Question #2b ..............................................................................98 Research Question #2c ...............................................................................98 Research Question #3 ................................................................................98

Total Heat Loss ..............................................................................99 Seam Breaking Strength ................................................................99 Breaking Strength ..........................................................................99

vii

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ............................................99 Research Question #3a .............................................................................100 Research Question #4 ..............................................................................100

Total Heat Loss ............................................................................100 Flammability ................................................................................100 Tear Resistance ............................................................................100 Sewn Seam Strength ...................................................................100 Breaking Strength ........................................................................101 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation ..........................................101

Summary ..................................................................................................101

Chapter Five: Conclusions ...............................................................................................102 Introduction ..................................................................................................................102 Limitations ...................................................................................................................108 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................108

Appendices

Appendix A ..................................................................................................................115 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................117 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................118 Appendix D ..................................................................................................................120 Appendix E ...................................................................................................................123 Appendix F ...................................................................................................................125

References ........................................................................................................................111

Vita ...................................................................................................................................224

viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Regression Analysis for the Effect of Materials on Thermal Protective

Performance in Wash Cycles .............................................................................................47

Table 4.2 Regression Analysis for the Effect of Materials on Total Heat Loss in Wash

Cycles .................................................................................................................................50

Table 4.3 One-Way ANOVA with F-Test for Total Heat Loss Values.............................54

Table 4.4 One-Way ANOVA with F-Test for Hydrostatic Testing, Total Heat Loss, and

Thickness ...........................................................................................................................58

Table 4.5 Leakage Evaluation Dependence .......................................................................62

Table 4.6 One Way ANOVA for Tear Strength and Outer Shell ......................................66

Table 4.7 One-Way ANOVA for Seam Breaking Strength Variables ..............................69

Table 4.8 Hydrostatic Testing Dependence .......................................................................80

Table 4.9 Logistic Regression Table-Hydrostatic Testing and Years of Use ....................83

Table 4.10 Attribute Agreement Analysis-Cup Test and Hydrostatic Testing ..................85

Table 4.11 Fleiss’ Kappa Agreement between Leakage Evaluation and Hydrostatic .......85

ix

List of Figures Figure 3.1. Retroflectivity Test Locations .........................................................................41

Figure 4.1. Outer Shell Evaluation Results ........................................................................44

Figure 4.2. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Outer Shell ......................48

Figure 4.3. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Moisture Barrier ..............48

Figure 4.4. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Thermal Liner .................49

Figure 4.5. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Outer Shell ..............................................51

Figure 4.6. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Moisture Barrier ......................................51

Figure 4.7. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles-Thermal Liner ..........................................52

Figure 4.8. Total Heat Loss Results in Comparison to NFPA 1971 ..................................53

Figure 4.9. Garment Total Heat Loss Performance and Retirement ..................................54

Figure 4.10. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use-Outer Shell ...................55

Figure 4.11. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use-Moisture Barrier ..........56

Figure 4.12. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss After Use .....................................57

Figure 4.13. Fitted Line Plot of Thermal Protective Performance and Total Heat Loss vs.

Thickness ...........................................................................................................................59

Figure 4.14. Overall Results of the Leakage Evaluation ...................................................61

Figure 4.15. Leakage Evaluation and Retirement Status of Samples ................................63

Figure 4.16. Leakage Evaluation vs. Retirement and Years of Use ..................................64

Figure 4.17. Tear Resistance of Outer Shell Samples .......................................................65

Figure 4.18. UL and Used Tear Strength (Outer Shells) ..................................................66

Figure 4.19. Tear Strength (Outer Shell) and Years of Use...............................................67

Figure 4.20. Seam Breaking Strength Evaluations ............................................................68

Figure 4.21. Overall Seam Strength Performance- Outer Shell .........................................69

Figure 4.22. Seam Strength-Outer Shell ............................................................................70

Figure 4.23. Chart of Seam Breaking Strength and Years of Use .....................................71

Figure 4.24. Outer Shell Seam Strength and Retirement ...................................................72

Figure 4.25. Overall Seam Strength-Moisture Barrier .......................................................73

Figure 4.26. Moisture Barrier Seam Breaking Strength ....................................................74

Figure 4.27. Chart of Moisture Barrier Seam Strength and Retirement ............................75

Figure 4.28. Breaking Strength and Retirement ................................................................77

x

Figure 4.29. Breaking Strength and Years of Use .............................................................78

Figure 4.30. Hydrostatic Test Results ................................................................................79

Figure 4.31. Hydrostatic Testing by Age Category ...........................................................81

Figure 4.32. Hydrostatic Testing by Years of Use and Retirement ...................................82

Figure 4.33. Evaluating Fabric Versus Seam Failures in Hydrostatic Testing ..................84



Figure 4.36. The Color Box Values of Fluorescence: Phase I ...........................................88

Figure 4.37. Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase II ..................89

Figure 4.38.Average Pant Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase II ....................90

Figure 4.39. The Color Box Values of Fluorescence: Phase II .........................................91

Figure 4.40. Questionnaire-Gear Condition .......................................................................92

Figure 4.41. Cleaning Frequency-Questionnaire ...............................................................93

1

Chapter One

In 2009, 1,148,100 firefighters protected the United States; 71% of these

firefighters were volunteers, working long hours simply for the satisfaction of making a

difference in their communities (National Fire Protection Association, 2009). A volunteer

firefighter can be defined as a person who is enrolled and is an active member of a fire

company organized and funded by a county, rural fire district, or a fire service area

(National Fallen Firefighter Foundation, 2009). The main distinction between a career

firefighter and a volunteer is a primary occupation versus a part-time commitment.

Volunteers may not get paid, but are sometimes reimbursed by small amounts of tax-free

money for their hours spent on training, shifts, and call responses (Volunteer FD, 2008).

Volunteer firefighters protect life and property; in addition, they ritually enhance local

identity, build moral systems based on locality, and empower residents to overcome

natural adversity (Simpson, 1996).

Since it is equally important to protect both volunteer and career firefighters, it is

necessary to understand the difference between uses of a volunteer’s gear versus a career

firefighter’s gear. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) U.S. Fire Service

Report notes that career firefighters include full-time uniform firefighters regardless of

assignment; volunteer firefighters include any active part-time firefighters (Fahy,

LeBlanc, & Molis, 2010a). A career firefighter can be defined as someone employed by

local governments to fight and prevent fires and to protect life and property (United

States Department of Labor, 2010). Career firefighters work in many different areas,

including metropolitan and rural areas, airports, chemical plants, and industrial sites.

(United States Department of Labor, 2010). Over half of volunteer departments are

considered small departments that protect less than 2,500 people and are typically located

in rural areas. (National Fire Protection Association, 2009). Although volunteer and

career firefighters’ physical environments may slightly differ, they share common tasks,

risks, and goals.

When firefighters respond to emergency situations, they may be faced with a

range of treacherous circumstances. They must be mentally and physically prepared to

face the elements and hazardous conditions when responding to a call. In 2009, it was

2

reported that 78,150 firefighters were injured on the job due to incidents like slipping,

smoke/gas inhalation, fire or chemical burns, heart attacks, and thermal stress (Karter &

Molis, 2010).

For the firefighter’s protection from heat and burns, they wear what is known in

the industry as turnout gear. This protective gear consists of a coat, trousers, boots,

gloves, helmets, and interface components. In order to adequately shield the wearer, the

coat and trouser are made of a tough outer shell that has two critical functions: to resist

ignition from direct flame impingement and to protect the internal layers from rips, tears,

slashes, abrasion, etc.(Janesville, n.d.). The internal components are made of a moisture

barrier that resists liquid in order to avoid scalds and burns. The moisture barrier also

functions as a breathable material that allows body heat to escape, and a thermal liner that

accounts for 70% of heat insulation (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2009b). Additional

materials and layers labeled as reinforcements are also added to the garments for extra

fortification. Garment reinforcements are used for a variety of functions that include

providing additional insulation against heat transfer, absorbing shock, and protecting

primary clothing layers from abrasion and other forms of physical damage (Stull & Stull,

2009b).

While battling fires, firefighters and their equipment are put through tremendous

stress and arduous, dangerous situations. In just three and a half minutes, the heat from a

house fire can reach over 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. (American Red Cross, n.d.) Thick

smoke can cause an entire house to blacken, and [harmful] gases and fumes that are

unscented can make people inside weak, sleepy, and confused (American Red Cross,

n.d.). These dangerous conditions, along with the physical risks of falling from high

buildings, the chance of collapsing walls, or slipping on wet surfaces make for perilous

situations. The primary goal of turnout gear is to keep the wearer protected; the question

is how many fires can this ensemble endure before it is no longer functional? These

factors, along with maintenance, care, and fit are crucial in keeping all firefighters safe

from exposure to hazardous environments.

Problem Career and volunteer firefighters require protection against the inherent dangers of the job; yet, the precious resources needed for said protection could potentially be wasted because the

3

wear life of fire fighting turnout gear is unknown. There are dangers posed to both career and volunteer firefighters, and resources wasted because the wear life of fire fighting turnout gear is unknown. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1851, 2008 Edition, (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a), “structural fire fighting ensembles and ensemble elements shall be retired if more than 10 years from the date manufacture” (p. 22). This time frame may not be the most effective for financial and safety reasons. While all components of turnout gear have unique specifications, they need to perform collectively as a whole for effective safety. Care and maintenance, as well as day-to-day use all have an effect on the functional life of turnout gear. Previous research (Cotterill, 2009) has been completed on medium and large sized career fire departments. There has been little research completed on volunteer firefighters that mostly compose the small, rural departments; this study focused on including the turnout gear from volunteer firefighters, garments from career firefighters, and will explore the effect of care and maintenance (using new, flat, fabric to evaluate used turnout gear) on performance properties of garments. Purpose The purpose of this study was to perform a post-use evaluation on firefighter turnout gear and to understand how the care and use by firefighters impact the performance, durability, and wear life of turnout gear components. In order to produce a representative sample, it was necessary to examine volunteer firefighters’ turnout gear in addition to career firefighters’ turnout gear that was analyzed in previous research (Cotterill, 2009). The Firefighter Durability Study began in 2008 and was titled “Post-Use Evaluation of Firefighter Turnout Gear” (Cotterill, 2009b). The study completed by Cotterill addressed medium and large sized departments consisting of career firefighters; the initial study is referred to as “Phase I” of the Firefighter Durability Study. This study served as a continuation of the Firefighter Durability Study that included volunteer firefighter garments in addition to career garments, and is referred to as “Phase II”. The volunteers’ turnout gear was tested to evaluate performance measures such as flammability, tear strength, thickness, reflectivity, and water penetration. Garments obtained in Phase I of the study were also tested for breaking strength and thickness in Phase II. The results of the physical testing and a visual inspection of the gear may help determine if the current 10-year life is suitable for both volunteer firefighters and career firefighters. In addition, this study included a comparison of the performance properties of fire fighting turnout gear and laundered flat fabric that can be compared to materials used in turnout gear. This study addressed how the care of the protective ensemble affects the wear life of the turnout gear. Unfortunately, physical testing damages turnout gear; therefore, the wash procedures of the gear may not be continuously evaluated on used garments. Instead, 24 combinations (that are commonly used in creating turnout gear) in the form of flat fabric were used to evaluate the effect of care on the performance of gear. The study aimed to actually evaluate the care procedures for turnout gear recommended by NFPA 1851, followed by testing of performance properties on the flat fabric (THP, THL, water penetration) to determine the extent of which care procedures impact turnout gear. Research Objectives

Material and composite performance characteristics of turnout gear were tested (volunteer and career firefighters’ turnout gear) and the data was analyzed to assess wear patterns

4

from the fire departments. Areas tested for the volunteer ensemble composites will include thermal protective performance (TPP), thickness, and total heat loss (THL). Individual components of the protective ensemble was tested for flame resistance, water penetration, tear resistance, outer shell breaking strength, and seam breaking strength. Turnout gear from a previous study (Phase I), as well as newly obtained gear (Phase II), were tested for composite thickness and breaking strength. For analytical purposes, all data obtained from the Firefighter Durability Study Phase I (THL, TPP, tear resistance, flammability, hydrostatic testing, and seam breaking strength) were used in combination with newly obtained data. To provide comparisons for the study, new materials (fabrics) commonly used in turnout gear were tested after being subjected to the laundering procedures recommended in NFPA 1851. In order to accomplish these goals and determine comparisons and solutions, five objectives and research questions were prepared.

The research objectives for this study are as follows: 1. To compare the performance properties (THL, TPP, and hydrostatic testing,

etc.) of firefighter turnout gear fabrics as a function of cleaning cycles.

2. To evaluate the durability and performance properties (TPP, THL,

flammability, tear strength, seam strength, breaking strength, and water

penetration) of used fire fighting turnout gear against the requirements of

NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting

and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2007 Edition.

a. To compare the results of the water penetration barrier evaluation with

the leakage evaluation test as specified in NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition

and NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition.

b. To compare seam versus fabric integrity when evaluating water

penetration and leakage according to NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition and

NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition.

c. To examine if there is a correlation between the results of the Total

Heat Loss (THL) testing, Thermal Protective Performance (TPP)

testing, water penetration barrier evaluation, and thickness testing.

3. To determine if the physical inspection protocol for structural turnout gear in

NFPA 1851 is predictive of the results of testing for firefighting ensembles in

a laboratory setting.

a. To determine if the current 3 year liner inspection mandated in NFPA

1851, 2008 Edition is appropriate.

5

4. To determine if the recommended ten year retirement age for volunteer

firefighters and career fire departments is appropriate for coats and trousers by

evaluating the ensemble and fabrics using methods outlined in NFPA 1851

2008 edition and in NFPA 1971 2007 edition.

5. To obtain specific use, care, and maintenance information of volunteer

firefighter turnout gear using a questionnaire.

Research Questions In order to meet the research objectives, the subsequent research questions were addressed:

1. Is there a correlation between the care and maintenance of turnout gear and

the durability of the turnout gear’s performance properties (TPP, THL, and

water penetration) when evaluated to the minimum requirements of NFPA

1851 and 1971?

2. Do the performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam

strength, and water penetration) of used structural fire fighting turnout gear

worn by firefighters meet the requirements of NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition?

a. Does this study validate similarity between results in the water

penetration barrier evaluation and the leakage evaluation?

b. Are seams or fabric materials responsible for a loss of integrity in

moisture barrier water penetration failures?

c. Is there a relationship between the results of THL testing, TPP testing,

the water penetration barrier evaluation, and thickness?

3. Can the performance properties of turnout gear (TPP, THL, flammability, tear

strength, seam strength, and water penetration) be accurately predicted based

upon the inspection criteria set forth in NFPA 1851?

a. Is the NFPA 1851 mandated liner inspection every three years

validated by the results of physical testing?

4. Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance properties (TPP, THL,

flammability, tear strength, seam strength, and water penetration) specified in

NFPA 1851 and 1971?

Justifications

6

Every twenty-two seconds, a fire department responds to a fire; every sixty-one

seconds, a structural fire occurs. (National Fire Protection Association, 2010a). In 2007,

over 5,000 firefighters were injured while on duty due to thermal stress inflicted from the

heat and fire, or due to chemical burns from which their turnout gear did not protect

them.(National Fire Protection Association, 2008b). In 2009, 82 firefighters were killed

while on duty from overexertion, stress, strokes, falling debris, electrocution, jumps, falls,

smoke inhalation, burns, and vehicle contact (Fahy, LeBlanc, & Molis, 2010b).

Firefighters’ protective clothing cannot protect the wearer from every thermal and

physical hazard, and over time, the protection factor can decrease. These safe-use limits

can be difficult to identify and may or may not be adequately addressed in current service

standards. Any lack of knowledge can cause injury or even death to firefighters.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1971 compliant turnout gear

includes three major components; an outer shell, a moisture barrier, and a thermal liner

(National Fire Protection Association, 2008a). An outer shell is designed to provide

abrasion resistance, break-open resistance, and flame resistance (Globe, 2010). The

moisture barrier is designed principally to prevent the transfer of liquids. The thermal

liner is intended to provide thermal protection. It is believed that these components have

a tendency to wear faster in certain areas of the garment, such as the elbows, knees, and

seat. Just one component failure of fire fighting turnout gear may cause bodily harm to

the wearer; consequently, it is necessary to determine the limitations of firefighter’s

turnout gear, and at what point they need to be retired or repaired. If the functional life of

turnout gear can predict the failure of its components, then the safety of the firefighter

can improve.

Study Limitations This study was limited by the number of garments in the sample set. There is a

correlation with sample size and representation; if a larger number of samples is obtained and tested, the data is considered more representative. As opposed to the ideal random sample, the samples collected were determined by availability. The researcher had no control over how the gear was cared for, inspected, or stored. There was no information about how many fires the gear had been through, or exactly what the “use” of the gear entailed. For purposes of the study, “use” was defined as the approximate number and type of fire each piece of turnout gear had encountered. It should also be noted that garments tested in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study were stored in a conditioning room at 70°F and 65% humidity; due to space restrictions, not all gear from Phase II was stored under the same conditions.

7

Assumptions It was assumed that the sample size of volunteer garments adequately represented

volunteer fire fighting turnout gear and small departments since the turnout gear sample sizes are limited and not randomized. It also was assumed that the samples of career fire fighting turnout gear tested for breaking strength and thickness represented career firefighters as a whole since the sample size was limited. After combining data from both volunteer and career fire departments, it was assumed that the combined 143 garments (76 garments in Phase II, 67 garments in Phase I) was a representative sample of fire departments as a whole. Fabric used for the purposes of this study was also limited; it was assumed that the fabrics tested represented a satisfactory number of fabric varieties available for manufactured turnout gear. It was assumed that firefighters using turnout gear do care for their garments, but do not necessarily follow NFPA guidelines.

8

Chapter Two

Review of Related Literature

In order to adequately protect firefighters, the protective ensemble and its components have specific requirements that must be met before being put into use. NFPA 1971 defines the structural protective ensemble as, “multiple elements of compliant protective clothing and equipment that when worn together provide protection from some risks, but not all risks, or emergency incident operations (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). The elements of the protective ensemble are the coat, trousers, coveralls, helmet, gloves, footwear, and interface components (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a) .The NFPA has developed consensus performance standards that the protective ensembles must be manufactured to meet. This review of literature provides relevant information on 1.) A Firefighter’s Environment, 2.) Previous Research 3.) NFPA Standards, 4.) Protective Ensembles, 5.) Care and Maintenance of the Protective Ensemble and 6.) Post-Use evaluation. A Firefighter’s Environment

All firefighters (volunteer and career) endure similar training and job responsibilities and are exposed to the same hazards and risks. Volunteer and career firefighters must pass written tests as well as tests of strength, coordination, and agility (United States Department of Labor, 2010). Basic training helps to prepare a firefighter for environmental hazards, including fires, earthquakes, tornadoes, and threats of terrorism (Byrne, 2009). After basic training periods, recruits are assigned to a ladder, engine, or rescue company; three firefighters form a team and the work of fire fighting begins (Byrne, 2009). Because emergencies can be chaotic, it is important that firefighters have sufficient training and a stable mentality to successfully respond to emergencies. Responsibilities of firefighters (regardless of their career status) include using their training and expertise to immediately respond to fires and other emergencies (United States Department of Labor, 2010). Even though volunteer and career firefighters have much in common, there are a few differences.

Volunteer Fire Departments have a distinct place in the history of the United States and are considered tradition-oriented, proud, rivalrous organizations; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere are all acknowledged volunteer firefighters (Perkins, 1987). These departments not only protect life and property, but also ritually enhance local identity, build moral systems based on locality, and empower residents to overcome natural adversity by providing an organizational support for a community’s integration (Simpson, 1996). Volunteer firefighters are known to offer a high amount of community and personal support in times of need and this is portrayed through their everyday services. Many Volunteer Fire Departments still encourage that sense of community by hosting numerous activities. In rural areas and small towns, the Volunteer Fire Department is sometimes used as a voting station, and holds games, dances, fundraisers, religious services, and family reunions (Perkins, 1987).

The NFPA states that most volunteer firefighters are in departments that protect fewer than 25,000 [people], and over half are located in rural areas (National Fire Protection Association, 2008a). Statistics indicate that volunteers may typically respond to fewer emergencies than career departments in bigger populations. These community based volunteer

9

firefighters are often battling fires in rural areas, making them different from the career firefighter that usually functions in a larger metropolitan community. Fighting fires in rural areas can be challenging for firefighters because they habitually have to endure longer travel distances while wearing heavy gear. In rural areas, many fires will occur in places that cannot be reached by vehicle, which means the task can be more physically demanding for the firefighter. The need for the firefighter to have durable protective equipment while running, bending, and stretching has sparked manufacturers to improve fabrics, durability, and wear (Zeigler, 2001).

Career firefighters accounted for 28% of the total number of firefighters that protected the United States in 2008 (National Fire Protection Association, 2008b). A known difference between career and volunteer firefighters is that the career firefighters tend to protect larger communities. Seventy-four percent of career firefighters protect communities that have over 25,000 people; the statistics also indicate that these departments that have a higher proportion of firefighters in the age ranges of 30-39 and 40-49 (National Fire Protection Association, 2008b). Regardless of the community, all firefighters are trained to encounter the same hazards and environments when responding to fires and other emergencies. Hazards of Fire Fighting

Firefighters immerse themselves in high temperature environments ranging from 120° to 300° Fahrenheit for extended periods of time, and flash fires that can reach up to 2200° Fahrenheit. (Lion Apparel, 2003a). Firefighters are commonly battling fire, smoke, water, poisons, flammable gases, explosives, and radioactive materials; all of these threats may have long term effects on the fire fighter’s health (United States Department of Labor, 2010).

While on duty, firefighters must be prepared to take action in different types of emergency situations. It is their job to use a combination of acquired skills, teamwork, and organizational procedures to quickly and successfully respond to emergencies. Firefighters typically combat three different types of fire: structural, residential, and industrial. Structural fires are defined by NFPA 1971 as the activity of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation in buildings, enclosed structures, vehicles, or like properties that are involved in a fire or emergency situation (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Residential fires include one and two family dwellings, apartments, hotels, motels, colleges, dormitories, and boarding houses (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2010). Lastly, industrial fires include hazardous material response, process units, storage tanks, interior structural, and confined space response (Refinery Terminal Fire Company, 2005). Along with different types of fires, many firefighters are trained to respond to and handle other emergency situations, like vehicle extrication and EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) duties.

When fighting fires, there are three types of heat transfer that can cause burns: conduction (direct transfer of heat through a hot object), convection (transfer of heat through a medium, like air), and thermal radiation (transfer of heat in the form of light energy) (Lion Apparel, 2003a). Firefighters are constantly experiencing heat from all three of these transfer methods. This extreme heat can be dangerous in the sense of burns and scalds, but also because the environment in combination with hard work and heavy gear can raise the individual’s body temperature to unhealthy and dangerous levels.

Inhalation of toxic smoke is the primary cause of death from fires (Hall, 2009). Smoke is something that firefighters deal with on a daily basis; the harmful effects of smoke inhalation can

10

be devastating not only to the civilian in a fire, but to the firefighter tackling the scene. It is required that firefighters never step into a fire without their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); this protects them from acute carbon monoxide, cyanide poisoning, and long-term cardiac and neurological dysfunction (Schnepp, Reilly, & Gagliano, 2010). Even with a breathing apparatus, there is concern that toxins in the smoke may seep into the firefighter’s turnout gear, which can cause contamination and long term health issues. Smoke is dangerous and unpredictable because its production is dependent on several factors, including the chemical makeup of the burning material, temperature of the combustion process, oxygen content supporting combustion, and the presence or absence of ventilation (Schnepp, et al., 2010). Firefighters exposed to smoke while conducting fire fighting operations are at much higher risk than the civilians rescued - most civilians are at rest and have minimal oxygen needs (Hall, 2009). It is known that firefighters need maximum amounts of oxygen while on task.

Water is another element of which firefighters are weary; yet, it is imperative to control fire. All engine companies have an onboard water supply that, if used correctly, allows firefighters to knock out large volumes of fire quickly (Guzzi Jr, 2009). While firefighters are attacking fire by means of their water supply, their gear can become wet, which can ultimately lead to risk for the firefighter. Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study indicated that moisture barriers of different aged turnout gear were leaking, especially in the high stress areas, which may lead to potential firefighter’s injuries. As water becomes heated to 212°Fahrenheit, the water turns to vapor and steam is produced. (Carr, 2009). This hot steam can cause scalding when exposed to a firefighter’s skin. In Phase I (Cotterill, 2009b), it was found that “68% of the gear aged between two to three years failed the water penetration barrier evaluation” (p.66). Previous Research on Post-Use Evaluation of Turnout Gear In 1996, Tricia Vogelpohl conducted a study titled “Post-Use Evaluation of Fire Fighter’s Turnout Coats”. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the design and performance requirements of the NFPA 1971 standard by assessing used turnout coats according to test methods described in the standard (Vogelpohl, 1996). For this study, 20 used coats from metropolitan areas underwent testing for water absorption resistance and penetration, flame resistance, fabric thickness, seam breaking strength, tear resistance, retroflectivity, thermal protective performance, ignition resistance, tensile strength, and an advanced visual inspection. This study found that eight of the 19 coats tested for water absorption resistance failed the minimum requirement; it also found that six of the failed coats were approximately one to five years old. Thirteen of the coats failed the high pressure water penetration testing; it was concluded that the water resistant properties of the outer shell and moisture barrier fabrics did not meet the minimum specifications of NFPA 1971 (Vogelpohl, 1996). Vogelpohl determined that there had been a significant loss of seam strength in used garments, as well as in new garments that experienced a simulated 60 hours of UV light exposure. These failures may have been attributed to highly soiled garments, which are thought to cause abrasion and a loosened fabric weave, altering the fabric’s thickness and strength (Vogelpohl, 1996). It was found that overall, the used turnout coats maintained their thermal, heat, and flame resistance properties. It is believed that this was due to the flame and heat resistant fibers used to construct the fabrics (Nomex®, Kevlar®, and PBI®) (Vogelpohl, 1996).

11

Recommendations for future research included laundry evaluations and further study of the water resistant properties of turnout gear (Vogelpohl, 1996). In 2009, Cotterill continued to study fire fighting turnout gear, and wrote a thesis titled “Post Use Analysis of Fire fighter Turnout Gear”. As previously noted, this study is currently known as “Phase I” of the Firefighter Durability Study at the University of Kentucky; data obtained in Cotterill’s research was used in this study (Phase II) to provide a more representative sample. In her study, Cotterill also aimed to analyze turnout gear that had been used in medium and large fire stations. Sixty-seven garments were divided into three age categories for testing (two-three years, five-seven years, and nine-ten years and/or retired). These 67 garments were evaluated and tested according to the NFPA 1851 Standard Inspection Protocol as well as NFPA 1971 test procedures. Tests in the study included total heat loss, thermal protective performance, flame resistance, tear resistance, seam breaking strength, water penetration, and retroflectivity and fluorescence testing (Cotterill, 2009). Cotterill (2009) found that the NFPA 1851 leakage evaluation conducted on the moisture barrier had a 32.84% failure rate, while the more stringent water penetration evaluation showed 65.67% failure (p.99-100). It should be noted that the leakage evaluation is currently a common tool used in the fire fighting field; it is an inexpensive and simple procedure for firefighters to perform on their own gear. As for performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength, and water penetration), all garments met or exceeded the minimum NFPA 1971 requirements for TPP and THL. Flammability and tearing strength had few failures; however, the majority of samples passed, meeting NFPA requirements (Cotterill, 2009). Based on the overall results of the study, Cotterill (2009) concluded that the recommended 10-year retirement of a garment is supported by a majority of the testing completed; however, the seam strength and water penetration results did not support the 10-year retirement due to a high failure rate (p. 100). Future recommendations included a larger sample size, obtaining surveys on how turnout gear had been “used”, and to include volunteer fire fighting garments (Cotterill, 2009). Protective clothing is often made of materials that impede the flow of heat and moisture from the skin to the environment; consequently, people may suffer from heat or cold stress while wearing clothing in different environmental conditions (Lin & Jou, n.d.). The total heat loss test is designed to measure the ability of a garment to allow heat to pass away from the body through the three composite layers that make up the jacket and pants- in short, breathability (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2011). Generally, the higher the THL value, the more likely the system will be able to dissipate excess body heat (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2011). It was noted in Phase I that the total heat loss values were unexpectedly higher on the older, used gear than expected. Typically, older garments with non-breathable moisture barriers or heavier thermal liners will inhibit the total heat loss and carry the high risk of elevating the body’s core temperature to extreme levels (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2011). This may be explained by small pinholes and/or punctures in the moisture barriers of the garments. Fabric thickness is another factor that may influence total heat loss values in protective apparel materials. To look more closely at the unusual relationship found in Cotterill’s study, it was necessary to explore the total heat loss values in correlation with results of the water penetration barrier evaluation.

12

NFPA Standards NFPA standards were developed by industry professionals and experts to protect the

safety and well-being of firefighters and the risks ensued by fires in general. NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 consensus codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks; virtually every building, process, service, design, and installation in society today is affected by NFPA documents (National Fire Protection Association, 2011).

NFPA 1851. History. NFPA Standard 1851 is used for organizations to evaluate the risks their

emergency responders face and their particular needs for protective clothing. NFPA 1851 was also created for organizations that develop specifications and structural fire fighting ensembles and ensemble elements (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). The chapters in this standard include information on administration, selection, inspection, cleaning and decontamination, repair, storage, retirement, verification, and testing of the structural fire fighting protective ensemble. This standard was developed in 2001 as a companion document for NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire fighting.

Revision. The NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire fighting and Proximity Fire fighting has evolved from the first edition and expanded into the 2008 edition, which addresses both structural and proximity fire fighting protective clothing and also introduces new requirements on the inspection, retirement, and test method used in evaluating protective ensembles.

Selection. The current standard that addresses the selection, care and maintenance of a fire fighter’s ensemble is NFPA 1851, Standard for Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting. This standard was first published in 2001 and was further revised in 2007. The elements of protective ensembles included in this standard were the coat, pants, helmet, gloves, footwear, and interface components. NFPA 1851 is used by organizations to provide guidelines on the care and maintenance for their protective clothing. It is important to a firefighter’s safety that they are aware of NFPA 1851 and the items addressed for the ensemble: care, selection, maintenance, storage, and retirement. Before selecting an ensemble, a risk assessment must be performed. This forces an organization to take into account the types of duties that the firefighters will most likely encounter; such as, the frequency in which their ensemble will be used, the organizations’ past experiences, location, and climate. After taking into account all possible factors, the fire department must be sure that they are in compliance with NFPA standards and use a directorial method to compare their products with intended use and expectations. When selecting garments, it is important that proper sizing is considered. The life of turnout gear may be extended if it fits the wearer correctly; this will prevent dragging, snagging, tripping, and it will provide the firefighter with a wider range of motion. While a protective fabric’s inherent strength and toughness are important to garment durability, proper fit of the garment to the individual worker is probably the most-significant contributor to wear life (Zeigler, 2001).

13

When a department receives their gear, NFPA 1851 2008 ed. specifies that a thorough visual inspection be completed. Section 6.2 of this standard requires individual members conduct a routine inspection of their protective ensembles and ensemble elements after each use (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). This inspection is important for the safety of the wearer. If gear is not inspected after every single use, a preventable injury could occur. If the routine visual inspection indicates a potential problem with the garment, it should be removed from service and addressed immediately. According to section 6.2.2.1 of NFPA 1851, coat and trouser elements should be inspected for soiling, contamination, physical damage such as rips, cuts, tears, missing hardware, thermal damage, loss of seam integrity, and correct assembly and size compatibility of shell, liner, and drag rescue device (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). This same routine inspection is also completed for the hood, helmet, footwear, interface components, and gloves. Any advanced inspections are to be completed by trained personnel or independent service providers. The advanced inspections along with an advanced cleaning are required every 12 months as a bare minimum (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). A complete liner inspection must be completed by trained personnel after a minimum of three years in service. (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). This extensive inspection includes hydrostatic testing on the moisture barrier for effectiveness and a 100% internal inspection of the thermal liner for any signs of deterioration. NFPA Proposals.

In order to make amendments or changes to NFPA codes and standards, proposals are be submitted and reviewed by the NFPA committee. At the conclusion of the time period for public proposal submission, a technical committee meets and discusses each submitted proposal. A document known as the Report on Proposals (ROP) is prepared which contains all public proposals, the Technical Committees’ action on each proposal, and any committee generated proposals (National Fire Protection Association, 2010b). The ROP for the document in question is submitted for a formal written ballot by the responsible Technical Committee; if the necessary approval is received, the ROP is published in a compilation of Reports on Proposals issued by NFPA twice yearly for public review and comment (National Fire Protection Association, 2010b). Based on Phase I of the study (Cotterill, 2009), five proposals were written and submitted to the NFPA regarding the leakage evaluation test, liner inspection frequencies, cleaning and maintenance, retirement criteria, and garment trim.

Leakage Evaluation Test. The study completed by Cotterill in 2009 (Phase I) found that while approximately 66% of moisture barriers tested showed leakage in the hydrostatic water penetration barrier evaluation, only 32% failed the leakage evaluation test (Cotterill, 2009). As previously stated, the leakage evaluation test is easy and inexpensive for firefighters to perform on their own accord, while the water penetration barrier evaluation requires a hydrostatic tester and is considered to be more stringent. Ideally, the two evaluations should produce similar results. Since Phase I indicated that they did not produce similar results, it was proposed that the leakage evaluation test be removed from the body of the text of NFPA 1851 and placed in the annex. It may be noted that although the two tests ideally analyze the same function, there are different observations in the test procedure. The water penetration barrier evaluation determines “failure” or leakage by introducing a pressure of one psi against only the moisture barrier for a minimum of 15 seconds. The leakage evaluation requires that an alcohol-tap water mixture be

14

produced and poured on top of the moisture barrier; however, the leakage must go through both the moisture barrier and thermal liner for a failure to be reported.

Liner Inspection Frequencies. In Phase I, Cotterill (2009) found that 53% of the moisture barrier failures were in the two to three year age category. Currently, NFPA 1851 section 6.4.3 states that “a complete liner inspection of all garment elements shall be conducted at a minimum after three years in service and annually thereafter” (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). The data was used to propose that this section of the standard be updated to a two year period as opposed to three.

Cleaning and Maintenance. This proposal was written to reiterate the importance of maintaining the cleanliness of ensembles and ensemble elements. Previous studies completed by Cotterill (2009) and Vogelpohl (1996) found that soil and contaminates may degrade the integrity of turnout gear over time. Additionally, soiled or contaminated ensembles and ensemble elements can expose firefighters to toxins and carcinogens that enter the body through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a).

Detailed Retirement Criteria. Due to studies completed by Cotterill (2009) and Vogelpohl (1996), a proposal was written to comment on additional factors to consider during retirement; including, but not limited to, excessive soil build up, thermal damage, or physical damage of the garment. It is a requirement that ensembles and ensemble elements be retired in accordance with NFPA 1851 no more than 10 years from the manufacture date (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Seam strength and moisture barrier failures were areas of the study completed by Cotterill (Phase I) that did not coincide with a 10-year wear life (Cotterill, 2009).

Reflective Trim. The Firefighter Durability Study Phase I established that 100% of garments tested passed retroflectivity testing (Cotterill, 2009). Lab testing was completed based on how a fire fighter would perform the testing in the field and was consistent with NFPA 1851 section A.6.3.5.1 (9) (Cotterill, 2009). A 100% success rate indicated that this test is reliable for firefighters to use as a field test to inspect garments; the proposal supports the findings of the study.

NFPA 1971. NFPA 1971 is one of the most recognized standards in the industry. This standard set

minimum requirements for structural and proximity fire fighting protective ensembles. NFPA 1971 addressed the safety parameters of turnout gear and included severe testing (heat resistance, garment breathability, and overall garment integrity to name a few) to make sure the garment meets the field’s needs (Giovanni, 2006).

Revision. The 2007 edition of NFPA 1971 evolved from the original document that was created in 1975. Through the years, the original standard titled “Standard on Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting” included many new requirements and updates. In 1981, the edition was reformatted to be more useable by not only the fire service, but also the protective clothing manufacturers. The 1986 revision was changed to include more performance requirements and fewer specifications (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). In 1991, the standard was further strengthened by the incorporation of third party certification, labeling, and listing for the protective clothing (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). In 1997, the decision was made to combine four separate standards (turnout gear, helmets, boots, and gloves)

15

into one document, “Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting” (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). The four separate standards that were combined included NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting; NFPA 1972, Standard on Helmets for Structural Fire Fighting; NFPA 1973, Standard on Gloves for Structural Fire Fighting; and NFPA 1974, Standard on Protective Footwear for Structural Fire Fighting (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). In the past 10 years, major changes to the 1971 standard included new requirements for evaporative heat transfer through garments known as “total heat loss” (THL), evaluating thermal insulation areas, and evaluating the durability of barrier materials through additional preconditioning prior to physical testing. The latest edition of NFPA 1971 combined proximity and structural fire fighting standards and formed the titled “Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting”. This edition added optional CBRN requirements for protection from terrorism agents that could be released as a result of a terrorist attack (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

Life span recommendations and problems. NFPA 1851 requires that gear be retired no more than 10 years from the date it was manufactured. It also requires that the radiant reflective outer shell used on proximity garments be retired after five years from manufacture. (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Without research to determine how long gear lasts, it may be possible that turnout gear has a shorter, or longer, life than previously noted- especially following proper care and maintenance procedures. If an ensemble is 10 years old, yet still functioning perfectly, it may benefit a fire department to keep the garment in service, preventing unnecessary expense. Protective Ensemble The structural fire fighting protective garment is defined as the coat, trouser, or coverall elements of the protective ensemble (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). The layers of protective garments have been engineered to provide the wearer maximum safety, and protection from the environment. Although each layer serves specific functions, as a composite, they are expected to provide the firefighter with adequate heat, flame, liquid, chemical, and mechanical protection (Giovanni, 2006).

Outer shell. The outer shell of turnout gear provides between 25-30% of total thermal protection (Giovanni, 2006). The outer shell of turnout gear has two critical functions: to resist ignition from direct flame impingement and protect the internal layers from rips, tears, abrasion, slashes, etc (Janesville, n.d.). This may be the most important component in the turnout gear because it not only needs to be flame resistant and hold up well against fire, but it is crucial to also protect underlying layers and resist moisture and absorption.

Moisture barrier. The barrier should be breathable for the wearer, yet resistant to water and any other liquids a firefighter may encounter. An important measure in the moisture barrier’s effectiveness is the amount of energy transferred through the turnout gear, expressed as total heat loss (THL) (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2009a). Fire departments are placing increasing attention on liquid protection as an issue related to the service life of gear as a result of the continued barrier protection being called into question (Stull & Stull, 2009a). New moisture barriers are made of a combination of micro porous films and coatings that are designed to allow moisture vapor to escape but to prevent any liquids from

16

entering. This trend was designed to replace the original impermeable rubber barriers with lighter weight, more breathable materials to reduce the burden on firefighters (Stull & Stull, 2009a).

Thermal liner. The thermal liner of turnout gear is generally constructed with a facecloth material quilted to a nonwoven or batting insulation (Giovanni, 2006). The thermal liner in turnout gear provides between 70%-73% of heat protection for the firefighter (Lion Apparel, 2003b). It is important for this component to offer thermal insulation but to prevent inhibition of the ability of the body to cool off and maintain normal body temperature. Proper function protects the firefighter from dangerous heat levels.

Fabrics. The use of protective fabrics and clothing expanded as industry progressed and overall awareness of the deleterious effects of worker exposure to chemical, thermal, and environmental hazards present in the workplace increased (Carroll, 1995). Proper material development is an important prerequisite to design of a complete protective clothing system; only then can the design of the clothing system provide a thermal environment suitable for human activity (Shanley, Slaten, & Shanley, 1993). It is important that these fabrics be lightweight and comfortable, yet strong and durable against dangerous environments and elements. The problem is that many of these advanced fabrics are expensive, so it is imperative that a realistic life expectancy be established in order to ensure that all firefighters are protected within budgetary means. The limited resources of volunteer departments may force many to put a higher priority on durability and cost effectiveness than career departments that may have the ability to replace their gear more often.

Outer Shell. It is common for fire fighter turnout gear to consist of an outer shell that is made of Nomex®, Kevlar®, and/or PBI fibers.

PBI Fibers. According to PBI Performance Products, “PBI (Polybenzimidazole) stable fiber is an organic fiber that provides thermal stability for a wide range of high temperature applications. It will not burn in air, it does not melt or drip, and it will retain its strength and flexibility after exposure to flame” (PBI Performance Products Inc). Some other characteristics of PBI fibers include that they have a high char yield, are abrasion, age, and mildew resistant, and are dyable to dark shades with basic dyes following caustic pre-treatment (FiberSource, 2010).

Kevlar® and Nomex®. Kevlar® and Nomex® are two fibers used in current materials for protective gear. Turnout gear materials made using Kevlar fibers are enhanced to be lightweight, yet durable and strong. Kevlar is noted to be five times stronger than steel (DuPont, 2009). Nomex® is known to be inherently flame resistant and will not melt, drip, or support combustion in the air. It is also prided in its permanence - this flame resistant property cannot be washed out or worn away (DuPont, 2009). Today, more than three million firefighters around the world are protected by turnout gear, station wear, and accessories made out of Nomex® (DuPont, 2009). Nomex® and Kevlar® materials are engineered with high temperature fibers to form outer shell materials that protect the inner components (DuPont, 2009).

Moisture Barrier. Crosstech®. Crosstech® is a moisture barrier fabric that was designed specifically for fire and safety professionals to provide functionality in the field. Created by W.L. Gore, this moisture barrier is known to protect from body fluids, common chemicals, and water while reducing heat stress and providing comfort to the wearer (Gore, 2009).

17

RT7100. The Gore™ RT7100 moisture barrier was created to be a high performing, yet inexpensive material. As a low cost option that meets performance criteria that a firefighter needs, this moisture barrier may be ideal for small and/or volunteer departments. This specific moisture barrier is known for its thermal stability, and non-cracking, non-flaking performance (Gore, 2010). RT7100 provides a low cost alternative to polyurethane moisture barriers. Thermal Liners. Aramid fibers. The aramid fiber is used in many thermal liners produced today; it is described as a manufactured fiber that is spun as a multifilament and includes characteristics such as a low melting point, low flammability, and fabric integrity at elevated temperatures (FiberSource, n.d.).

E-89. E-89 is a multi-layer nonwoven used for thermal liners in fire fighter turnout gear. This nonwoven is known to be light and breathable, while also providing properties of rapid drying, a range of thermal insulation, high THL, and flexibility.

Reinforcements. In some areas of a protective ensemble, reinforcements consisting of additional materials

are offered. Reinforcements provide this additional insulation against heat transfer, offer abrasion resistance, and protect primary clothing layers from abrasion and other forms of physical damage (Stull & Stull, 2009b). NFPA 1971 specifies that certain areas of fire fighting turnout gear have higher levels of thermal insulation during compression, leading most manufacturers to add additional layers of reinforcement. The high compression areas are the knees and shoulders. Other areas that are commonly reinforced are not mandated but can include elbows, the edge of pant hems, sleeve hems, knees, closures, and the waist area (Stull & Stull, 2009b).

Reinforcements offer many benefits to the firefighter wearing a protective ensemble. The design and use of the extra material allow for improvement on the compression, puncture and cut resistance, and controls the effect of water absorption that may be associated with some textile materials (Stull & Stull, 2009). Care and Maintenance of Protective Clothing

After each use by the individual, the firefighter should complete an advanced visual inspection to for soiling and contaminants. NFPA 1851 states that soiled or contaminated elements should not be brought into the home, washed in home laundries, or washed in public laundries unless the public laundry has a dedicated business to handle protective ensembles (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a).

When properly maintained, turnout gear provides the wearer primary protection from heat, moisture, and household chemicals, but when allowed to remain soiled or damaged, an ensemble can compromise safety resulting in injury or even death (Zender, 2008). If an ensemble is contaminated, it should be immediately isolated until it is inspected and contaminants are removed. If the elements are contaminated with chemical, biological agents, and radiological or particulate hazard terrorism agents, they should be immediately retired (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). If cleaning is an option, washing should occur at a laundry site on premises or by a cleaning service that specializes in handling turnout gear.

Soiled or contaminated turnout gear may be unhealthy for the wearer and the public; the hazardous combustion products that a firefighter encounters need to be extracted from the

18

materials in order to prevent further damage and to clear present toxins. Contaminated protective gear exposes firefighters to potentially life-threatening chemicals, biological agents, and particulate matter; if not dealt with properly, soiled protective gear can also pass harmful agents on to the public at large (Jorgensen, 2005). Turnout gear components can be severely damaged by improper cleaning methods. The agitator in most home washing machines can harshly abrade the material while bulky parts of the gear may receive little or no cleaning (Redler, 2005). The total heat loss (THL) values of protective garments are thought to decline markedly when the garments are not kept in optimal condition, and the risk of burn injury subsequently increases in soiled protective clothing. In addition to discomfort from improper care, mechanical degradation could also result in higher burn injuries. To keep gear in its best condition, it must be properly cleaned and cared for. If appropriately cleaned, gear will last longer because damage to the moisture barrier, thermal liner, and shell is avoided. Turnout gear is usually made of materials that shed water easily; because of this, they require high extraction speeds (Redler, 2005). To avoid damaging the moisture barrier and liner components, garments must be cleaned at a water extraction speed of no more than 100 g-force (G) and a water temperature of less than 105°F (Zender, 2008). To further prevent damage to turnout gear, it should be air dried in a well ventilated area with no direct sunlight. According to NFPA 1851, Section 7.4.3, “a no-heat or air-dry option shall be used”. In the absence of a “no-heat” or “air-dry” option, the “basket temperature shall not exceed 105°Fahrenheit, and the heat cycle shall be discontinued prior to the removal of moisture from the ensemble or ensemble elements” (National Fire Protection Association, 2007b).

Any major repair on turnout gear must be performed by the original manufacturer or a verified Independent Service Provider (ISP). Minor repairs to the outer shell may be done by a member of the organization who has received training from the manufacturer or a verified ISP. Repairs are crucial because they maintain the functionality of the garment and it can frequently be less expensive to repair gear than to purchase an entire new ensemble. With smaller operating budgets, spotting an error and having the error repaired is important for the safety of the wearer and for the sake of saving the gear. According to NFPA 1851 section 8.2.3, repair of minor tears, char marks, ember burns, and abraded areas on the outer shell shall be limited to those where the damaged area can be covered by five inches of the same compliant material (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). If there is any question on the department’s behalf as to the extent of the damage or the type of repair that may be needed, the manufacturer should be contacted. Design Issues of Turnout Gear

Turnout gear is designed to protect the wearer from hazardous situations and a potentially dangerous environment. It is designed for the safety of the wearer and to reduce burns, injury and heat stress. Although not in NFPA requirements, evaluations can be performed on protective elements to determine the overall effectiveness of the design of a protective ensemble; motor tests for flexibility, reach, and stress areas, time studies for how quickly the wearer of the protective gear can perform tasks, and work energy studies to determine how much energy wearers need to accomplish a mission while in the gear (Shanley, et al., 1993). A study completed in 2007 found that firefighters ranked the three most important factors for protective clothing selection: protection and safety, ease of movement, and comfort (Jeong, Jeon, An,

19

Kamijo, & Shimizu, 2007). This same study also found that one third of all firefighter complaints involve restriction of movement (Jeong, et al., 2007).

Firefighters tend to have love-hate relationships with their ensembles because they provide excellent insulation during fire fighting, but they get too hot in the summertime (Brehm, 2003). The garment design includes many pockets, patches and clips to increase functionality, but which also make the gear heavy. Thick gloves protect from heat but make it hard to use hands for small tasks (Brehm, 2003). From a firefighter’s perspective, it is important for gear to be functional, yet non-restrictive and light. Post-use Evaluation and Functional Design

A study based on the post-use functional design of a protective ensemble can be compared to the design and evaluation procedures that a fashion designer would use when creating everyday garments. Fashion designers can create clothing by looking at end-user needs. Designers use problem solving methods and creativity to deal with any clothing, but more specifically, protective clothing. In order to satisfy the individual wearing the protective ensemble, gear needs to be comfortable, functional, and aesthetically pleasing. Most importantly, turnout gear needs to protect the wearer from a variety of environments firefighters may endure. In order to design functional gear, one must complete thorough research, define a problem, and compromise with a consumer, while maintaining compliance to the applicable standard. In safety or industrial applications, design is synonymous with ergonomics. Ergonomics is defined as the “applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely” (Giovanni, 2006).

The post-use evaluation of turnout gear can be compared to Susan Watkins’s diagram in Clothing: The Portable Environment. These six steps are listed in the process of functional design (Watkins, 1984).

1. Define the Problem 2. Explore the design situation 3. Perceive the problem structure 4. Describe specifications 5. Establish design criteria 6. Develop a prototype

Once a problem is defined, the next step is to explore the design situation; this step includes setting objectives, researching the problem, and brainstorming. This step would basically involve a breakdown of everything about a garment that needs updating and improvement. Next, specifications are described and assessments are made, including the activity, movement, thermal impact, and social-psychological aspect of the clothing. After the assessments and problems of the clothing are defined, the fourth step would be prioritizing and discovering interactions among specifications. By the end of this step, design criteria should be developed. Textile testing and construction techniques are completed and the creative integration of the criteria leads to possible solutions (Watkins, 1984). Lastly, criterion is met and a prototype garment is developed to meet the specifications of the end-consumer. This framework is similar to the idea of the post-use evaluation that architects and interior designers use. They too go through the process of functional design, and later evaluate

20

what went wrong, what could be improved, and observations of a building. This idea is one that Susan Watkins (1984) has used to improve protective clothing. Summary Firefighters frequently encounter dangerous and even perilous situations: Flash fires reaching up to 2200° Fahrenheit, poisons, chemicals, explosives, smoke, and other emergencies. All firefighters must be equally prepared to battle industrial, structural, and residential fires, as well as vehicle extrication and emergency medical services. In order to securely battle these adverse conditions, the firefighter’s turnout gear must be durable and non-restricting. Some of the injuries that firefighters endure include scalding, smoke inhalation, strains, overexertion, and injuries sustained from falling, slipping, and jumping.

Both volunteer and career firefighters need to be sure that their gear is fully functioning and safe while battling unpredictable environments. The three components of this gear include the outer shell (resists ignition from direct flame impingement and protects the internal layers), the moisture barrier (breathable, yet water resistant), and a thermal liner (providing approximately 70-73% of thermal protection (Lion Apparel, 2003a). NFPA standards were developed by volunteers and trained, knowledgeable individuals in the industry to provide safety standards for firefighters. NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition is the Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting. NFPA 1851 allows emergency responders to assess their clothing needs and provides requirements on how to maintain protective gear. The elements of protective ensembles covered in this standard include the coat, pants, helmet, gloves, footwear, and interface components. NFPA 1851 is widely used by departments and organizations in order to have a care standard for firefighting garments. Selecting a garment that fits appropriately, inspecting the garment, caring for the gear, maintaining the gear, and retiring the gear are areas covered in NFPA 1851. NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2007 Edition is a recognized standard that addresses the minimum safety parameters of turnout gear (Giovanni, 2006). This standard also provides test methods to confirm that garments meet the minimum performance requirements. NFPA 1971 began as four separate standards covering boots, helmets, garments, and gloves. Design and performance requirements, as well as test methods are provided in NFPA 1971.

NFPA 1851 requires that gear be retired no more than 10 years after the date of manufacture (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study completed by Cotterill (2009) at the University of Kentucky concluded that the 10-year wear life was satisfactory, with the possible exception of the moisture barrier and seam strength based on the 67 garments evaluated. Firefighters tend to have complaints about their gear, with the top three complaints being protection and safety, ease of movement, and comfort (Jeong, et al., 2007). To learn more about the design problems of turnout gear, Susan Watkins’ diagram in clothing may be used to reassess how the protective gear is made. Current technology is constantly updating and improving protective performance, but it is still necessary to perform testing and post-use analysis in order to predict the safety and durability of a firefighter’s turnout gear.

156

156

Chapter Three Methodology

The purpose of this study was to perform a post-use evaluation firefighter’s turnout gear. This research combined data from 67 garments from career firefighters previously evaluated and analyzed by Cotterill (2009) in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study, and 76 garments obtained and evaluated from volunteer departments (Phase II). Garments were divided into age categories (less than four years, greater than five years, and retired) and tested according to NFPA 1851, 2008 edition, and NFPA 1971, 2007 edition. Physical testing in Phase II included TPP, THL, seam strength, breaking strength, thickness, tear resistance, flammability, and water penetration. The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain supporting data on the history of volunteer firefighter gear that was tested in Phase II. More specifically, the questionnaire allowed for more in depth information on the care, use, and retirement of the gear obtained (from the department’s point of view). Test data obtained from Cotterill's “Post Use Analysis of Fire Fighter Turnout Gear”, or Phase I of the Durability Study, was used in combination with information acquired in Phase II in order to provide a more representative sample of both career and volunteer fire fighting turnout gear. The goals of this research were to develop a better understanding of used turnout gear, the parameters of its wear life, and information on the care and maintenance of garments. Research Design This research obtained quantitative data and was a quasi-experimental design. New fabric specimens and volunteer garments, as well as data obtained from Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study, were used as a part of Phase II. Turnout gear from volunteers in small departments was tested in this study (Phase II). Turnout gear was evaluated using the Functional Clothing Design Process developed by J. DeJonge and the post-occupancy evaluation process that was developed as an interior design research method for evaluating buildings (Watkins, 1984). While this process was intended for interior design, the six steps and theoretical framework may be applied to the research of “post occupied” performance textiles and clothing. Sample

The garments evaluated for Phase II were obtained from volunteer firefighters willing to donate their used gear in exchange for new garments provided by the manufacturers of turnout gear. The collected gear was a convenience sample that was not randomized. The sample size of volunteer firefighter garments obtained in Phase II totaled 76. The outer shells included outer shells consisting of Nomex®, Kevlar®, and PBI fibers. Moisture barriers evaluated were grouped as either Crosstech® or RT7100. Thermal liners were assembled into categories of E-89 or Aramid. Different combinations of the outer shells, thermal liners, and moisture barriers were chosen for testing because these tended to be common products in the fire fighting industry. Turnout gear was obtained from different regions in the United States so that the samples and data could be as representative as possible of volunteer firefighters in small departments throughout the country. Data from 67 career firefighter garments obtained in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study was included in Phase II in order to form a more representative sample of small, medium, and large sized departments, as well as both career and volunteer firefighters. The extra 67 garments also allowed for a larger sample size, which allows for a more statistically sound study. Garments obtained and tested in Phase I were also convenience samples that were not randomized when they were collected in 2008 by D. Cotterill (2009). The samples from career firefighters were collected nationwide in order to be

157

157

representative of career firefighters in general. The three different outer shell fabrics tested by Cotterill in Phase I included Nomex®, Nomex®/Kevlar® and PBI®/Kevlar®. Three different thermal liners consisting of aramid batt, recycled batt, and E-89 batt were tested. The moisture barriers tested included PTFE membranes laminated to Nomex® IIIA, PTFE membranes laminated to E-89, and a PTFE membrane laminated to E-89. Phase II also included flat fabric testing. The purpose of evaluating flat fabric was to correlate washing cycles with the performance of turnout gear. Since the turnout gear being evaluated for research could not conclusively be washed and then evaluated, flat fabric was used instead. Flat fabric samples were obtained through mills that manufacture fabric for the production of firefighter’s turnout gear. These material samples were cut from bolts of fabric that are commonly used to create turnout gear components in the industry. Four samples from each fabric type were tested: one at zero washes, one at five washes, one at 10 washes, and finally, one at 20 washes. Six different outer shell materials, three different moisture barrier materials, and three different thermal liner materials were collected, washed, examined, and then combined into composites to be representative of turnout gear. In total, 24 flat fabric composites were compiled and evaluated. Methodology

The methodology used for this research was laboratory testing and a visual inspection completed in accordance with the technical standards of NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971. All results of testing were compared to the performance requirements that these standards mandate and the results from flat fabric and volunteer garments obtained in Phase II were combined with the results obtained from Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study in order to create a larger samples size representative of firefighters in general.

Phase I. Cotterill (2009) tested all samples in Phase I for thermal protective performance (TPP), total heat

loss (THL), seam breaking strength, tear strength, water penetration, and flame resistance. Samples from the career firefighter turnout gear used in Phase I were tested additionally in Phase II for thickness in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-1777 Standard Method for Thickness of Textile Materials, and breaking strength in accordance with ASTM D-5034 Standard Method for Breaking Force and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test). The data obtained in Phase I is used in combination with that obtained in Phase II to further strengthen statistical results and form a more representative sample of both career and volunteer firefighter turnout gear.

Phase II. The components of the volunteer fire fighting turnout gear (76 garments) underwent

flammability testing, a light evaluation, tear strength testing, seam breaking strength, breaking strength on the outer shell, composite thickness, hydrostatic testing and a leakage evaluation on the moisture barriers, a physical inspection of the seams and fabric on the gear, composite testing, and photos for proof of a visual inspection. All tests performed were in accordance with NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition or NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition.

New Fabric. The fabrics evaluated in Phase II were washed per the advanced cleaning procedure in NFPA

1851 section 7.3.7., and tested at wash cycle intervals of zero, five, 10, and 20. The detergent used for these cycles was Tide Total Care, which has a pH between of 6-10.5. A temperature of 90° Fahrenheit on a commercial UniMac® washing machine was used in the wash cycle, and elements were thoroughly rinsed. Fabrics were then dried for 10 minutes using a “no heat” option on a commercial UniMac® dryer,

158

158

and laid flat afterwards to complete the drying process. After conditioning, the flat fabrics in Phase II underwent testing for water penetration, Total Heat Loss (THL), Thermal Protective Performance (TPP), and thickness.

Questionnaire. In order to better understand the care and use of the garments (especially those garments used for

Phase II of the durability study), firefighters that donated gear to Phase II research were asked to complete a 13 question survey relating to their garment use and care. The types/quantity of fires the garments typically go through, cleaning, and retirement were major areas the questionnaire covered to obtain knowledge on the gear’s life. In total, 65 questionnaires were collected for Phase II of the Firefighter Durability Study. It should be noted that the 65 questionnaires collected and analyzed in this study were answered by volunteer firefighters. Sample Preparation All retired gear collected by manufacturers in Phase II (17 garments) was sent to the University of Kentucky to begin the inspection and testing process. Outer shells obtained in Phase II from the manufacturers not classified as retired (59 garments) were first sent to 3M for retroflectivity testing and thereafter washed to remove soiling and contaminants before being sent to the Textile Laboratory at the University of Kentucky. After receiving the donated turnout gear, all 76 garments obtained in Phase II were photographed and visually inspected for cuts, tears, holes, thermal damage, discoloration and functionality issues. With the exception of TPP samples, all samples cut for testing were conditioned for a minimum of 24 hours at 70°± 5° Fahrenheit and at a relative humidity (RH) of 65% ± 5% following ASTM D-1776 Standard Practice for Conditioning Textiles for Testing. Procedures

All procedures were completed following the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association and by complying with ASTM Standards. The test methods, the procedures entailed, and the apparatus used to complete the evaluation were as follows:

Visual Inspection. The visual inspection included a routine examination for soiling, contamination, physical damage, loss of moisture barrier integrity, loss of seam integrity and broken stitches, loss of wristlet integrity, missing reflective trim, thermal damage, correct assembly and compatibility between the size of the shell and liner as specified in section 6.3.5.1 of NFPA 1851 2008 Edition (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). The visual assessment was used to identify the overall condition of the 76 garments in Phase II by taking into account soiling, cleanliness, discoloration and damage present on the gear. Material discoloration can indicate many types of possible damage, including, but not limited to, dye loss, heat degradation, UV damage, and chemical contamination (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Detailed photographs of the front, back, and inside of the garments as well as the labels were documented by the researcher.

Evaluation of Closure System Functionality. While performing the advanced visual inspection on each garment, the closure system was evaluated in order to conform to the advanced visual inspection found in NFPA 1851, 2008 edition. The closures inspected on all fire fighting turnout gear include the hook, loop, zipper, and dees. After opening and closing all closure systems as they would be opened and closed by a firefighter wearing the garment, the specimens were given a pass or fail result. Garments were only given a “fail” result if the closure systems were not functional (missing hardware, or came loose or unattached on their own). Corrosion on the closure systems was not considered a “failure”; however, it was noted by the researcher.

159

159

Light Evaluation. The light evaluation of the turnout gear was conducted according to NFPA 1851 section 12.1. Specified areas of the 76 coats and trousers in Phase II were tested in the light evaluation. The panels on the upper back, shoulders, underarms, sleeves, crotch area, seat area, and waist area were the specified areas evaluated. The apparatus used to perform the light evaluation was a Smart Light 5000; this particular light source was used because it did not produce enough heat to damage the garments. The liner was separated from the outer shell, positioned so that the moisture barrier faced the light source, and then examined as to how much light is passing through the moisture barrier and thermal liner (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Overall, the light evaluation aimed to evaluate the density of fabric in certain areas of the used turnout gear to easily identify any thin spots, cuts, or holes that may be present.

Flashlight Test. Retroflectivity was evaluated on each of the 76 garments according to NFPA 1851 section A.6.3.5.1 (9). Visibility markings can appear to the human eye to be undamaged when actually they have lost much of their ability to reflect (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). In order to be sure that the garments were still reflective, a specimen and a sample of new trim was placed 40 feet from the evaluator in a dark room that had no interior or exterior light interference. A bright flashlight was held at eye-level to compare the trim of the gear to that of new trim for brightness and visibility. This test was rated by two evaluators who determined if the garment passed or failed.

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP). Thermal protective performance evaluates how well a fabric or system provides a barrier to and insulation from heat and flame, by predicting the incident heat energy required on the outer surface of a fabric system to cause second degree burns on human skin at the back of the fabric system (DuPont, 2011b). The thermal protective performance was completed in accordance to NFPA 1971, 2007 edition, section 8.10. and ISO17492, Clothing for Protection Against Heat and Flame-Determination of Heat Transmission on Exposure to Both Flame and Radiant Heat. This test method is significant because the thermal and evaporative resistance provided by a fabric, batting, or other type of material is of considerable importance in determining its suitability for use in fabricating protective clothing systems (ASTM, 2008a). To perform the test, three specimens were cut in sample sizes of 6 in. x 6 in. ± ¼ in. that included all three layers of fabric. These six inch squares were cut diagonally from the THL samples and did not include any seams or pleats. TPP samples were obtained from the THL samples of the coats due to a lack of space available on the trousers. As suggested in NFPA 1971 Section 8.10.5. for testing purposes, specimens were exposed to a heat flux of 84 kW/m2, ±2 kW/ m2 (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). The thermal threshold index analysis method is used with calculations made using the heat flux in calories per square centimeter per second and reported as the TPP rating (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). The researcher recorded the TPP time, TPP value, and pain time. Pass or fail determinations are then made based on the average TPP rating of all specimens tested. NFPA 1971 7.1.1 mandates that protective garment elements composite of outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal barrier shall be tested for thermal insulation and shall have an average TPP of not less than 35.0 cal/cm2 (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

Total Heat Loss (THL). Total heat loss has a direct relationship with thermal protective performance (TPP); researching TPP and THL values provides a predictive indication of safety and performance levels in firefighter’s protective clothing (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2011). Total heat loss (THL) testing was completed in accordance with ASTM F-1868 Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate Part C and the 2007 Edition of NFPA 1971 section 8.34. This method covers the measurement of the thermal resistance and the evaporative resistance, under steady-state conditions for use in clothing systems (ASTM, 2002). Total

160

160

heat loss requires at least three specimens, cut in 20 in. x 20 in. squares that contain all three layers of fabric (outer shell, moisture barrier, thermal liner). The apparatus was a SGHP-10.5 Sweating Guarded Hotplate. Due to lack of continuous space, only one specimen was taken from the back of each coat donated for the study. To comply with NFPA 1971 section 8.34.2 samples were conditioned at 77° Fahrenheit ± 13° Fahrenheit (25° Celsius ± 7° Celsius) and at a relative humidity (RH) of 65% ± 5%. The test plate, guard section, and bottom plate were each electronically maintained at a constant temperature in the range of human skin temperature (33 to 36°C) without fluctuating more than 0.1°C during a test.(ASTM, 2002) Air temperature was maintained over the test plate at 25°C ± 0.5°C without fluctuating more than ± 0.1°C during a test (ASTM, 2002). Relative Humidity was maintained at 65% RH ± 4% and without fluctuating more than ± 4% during a test (ASTM, 2002). After calibration, the fabric was placed on the hot plate surface with the side normally facing the human body toward the plate, and measurement of thermal resistance was finished when the equilibrium was reached (ASTM, 2002). After testing was completed, the average apparent intrinsic evaporative resistance, average intrinsic thermal resistance, and total heat loss were calculated. According to NFPA 1971 7.2.2, garment composites consisting of outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal barrier shall be tested for evaporative heat transfer and shall have a total heat loss of not less than 205 W/ m2 (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). It should be noted that the results of the THL testing for the study are questionable due to the lack of three samples, and also due to the presence of seams, pleats, damage, and creases on the samples. The samples sent to TenCate, Inc for THL testing were obtained from used fire fighting turnout gear. The samples sent to W.L. Gore & Associates were composed of new, washed, and unwashed flat fabrics.

Thickness. All THL samples obtained from the coats of the turnout gear were tested for thickness following ASTM D-1777 Standard Test Method for Thickness of Textile Materials. Each 24” THL sample was tested in five different areas (four corners and close to the center) using a Feather Touch Digital Thickness Tester. The samples were tested as a composite, meaning the thermal liner, moisture barrier, and outer shell were evaluated together for thickness as it is actually worn on the firefighter. Five measurements from each sample were recorded and averaged for each coat.

Flammability. This test was used to measure the vertical flame resistance of the protective fabric by following the procedure listed under ASTM D 6413-08 Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Test) (ASTM, 2007). The procedure determines the response of textiles to a standard ignition source, deriving measurement values for after flame time and char length (ASTM, 2008b).

At the University of Kentucky Textile Testing Lab, the garments were tested for flammability using a Govmark VC-2 automatic standard vertical flammability tester and 99% methane gas. The standard test method requires five samples from both the lengthwise and widthwise directions. Due to lack of space available on the garments, one specimen (3.0 in. by 12 in.) from each the outer shell, thermal liner, and moisture barrier was cut for testing. All specimens were conditioned in compliance with ASTM D-1776 Standard Practice for Conditioning and Testing Textiles. Not more than four minutes after being removed from conditioning, specimens were positioned and clamped vertically above a controlled flame and exposed for a 12 ± 0.2 seconds. For the duration of the test, gas pressure was adjusted to 17.2 ± 1.7 kPa (2.50 ± 0.25 lbf/in2) and the flame was ignited to a height of approximately 38 mm. Following the test, the researcher measured after flame time and char length; any evidence of dripping or melting was noted. Although it is not mandated by NFPA 1971, after glow time was also recorded. Leakage Evaluation. Leakage was conducted on the moisture barrier of the garments according to the test procedure outlined in NFPA 1851 section 12.2. This evaluation applies to moisture barriers

161

161

found in the liner of structural or proximity fire fighting garments that are in service (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). The test requires that the front and back panels of each protective element be evaluated using three different areas of the moisture barrier fabric, and three different areas of the moisture barrier where there is a seam using a solution of six parts 70% isopropanol rubbing alcohol and one part water (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition requires that at a minimum, the front and back body panels of each protective garment element be evaluated using three different moisture barrier material areas and three different moisture barrier areas with a seam (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). For this study (Phase II), two areas of material and two areas of seams were tested on the garments at room temperature. The test method, according to NFPA 1851, requires that the liner evaluation shall be from high-abrasion areas of the garment elements, including, but not limited to, the broadest part of the shoulders, back waist area of the coat, knees, crotch area, and the seat area (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). For trousers, the seat seam, crotch seam, left knee fabric, and right seat fabric were evaluated. For coats, the right shoulder seam, the left underarm seam, and right and left front panels were evaluated. It should also be noted that these locations were identical to those tested in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study. According to NFPA 1851 12.2.4.2, the liner was separated from the outer shell, and the liner was oriented so that the moisture barrier was on the outside and the thermal liner was facing downward (ASTM, 2008b). The liner area was cupped above a waterproof container, and one cup of the solution was poured into the cupped area and evaluated after three minutes. If any visible water penetrated the thermal liner, the garment was rated as a failure. A “failure” rating for the leakage evaluation indicates that moisture penetration did occur; however, “failure” did not indicate whether the moisture barrier was beyond repair. Tear Resistance. The Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by the Trapezoid Procedure ASTM D-5587-07 was used on the turnout gear. The apparatus used in the Textile Testing Lab at the University of Kentucky was a 400 lb load cell on an Instron 33R4465A. BlueHill software was used to assist in measuring and recording the five highest peaks of force necessary to tear the specimens. Two outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner samples (one in the horizontal direction, one in the vertical direction) from each garment were cut (6 in. by 3 in.) and marked with an isosceles triangle measuring one inch at the top and four inches on the bottom. A preliminary cut measuring 15 mm was made at the center of the one inch edge of each specimen. The tensile testing machine was used on conditioned specimens to determine the average of five peak forces necessary to tear the fabric. Both the apparatus and the researcher recorded the pounds of force (lbf) it took to tear the specimen.

Seam Breaking Strength. The Standard Test Method for Failure in Sewn Seams of Woven Apparel Fabrics (ASTM D-1683) is used to measure the sewn seam strength in woven fabrics by applying a force perpendicular to the sewn seams (ASTM, 2008). The seam was cut from used gear outer shells, moisture barriers, and thermal liners. Specimens sizing 8 in. x 4 in. (200 mm x 100 mm) were obtained with the seam parallel and centered to the shorter (4 in.) side of the sample. The standard test method requires that five specimens be tested; however, due to lack of space, only four specimens were taken from each pair of trousers. The coats were not included in this test. All samples were conditioned for a minimum of 24 hours according to ASTM D-1776. An Instron® 33R4465 with a 1,000 lb load cell was the apparatus used for seam breaking strength. The samples were clamped into the apparatus and testing ceased once the seam was torn. The force required for seam failure was recorded in lbf (pounds of force).

Breaking Strength. Breaking strength was completed on the outer shells of the 67 samples of used, paid fire fighting turnout gear from Phase I, as well as the outer shells of the 76 garments on the

162

162

current study (Phase II) by following ASTM D-5034, Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test). The grab test procedure for the determination of breaking force and elongation is considered satisfactory for acceptance testing of most woven textile fabrics (ASTM, 2009). ASTM D-5034 recommends for five specimens in the warp direction and eight specimens in the fill direction; however, due to lack of space on the turnout gear, six samples were obtained: three specimens in the warp direction, and three samples from the fill direction. On the coats, samples were cut from the right panel, left panel, left sleeve, and right sleeve. On the trousers, the samples were cut diagonally from the back side, and also diagonally down the front. Specimens were conditioned following protocol of ASTM D-1776. An Instron® 33R4465 using a 400 lb load was used to test all specimens. Pounds of force necessary to break the fabric was then recorded and averaged by garment, total warp, total fill, and overall average. Garments were given a “pass” or “fail” rating based on the requirements of NFPA 1971. Performance requirements in section 7.1.19 state that garment outer shells shall have a breaking strength of not less than 623 N (140 lbf) (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation. The water penetration test, also known as hydrostatic testing, was completed to determine the water penetration resistance of each garment’s moisture barrier. The same four areas (two seam areas and two fabric areas) that were tested in the leakage evaluation were tested in the water penetration barrier evaluation. A Gore low pressure hydrostatic tester (LPHT) was used in accordance with ASTM D-5512 and NFPA 1851 Section 12.3.1 (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Test specimens were loaded into the apparatus so that the side of the barrier that was against the outer shell faced the water. The LPHT was clamped down and secured a five inch diameter of fabric, then applied a constant pressure of one psi to the specimen. The samples were held in place for 15 seconds and were evaluated by two raters. Any water leakage visible indicated a “fail” rating. As with the Leakage Evaluation, a “fail” rating did not indicate whether the leakage was reparable - it only denoted that leakage occurred.

Retroflectivity and Fluorescence Test. Retroflection is created by a special material with unique optical properties that reflect light back to the source of the light (ATSSA, 2011). The combination of fluorescent and retroreflective properties of the high visibility trim materials allows firefighters to have conspicuity enhancement in both daytime and night time environments and is an important element of their gear and safety (Sayer & Buonarosa, 2008).

Retroreflectivity testing was completed by following ASTM E-809 Standard Practice for Measuring Photometric Characteristics of Retroflectors, and modifications obtained from NFPA 1971 section 8.46.4.1. This test method is used to measure photometric quantities that relate to the visual perception of retroflected light (ASTM, 2008). According to NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition, garment trims shall be tested for retroflectivity and fluorescence as specified in Section 8.46 and shall have a Coefficient of Retroflection (RA) of not less than 100 cd/lux/m2, and shall have the color be fluorescent yellow-green, fluorescent orange-red, or fluorescent red (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

The apparatus used for testing was a 3M Retrophotometer RM-2 with a 0.2 degree observation angle, five degree entrance angle, and a ½” aperture after calibration at a testing distance of 50 ft (15.2 m). The visibility markings on 59 garments from Phase II were evaluated in St. Paul, Minnesota, at the 3M Occupational Health and Environmental Safety Division Tech Service Laboratory. In order to acquire a representative sample of testing from each garment, the coats were evaluated in 46 locations, and the pants were evaluated in 12 locations (Figure 3.1). Results were detailed in candelas/lux/m2. Data on garments tested in Phase I were included in order to create a more representative evaluation of

163

163

retroflectivity on both career and volunteer firefighters. In Phase I, 23 coats and 21 pairs of trousers were evaluated, totaling in 44 garments.

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

1011

12

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6

25

2627

2829

3031

3233

34

3536

37 3938 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 3.1. Retroflectivity Test Locations Data Analysis The method of data analysis that was used for this study is the program Mini-Tab®. This program assisted in analyzing statistical data at the end of data collection. Some statistical techniques used to analyze the data acquired in this study include the chi-square test of independence, Fisher’s exact test, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, one-way ANOVAs, and linear regressions. Tests were used to determine dependence and relationships amongst different variables. The results from testing were put into either a pass or failure category, with supporting statistical data. Graphs and tables were depicted to help communicate the testing results.

164

164

Chapter Four Results and Discussion

The purpose of this research was to use physical testing, as well as user questionnaires to perform a post-use analysis of fire fighting turnout gear. This study combined data from 67 garments from career firefighters previously evaluated and analyzed by Cotterill (2009) in Phase I, and 76 garments obtained and evaluated from volunteer departments (Phase II). Garments were divided into age categories (less than four years, greater than five years, and retired) and tested according to current National Fire Protection Standards: NFPA 1851, 2008 edition, and NFPA 1971, 2007 edition. Physical testing in Phase II included Thermal Protective Performance (TPP), Total Heat Loss (THL), seam strength, breaking strength, thickness, tear resistance, flammability, and water penetration. The purpose of the user questionnaire was to obtain supporting data on the history of volunteer firefighter gear that was tested in Phase II. More specifically, the questionnaire allowed for more in depth information on the care, use, and retirement of the gear obtained (from the department’s point of view). It should be noted that questionnaires were obtained only from volunteer firefighters. Test data obtained from Cotterill's “Post Use Analysis of Fire Fighter Turnout Gear”, or Phase I of the Durability Study, was used in combination with information acquired in Phase II in order to provide a more representative sample of both career and volunteer fire fighting turnout gear. The goals of this research were to develop a better understanding of used turnout gear, the parameters of its wear life, and information on the care and maintenance of garments.

In this chapter, the visual inspection following NFPA 1851, 2008 edition will be discussed, as well as the performance properties (THL, TPP, tear strength, seam strength, flammability, breaking strength, and water penetration) of the garments (67 garments from Phase I, and 76 garments from Phase II). All testing was performed in accordance with NFPA 1971, 2007 edition, as well as the appropriate ASTM standards, and was completed in a controlled laboratory setting. Visual Inspection of Turnout Gear The advanced visual inspection included an overall visual inspection of the garments, evaluation of the closure system functionality, barrier leakage evaluation, a light evaluation of garment liners, and a flashlight test on reflective trim. This inspection was completed on 76 garments from Phase II that were composed of several types of outer shells, moisture barriers, and thermal liners. An advanced inspection had previously been completed on 67 garments obtained and evaluated in Phase I of the study; these two data sets were combined to increase sample size. The advanced visual inspection followed the requirements of NFPA 1851; label integrity and compatibility, soiling, contamination, tears and cuts, missing or damaged hardware, closure system functionality, discolorations, thermal damage, and functionality were all noted. Results of the visual inspection according to the checklist (Appendix E) were recorded (Appendix F). When combining data from both Phase I (67 garments) and Phase II (76 garments), it was found that 12 of 143 (8.39%) liner labels on the garments were not legible. When addressing the legibility of outer shell labels, it was discovered that 5.59% were not legible. Reasons for labels being illegible included soiling, or handwritten ink fading away. Figure 4.1 shows the evaluation given to each outer shell garment from both Phase I and Phase II. Most garments (73.42%) were classified as being in “good” condition during the physical inspection. When inspecting for holes, rips, cuts, and tears, it was noted that 25.17% of outer shells showed damage. The outer shell evaluation is shown in Figure 4.1. The majority of garments in both age ranges (less than four, greater than five) were classified as being in “good” condition.

165

165

Years of Use

Shell Evaluation

>5<4Ex

cellen

tGoo

dFa

irPo

or

Excel

lent

Good

Fair

Poor

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Coun

t

6

69

13

21

36

15

1

Outer Shell Evaluation

Figure 4.1. Outer Shell Evaluation Results; n=143 A majority of moisture barriers (79.72%) were also classified as “good” condition. Only 4.20% of moisture barriers were classified as “poor” during the visual inspection. Twelve moisture barriers were classified as being in “excellent” condition. Of the 143 moisture barriers evaluated (76 in Phase II, 67 in Phase I), 8.39% showed presence of cuts, tears, rips, or holes. Like the outer shells and moisture barriers, most of the thermal liners were categorized as in “good” condition. There were thermal liners categorized as “poor” condition (1.40%), and “excellent” condition (2.10%), but the majority or 89.51% were categorized as “good” condition. It was determined in the advanced visual inspection that 14.69% of the thermal liners showed cuts, holes, rips, or tears. An objective of this study was to determine if the visual inspection would predict the results of testing for firefighter’s turnout gear. Throughout the results and discussion section, the visual evaluation is compared to testing that showed a concerning number of failure rates. In a few instances, the significance of the relationship between the visual evaluation and the performance was tested; this is discussed more specifically under the individual test methods. For purposes of this study, the visual inspection was compared to tests that had a failure rate above 10%. Evaluation of Closure System Functionality An evaluation of the closure systems on the turnout gear was performed according to NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition on 76 garments obtained in Phase II. This data was combined with data obtained in Phase I on 67 garments. After being inspected for functionality, the closure systems were given a “pass” or “fail” rating by the researcher. A “pass” rating indicated a properly functioning closure system (zipper, loop, hook, and dees). A “fail” rating was given if the closures failed to stay attached, or failed to un-attach when attempting to open. Frays, deteriorating closures, and matted threads were noted in the visual inspection. If the closures on the firefighter’s ensemble are dysfunctional, the risk of user contact with extreme heat, debris, or common liquids like aqueous film forming foam, battery acid, fire resistant hydraulic fluid, surrogate gasoline fuel, and swimming pool chlorinating chemicals (National Fire Protection Association, 2006) increases; thus, further ensuing risk or injury.

166

166

In both Phase I and Phase II, there were no issues with zippers when inspecting for functionality. In Phase I, two of 67 garments (both in the greater than five/retired age category) had hook and dees (primary closures) which failed (Cotterill, 2009). In Phase II, the only closure system issues were related to a missing/tearing piece of hardware on the outer shell. Only seven of 76 garments evaluated in Phase II showed a minor issue in the closure system functionality. Of the garments in Phase II that did display functionality issues, two were in the less than four years of age category and five were in the greater than five years of age category. In combined phases evaluation (143 garments; 67 from Phase I, 76 from Phase II), there was a closure system failure rate of 6.29%. Light Evaluation In order to evaluate material changes on the liners of the garments, all 143 (76 from Phase II, 67 from Phase I) were inspected by following NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition. All garment liner components were placed over a light source to determine material changes, holes, or cuts in the liner. The light evaluation was completed on the upper back, shoulder, underarm, sleeve, crotch, seat, and waist areas of the liners. Phase I data indicated that 10 liner systems (of the 67 evaluated) showed changes in material texture (Cotterill, 2009). In Phase II, 14 liners (of the 76 evaluated) showed a change in material texture when subjected to the light source. Both phases of the Firefighter Durability Study combined indicate that a total of 16.78% of liners did not pass the light evaluation. It should be noted that different liner constructions and materials produce different amounts of light and that this is a subjective test. Flashlight Test The flashlight test was completed on a total of 143 garments by following NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition, A.6.4.5.1 (9). Data obtained from the 67 garments evaluated in Phase I was used in addition to the 76 garments evaluated in Phase II. Like the leakage evaluation, this is a test that may be performed in the field by a firefighter to evaluate the reflectivity of a garment. Garments were placed 40 feet from the researcher and observed with a flashlight at eye level for reflectivity. The trim on the garment was rated as a “pass” if it was reflective and a “fail” rating if the trim on the garment was no longer reflecting light. Any area specific loss of reflectance was noted.

After conducting the flashlight test it was determined that 100% of the garments (76 from Phase II, and 67 from Phase I) passed the field evaluation (Appendix F). It was noted that seven of the garments evaluated had small dark spots on the trim due to soiling or damage. Even though these garments displayed a slight loss of reflectance, they were still highly visible, and therefore received a passing rating. Thermal Protective Performance Thermal protective performance was performed on garment and fabric composites in accordance with ISO 17492, Clothing for Protection against Heat and Flame-Determination of Heat Transmission on Exposure to Both Flame and Radiant Heat. Twenty four composites were cut from the flat fabric combinations, washed, and evaluated for thermal protective performance. Due to a lack of continuous material on the garments, six by six inch composite squares were cut only from the coats. Thirty-nine coats from Phase II, and data from 31 coats tested in Phase I were evaluated for thermal protective performance. Samples were exposed to a heat flux of 84 Kw/m2 ± 2 Kw/m2 (2.0 cal/cm2s ± 0.05 cal/cm2) and the TPP value, TPP time, FFF (fabric failure factor), and pain time were recorded. A pass/fail rating was given based on the TPP value and the requirement stated in section 7.1.1 of NFPA 1971, 2006 Edition; the TPP shall have an average of not less than 35.0 cal/cm2 (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Time, fabric failure factor, and pain time were not used in the pass/fail rating but are listed in Appendix F, Table 10 (garments) or Table 11 (flat fabric) for reference.

167

167

Flat Fabric. In relation to thermal protective performance (TPP), testing of 24 flat fabric composites showed

higher performance for washed samples versus new materials. A regression analysis indicated a significant interaction (p=0.000) between wash cycle and the outer shell. The same was true for wash cycle and moisture barrier type (p=0.000). Table 4.1 Regression Analysis for the Effect of the Materials on Thermal Protective Performance in Wash Cycles

Regression Analysis- Materials, Thermal Protective Performance, and Wash Cycles P-Value for Interaction Years of Use Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner

Wash Cycle 0.549 0.000 0.000 0.232

These findings imply that different materials have different trends through wash cycle intervals. An interaction plot was used to show trends of interaction with wash cycle and the outer shell and moisture barrier, as well as the possibility of a trend with the thermal liner. The interaction plots in Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 indicate the relationship between wash cycles and TPP value. The interaction plot shows a significant increase in TPP value after five washes for all three turnout gear components.

201050

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

Wash Cycle

Mea

n

Nomex/KevlarPBI/Kevlar

Outer Shell


Figure 4.2. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle- Outer Shell (in cal/cm2)

168

168 201050

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

Wash Cycle

Mea

n

CrosstechRT7100

BarrierMoisture


Figure 4.3. Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Moisture Barrier (in cal/cm2)

201050

52

50

48

46

44

42

Wash Cycle

Mea

n

AramidE-89

LinerThermal


Figure 4.4 .Thermal Protective Performance and Wash Cycle-Moisture Barrier (in cal/cm2)

To verify the significance of interaction between wash cycle and outer shell, as well as that between wash cycle and moisture barrier in relation to TPP, a general linear model and a multiple regression were performed. A regression analysis was performed and verified the statistically significant

169

169

interaction between wash cycle and outer shell (p= 0.000), and wash cycle and moisture barrier type (p=0.000).

Garments. Results show that 100% of the garments (39 from Phase II, 31 from Phase I totaling in 70 garments) either met or exceeded the minimum requirement of 35 cal/cm2. The lowest garment TPP value recorded was 43.93 cal/cm2, and the highest was recorded at 64.30 cal/cm2. Of all 70 composites, the average TPP value was 50.68 cal/cm2. Results of thermal protective performance indicate that regardless of age, retirement status, or visual inspection, all garments exceeded the minimum requirements of NFPA 1971. Total Heat Loss (THL) Total heat loss was completed in accordance with NFPA 1971. In Phase II, 24 flat fabric samples were evaluated for total heat loss. Data obtained in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study from 31 garments was included with the 39 garments evaluated for total heat loss in Phase II. Flat Fabric. For flat fabric testing in Phase II, 24 samples were cut and tested for THL according to ASTM F-1868. The flat fabric samples were tested at W.L. Gore & Associates in Elkton, Maryland. Six samples from each category: new, five wash, 10 wash, and 20 wash were evaluated. Fabric composites were kept as flat as possible to increase accuracy; however, some creasing was present on the samples and the researcher stressed that this may have caused a lack of variation in the samples or an inaccurate assumption of data. All (100%) of the new, zero wash flat fabric composite THL samples met the NFPA requirement of 205 W/m2 in total heat loss testing. The values ranged from 205 W/m2 to 226 W/m2, with the average THL value for zero wash fabric being 215.60 W/m2. When transitioning from new to five-wash fabrics, THL values began to decrease and 41.86 % of the samples no longer met the NFPA requirement. At zero washes, the average THL value was 215.60 W/m2; after five washes the average THL value decreased 3.88% to 211.72 W/m2. This same failure rate occurred for both the 10-wash samples and for the 20-wash samples. A regression analysis indicated an interaction with wash cycle and each the outer shell (p=0.02), moisture barrier (p=0.02), and thermal liner (p=0.03). Table 4.2 Regression Analysis for the Effect of the Materials on THL in Wash Cycles

Regression Analysis- Material Components, THL, and Wash Cycles P-Value for Interaction Years of Use Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner

Wash Cycle 0.31 0.02 0.002 0.030 In the absence of other lurking variables, the regression analysis indicated a relationship between

wash cycle and THL value. An interaction plot was created to examine the specific trends of an interaction between the wash cycle and the outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner used in the THL composite.

170

170

201050

225

220

215

210

205

200

195

Wash Cycle

Mea

n


Outer Shell

Interaction Plot for Wash Cycle and THLData Means

Figure 4.5. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Outer Shell (in W/m2)

201050

225

220

215

210

205

200

195

190

Wash Cycles

Mea

n

CrosstechRT7100

BarrierMoisture


Figure 4.6. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Moisture Barrier (in W/m2)

171

171 201050

225

220

215

210

205

200

195

Wash Cycle

Mea

n

AramidE-89

LinerThermal


Figure 4.7. Total Heat Loss and Wash Cycles- Thermal Liner (in W/m2)

Like the plots for the thermal liner and moisture barrier materials, a drop in the THL value occurs after ten wash cycles on the outer shell. To further verify the interaction plots, a regression analysis was used to test the relationships. This regression analysis did verify a relationship between wash cycle and material type in all three components (outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner). The regression identified a statistically significant relationship between total heat loss and outer shell material (p=0.02), total heat loss and moisture barrier material (p=0.002), and total heat loss and thermal liner material (p=0.030).

Garments. Composite squares (20 x 20 inch) were cut and tested for total heat loss (39 coats from Phase II, 31 coats from Phase I). Samples were kept as flat as possible. Trim and pleating was removed for test accuracy; however, some of the garments were too small to remove all pleating on the samples. It should be noted that the test method requires averaging three samples; however, due to the size limitations, only one sample was taken from each coat. The same caveats present for flat fabric were also present for garment THL samples. The garment samples had been cut from used firefighters’ turnout gear; therefore, pinholes, pleating, creases, etc. were inevitable. As stated, results were combined with data from 31 samples accumulated and tested in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study. NFPA 1971 requirement states that samples “shall have a total heat loss of not less than 205 W/m2” (National Fire Protection Association, 2006), in this study 39 of the 70 samples from the garments failed, and 31 of the samples passed NFPA requirements. Converting the numbers to a percentage indicates that 55.71% of samples did not meet the minimum NFPA requirement for THL performance. Figure 4.8 shows the failure rate of garments when tested for THL performance.

172

172

PassFail

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Total Heat Loss

Per

cent

44.2857

55.7143

Total Heat Loss Evaluation

Figure 4.8. Total Heat Loss Results in Comparison to NFPA 1971 requirements; n=70

Variables such as retirement or material type were analyzed to investigate a relationship with THL results. The following section will examine the association of retirement and material type with THL results. It was found using interval plots and a one-way ANOVA that retirement status (p=0.001) and the outer shell type (p=0.003) have a significant relationship with THL values obtained from used garments. Table 4.3 One-Way ANOVA with F-Test for THL Values

One-Way ANOVA with F-Test for Total Heat Loss Values

Years of Use Retirement Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner

UL THL 0.068 0.008 0.000

Used THL 0.643 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.095

173

173

Based on a 95% confidence interval (Figure 4.9), it was determined that retired garments show a better chance of passing NFPA’s THL requirements than garments that were not retired. It should be noted that in both Phases combined, 26 garments were retired, and 44 garments were not retired.

YesNo

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Retired

Use

d T

HL 205

197.326

236.074

158.052

187.948

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Used THL and Retirement

Figure 4.9. Garment Total Heat Loss Performance and Retirement (in W/m2); n=70

As previously stated, the type of outer shell had an effect on the THL value after use. Another interval plot (Figure 4.10)was created to visualize the change in THL values after the garment is deployed into the fire fighting field. The dotted line across the plot intervals denotes the NFPA requirement for THL of 205 W/m2.

174

174

PBI/KevlarNomex/Kevlar

270260250

240230220

210200190

180170

160150

PBI/KevlarNomex/Kevlar

270260250

240230220

210200190

180170

160150

UL THL

Outer Shell

205

Used THL

205

247.338

267.18

237.745

253.753

196.613

226.909

155.566

192.439

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of UL THL, and THL After Use

Figure 4.10. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use-Outer Shell Composition (in W/m2)

When investigating UL data versus used garment THL value, an interval plot (Figure 4.11) showed with 95% confidence that THL values were more likely to decrease after use. The initial (UL) THL values were higher than the performance THL values of gear that had been in use.

RT7100Crosstech

270260250240230220210200190180170160150140

RT7100Crosstech

270260250240230220210200190180170160150140

UL THL

Moisture Barrier

205

Used THL

205

237.79

251.34

251.016

266.799

146.078

185.602196.617

225.255

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of UL THL and THL After Use

175

175

Figure 4.11. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use-Moisture Barrier (in W/m2) It was determined that the thermal liner significantly impacts the UL THL value before use

(p=0.000), but then shows less significance (p=0.095) on the garment’s THL value after use. The mean values for the “after use” THL performance were below the NFPA requirement; however, the E-89 confidence interval overlaps the pass/fail value of 205 so it is not considered significantly different from 205. The dotted line on the interval plot shows the NFPA requirement in relation to the THL performance (Figure 4.12).

E-89Aramid

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

E-89Aramid

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

UL THL

Thermal Liner

205

Used THL

205

263.589

268.655

226.428

245.741

183.683

216.711

158.985

198.485

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of UL THL and After Use THL

Figure 4.12. UL Total Heat Loss and Total Heat Loss after Use (in W/m2)

A one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) with the F-test was completed. The one-way ANOVA did successfully validate a statistically significant relationship between used THL values and retirement (p= 0.001), as well as with the outer shell (p= 0.003) and moisture barriers (p=0.000) used in the garment. A borderline significance was determined between Used THL value and thermal liner material (p=0.095).

The ANOVA also confirmed the statistically significant impact of moisture barrier (p=0.008) and thermal liner types (0.000) on the UL THL value. The outer shell material demonstrated borderline significance on the UL THL value. Table 4.3 demonstrated the statistically significant variables when compared to a p-value of 0.05.

Another one-way ANOVA was completed on the THL values in relation to the visual inspection. This test indicated a statistically significant relationship between THL value and the moisture barrier overall evaluation (p=0.061); however, it should be recognized that there were very small sample sizes in the fair category (n=2) and in the excellent category (n=2). The one-way ANOVA indicated that there was no significant relationship between outer shell evaluation and THL (p=0.054) or between THL and thermal liner (p=0.061). Thickness

176

176

Thickness of the coat composite used for total heat loss (THL) and thermal protective performance (TPP) was recorded by following ASTM D-1777, Standard Test Method for Thickness of Textile Materials. In total, 70 composites were evaluated for thickness (39 from Phase II, and 30 from Phase I). Thickness was measured in five locations on each composite and averaged. Composite thickness is not an NFPA 1971 specification; however, it may provide a better understanding of the relationship (or lack thereof) between THL, TPP, thickness, and hydrostatic testing. A one-way ANOVA with F-test and regression analysis were performed. The regression analysis found a significant relationship (p=0.001) between the used THL value and the thickness of the garment; however, the r-square value for this regression analysis was 16% indicating that only 16% of the variability of THL is explained by thickness. The one-way ANOVA and regression analysis found no significant relationship between hydrostatic testing and the used THL value (p=0.206) or between hydrostatic testing and thickness (p=0.849). Table 4.4 displays the results of the one-way ANOVA. Table 4.4 One-Way ANOVA and Regression Analysis for Hydrostatic Testing, Total Heat Loss, and Thickness

One-Way ANOVA and Regression Analysis for Hydrostatic Testing, THL, TPP, and Thickness

Hydrostatic Test Used THL Thickness

Used THL 0.206

Thickness

0.001 Hydrostatic Test 0.849

Another variable that was addressed in this study was thickness of composites in relation to the

TPP value; it is known that an increased TPP value has a direct correlation with increased protection. This was an attempt to validate the theory that fabrics tend to increase in size through use and laundering. Regression analyses (fitted line plots) were created to depict the relationship between THL and thickness and TPP and thickness. The regression analysis also indicated that there is a significant relationship between TPP and thickness (p=0.000). It should be noted that a stronger correlation between thickness and THL was expected; the data indicates that other factors (seaming, barrier leakage, and/or sample variability) may have impacted performance.

177

177

4.03.53.02.5

65

60

55

50

45

Thickness

Use

d TP

P

S 3.00163R-Sq 71.4%R-Sq(adj) 70.9%

4.03.53.02.5

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Thickness

Use

d TH

L

S 48.3952R-Sq 16.7%R-Sq(adj) 15.5%

Fitted Line PlotUsed TPP = 21.87 + 9.678 Thickness

Fitted Line PlotUsed THL = 321.1 - 44.32 Thickness

Figure 4.13. Fitted Line Plot of Thermal Protective Performance Value and Total Heat Loss Performance vs. Thickness Flammability

One sample was cut from each garment component from Phase II (76 outer shells, 76 moisture barriers, 76 thermal liners); this totaled in 228 samples evaluated for flammability. D. Cotterill evaluated 102 samples (60 outer shell samples, 16 moisture barrier samples, and 16 thermal liner samples) in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study. Data from the 102 flammability samples in Phase I was combined with data obtained in Phase II to form a representative evaluation. All samples were tested for flame resistance by following ASTM D 6413-99 and NFPA 1971, 2006 Edition, section 8.2, Flame Resistance Test 1. The samples were exposed to a flame for 12 ± 0.2 seconds. After the flame was removed from the sample, after-flame and after-glow time were recorded, and char length was measured. Any observation of melting or dripping (or lack thereof) was also noted during testing. Pass/fail ratings were assigned by the requirements stated in NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition. Any outer shell, moisture barrier, or thermal liner that demonstrated a char length of more than 100 mm (4 inches), an after flame of more than 2.0 seconds, melting, or dripping constituted as a failure rating (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Of all 330 samples (including outer shells, moisture barriers, and thermal liners) subjected to flammability testing, only 1.27% did not meet NFPA requirements. See Appendix F for detailed information on the raw data obtained from flammability testing. It should be noted that all garments were laundered before being evaluated for flammability.

Outer Shells. All of the 136 (100%) outer shells evaluated from the combined phases passed the flammability testing. Seventy- six samples tested for flammability were acquired in Phase II of the durability study: the other 60 outer shell specimens were evaluated in Phase I of the durability study. No after flames were greater than two seconds, and no char lengths longer than four inches. The average char length reported for outer shells was 0.58 inches; the largest char length measured was 1.84 inches, while

178

178

the smallest was 0 inches. There was also no evidence of melting or dripping present on the outer shell fabrics tested for flammability. Moisture Barriers. In total, 76 moisture barriers from Phase II, and 16 moisture barriers from Phase I were tested for flammability. Of the 92 moisture barriers tested, 2.17% (or two garments) failed to meet NFPA flammability requirements due to char lengths above 4.0 inches. The char lengths of these two moisture barriers measured 4.12 inches, and 4.59 inches. The average char length of all 76 moisture barriers tested for flammability was 0.5877 inches. Thermal Liners. As for thermal liners, 92 total samples were evaluated for flammability (76 from Phase II, and 16 from Phase I). Like the moisture barriers, the thermal liners also had a failure rate of 2.17%; however, the two thermal liners that did not meet the NFPA flammability requirement failed because of an after flame time of longer than two seconds. The average after flame time for thermal liners was 0.0820 seconds. The researcher noted that even though the majority of the after flames were within the minimum NFPA requirement, the thermal liner of the garments did experience the most instances of after flames. All 92 of the thermal liners had a char length of below four inches. Leakage Evaluation (Cup Test) The leakage evaluation is a common practice in the field providing the firefighter with early indication of moisture barrier leakage or the need for repair or retirement. The cup test was completed by following section 12.2 of the 2008 Edition of NFPA 1851. One hundred forty-three garments were tested; 67 samples from Phase I, and 76 samples from Phase II of the Firefighter Durability Study. On the coats, the test was performed on the right shoulder seam, the left underarm seam, and the front right and left panels. The seat seam, crotch seam, the left knee, and the right seat were observed on the trousers. One cup of the water/alcohol solution was placed in each of the four testing locations and two evaluators gave a “pass” or “fail” rating based on present leakage. If any water was observed through the thermal liner, the garment was given a “fail” rating.

Of 143 samples (76 from Phase II, and 67 from Phase I), 43 of 143 garments were rated as a “fail” in the leakage evaluation, or 30.06%. Figure 4.13 provides a visual summary of the test results for the leakage evaluation.

179

179

PassFail

100

80

60

40

20

0

Leakage Evaluation

Cou

nt

Leakage Evaluation

Figure 4.14. Overall Results of the Leakage Evaluation; n=143

The Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence, Fisher’s Exact Test, and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test were used to determine if the leakage evaluation was dependent on the age of the garment, or the retirement status of the garment. It was determined in the Chi-Square test that the cup test shows statistically significant dependence (p=0.041) on the age of the garment and moisture barrier type (p=0.011). The results are presented (Table 4.4). Table 4.5 Leakage Evaluation Dependence.

Leakage Evaluation Dependence Pearson Chi-Square Test

Fisher's Exact Test Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel Test (CMH)

Retired Years of Use

Years of Use (Not

Retired)

Years of Use (Retired)

Years of Use (Adjusted for

Retired)

Moisture Barrier Type

0.583 0.025 0.041 0.545 0.043 (CMH) 0.011 The Chi-Square test found no significant dependence (p= 0.583) on the retirement status of the

moisture barriers and their performance in the leakage evaluation. In order to visualize retirement status and the failure rate present in the leakage evaluation, a bar graph was constructed to display the number of moisture barriers that were retired and how they performed in the field test. When taking into

180

180

consideration retirement, it was found that 28.71% of moisture barriers not retired failed the leakage evaluation, and 33.33% of retired moisture barriers failed the leakage evaluation (Figure 4.14).

Retired YesNo

100

80

60

40

20

0

Perc

ent

PassFail

EvaluationLeakage100

33.3333

100

28.7129

Percent within levels of Retired.

Leakage Evaluation vs. Retirement Status

Figure 4.15 Leakage Evaluation and Retirement Status of Samples Moisture barriers less than four years old had a failure rate of 18.87%. This finding indicates that the NFPA 1851 liner inspection mandate of every three years may need to occur more frequently. Although there are only two observations in the category, neither of the retired moisture barriers less than four years old failed the leakage evaluation. For the “greater than five years of age” category, a total of 36.67% failed the leakage evaluation. Of the 143 moisture barriers, 14 specimens that were categorized as retired or greater than five years old showed leakage. There were 10 instances of leakage in moisture barriers less than four years of age and not retired. Figure 4.15 shows the age ranges of “less than four years”, “greater than five years”, and retirement status.

181

181

RetiredYears of UseOverall Cup

YesNo>5yrs<4yrs>5yrs<4yrs


40

30

20

10

0

Cou

nt

FailPass

EvaluationLeakage

26

14

20

31

19

41

10


Figure 4.16. Leakage Evaluation vs. Retirement and Years of Use; n=143 Tear Resistance Tear resistance was completed in accordance with the method specified in NFPA 1971, ASTM D 5587-07a. From Phase II, 76 outer shell samples, 47 moisture barrier samples, and 67 thermal liner samples were tested. Data obtained from 67 outer shell samples in Phase I was included to increase the sample size. In total, 143 outer shells, 47 moisture barriers, and 67 thermal liners were tested for tear resistance. Two specimens were cut from each layer of the garment: one specimen in the horizontal direction, and one specimen in the vertical direction. A 400 lb load cell was used to tear the specimens. The five highest peaks of force to induce tearing were recorded and averaged using BlueHill software. Due to the nonwoven construction of some moisture barrier and thermal liner materials, peak force could not be recorded- these samples are indicated by a “*” in the raw data charts in Appendix F. The average pounds of force (lbf) required to tear the specimen was reported. Following NFPA 1971, 2006 Edition, a fail rating was given to outer shells if the tear strength was less than 100 N (22 lbf). Moisture barriers and thermal liners were given a fail rating if the tear strength was less than 22 N (5 lbf).

Outer Shells.

Two samples were cut from each outer shell (one in the horizontal direction, and one in the vertical direction) and both samples had to meet the NFPA performance specification; for instance, if the horizontal sample from one outer shell failed and the vertical sample from the same outer shell passed, that garment was given a “fail” rating as a whole. Of 143 (76 from Phase II, and 67 from Phase I) outer shell components evaluated, 13.97% of the outer shells did not meet the NFPA requirement of 22 lbf. The outer shell that had the lowest performance broke at 10.53 lbf, and the highest performance broke at 64.89 lbf.

182

182 PassFail

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Outer Shell Samples

Per

cent


Tear Resistance

Figure 4.17. Tear Resistance of Outer Shell Samples; n=143

In order to further look at the failure rates present for the outer shell and tear resistance, the performance was broken down by the vertical and horizontal samples. It was found that 17.86% of vertical samples failed to meet NFPA requirements, while 12.5% of horizontal samples did not meet NFPA requirements. A one-way ANOVA indicated no statistical significance (p=0.464) between the outer shell evaluation during the visual inspection and the outer shell tear resistance. Table 4.6 One-Way ANOVA for Tear Strength and Outer Shell

One-Way ANOVA for Tear Strength and Outer Shell Years of Use Retirement Outer Shell

Tear Strength-Outer Shell 0.017 0.311 0.183

When analyzing a relationship between retirement, age, material and tear strength of the outer

shell, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant relationship between years of use and outer shell tear strength (p=0.017). The one-way ANOVA did not indicate a relationship between retirement and outer shell tear strength (0.311), or between tear strength and outer shell material (0.183). While some individual values fail the requirement, the overall average tear strength of each garment age class is significantly greater than the NFPA requirement (Figure 4.17).

183

183

>5yrs<4yrs

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

>5yrs<4yrs

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

UL Tear-OS

Years of Use

22

TS-OS-Avg

22

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of UL Tear Strength and Used Tear Strength (Outer Shells)

Figure 4.18. UL and Used Tear Strength (Outer Shells) Figure 4.18 shows the age ranges of the failures in relation to tear strength. Six of the 26 failures observed in tear resistance testing were less than four years of age. Although this is a small sample size, it could be inferred that the ten year retirement is not validated by tear resistance

TS-OS-RateYears of Use

PassFail>5<4>5<4

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Cou

nt

70

47

20

6

Tear Strength (Outer Shell) and Years of Use

184

184

Figure 4.19. Tear Strength (Outer Shell) and Years of Use; n=143 Moisture Barriers. Overall, 47 moisture barrier samples were tested for tear resistance in Phase

II. All 47 (100%) of the moisture barriers met the requirements of NFPA 1971 which mandate that the moisture barrier material have a tear strength of not less than 5 lbf. The moisture barrier that had the lowest tear resistance was 6.43 lbf, while the moisture barrier with the highest tear resistance was 30.31lbf. The average tear resistance for the 47 moisture barrier samples tested was 13.64 lbf.

Thermal Liners. Of 67 thermal liners tested in Phase II for tear resistance, 100% met the NFPA requirements of a tear strength greater than 5lbf. The thermal liners proved to be significantly stronger than the NFPA requirement, with a range of tear resistance between 14.64 lbf and 188.22 lbf. The mean value for all 67 samples fell at 61.55 lbf. To see detailed results of raw data, refer to Appendix F. Sewn Seam Strength Due to a lack of space available on the garments, sewn seam strength samples were cut only from the trousers. Two samples were cut from the inseam, and two samples were cut from the seat seam. More specifically, two samples were cut on top of each other on the seat, and one inseam samples was cut from each pant leg around the ankle. Six thermal liner components in Phase II did not provide enough space to cut two seat seams; these garments are denoted by a “*” on Table F15 (in Appendix F) indicating that the value was not available. From Phase II, 37 outer shells, 37 moisture barriers, and 37 thermal liners were tested for seam strength. Data obtained in Phase I included 30 outer shells, 30 moisture barriers, and 30 thermal liners. Seam strength was analyzed with a total of 67 outer shells, 67 moisture barriers, and 67 thermal liners. The sewn seam strength testing was completed by following ASTM D-1683 and NFPA 1971 section 8.14.4. using a 1,000 lb load cell. Results were recorded and averaged together, as well as by inseam and seat seam results. A pass/fail rating was assigned by following requirements stated in NFPA 1971. NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, 2006) states that “assemblies that contain at least one woven material shall demonstrate a sewn seam strength equal to or greater than 667 N (150 lbf) for Major A seams, and 334 N (75 lbf) force for Major B seams” (p. 33). ASTM International (ASTM, 2007) classifies a seam failure as “the point at which an external force (1) ruptures the sewing thread, (2) ruptures the fabric, (3) causes excessive yarn slippage adjacent to the stitches, or (4) causes any combination of these unacceptable conditions” (p. 1-2). The researcher recorded the type of seam failure was present in every instance of testing. For detailed results, see Table 4.18. Fabric Yarn Rupture Sewing Thread Rupture Yarn Slippage

Figure 4.20. Seam Breaking Strength Evaluations

A one-way ANOVA was completed to examine relationships between the material types, retirement, and age in relation to seam breaking strength. Table 4.6 provides the p-values obtained from the one-way ANOVA; interpretation follows the table. Table 4.7 One-Way ANOVA for Seam Breaking Strength Variables

One-Way ANOVA for Seam Breaking Strength Variables

185

185

P-Value Years of Use Retirement Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner Seam Strength-Outer Shell

0.853 0.047 0.318

Seam Strength-Moisture Barrier

0.727 0.014 0.132

Seam Strength-Thermal Liner

0.877 0.767 0.286

Outer Shells. In total, 67 outer shell samples (37 from Phase II, 30 from Phase I) were tested for seam strength with a failure rate of 29.85%. This 29.85% was given a failure rating because the outer shell did not meet the minimum NFPA requirement of seam strength greater than 150 lbf for Major A seams.

PassFail

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Outer Shell

Per

cent

70.1493

29.8507


Overall Seam Strength Performance

Figure 4.21. Overall Seam Strength Performance- Outer Shell; n=67

For the outer shell seam strength samples, 32.84 % failed and 37.31% of outer shell inseams failed to meet NFPA requirements for seam breaking strength. These areas of failure may be due to the high abrasion and soiling aspects of the garments. The seat and inseam locations are common areas of the outer shell that experience wear and tear through the life of the garment. To examine the relationship between outer shell seam breaking strength performance and the visual evaluation of the outer shell, a one-way ANOVA was performed. The one-way ANOVA indicated a significant relationship between the outer shell seam breaking strength and the outer shell evaluation in the visual inspection (p= 0.034). Although significance was found between the outer shell visual evaluation and the seam breaking strength, it should

186

186

be noted that there were low sample sizes in the categories of “poor” and excellent”. Figure 4.21 illustrates the range and average at which the sample sizes for each category fell; it is clear that the outer shells rated as “poor” had the lowest seam breaking strength on the outer shell, and the outer shells rated as “excellent” had the highest seam breaking strength (outer shell) average shows that with 95% confidence, garments rated as “excellent” were more likely to meet NFPA requirements than garments rated as “poor”.

ExcellentGoodFairPoor

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Outer Shell Evaluation

Seam

Str

engt

h- A

vera

ge

150

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Strength-Outer Shell

Figure 4.22. Seam Strength-Outer Shell Retirement status was a variable to address in relation to seam breaking strength of the outer shell. A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant relationship (p=0.047) between retirement status and the seam breaking strength of the outer shell. The same test found no significant relationship between outer shell seam breaking strength and age (0.853), or between outer shell seam breaking strength and type of outer shell used (p=0.318). In order to determine if a 10-year retirement (mandated in NFPA 1971) was validated by this particular test, a simple bar graph was constructed to determine if any garments less than four years of age produced failure in outer shell seam breaking strength. The results indicated that 10.45% of the samples produced a failure and were less than four years of age (Figure 4.22).

187

187

Seam StrengthYears of Use

PassFail>5<4>5<4

25

20

15

10

5

0

Cou

nt24

23

13

7

Chart of Seam Strength (Outer Shell) and Years of Use

Figure 4.23. Chart of Seam Breaking Strength and Years of Use; n=67

YesNo

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

Retired

Seam

Str

engt

h-O

uter

She

ll A

vera

ge

150

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Breaking Strength-Outer Shell

Figure 4.24. Outer Shell Seam Strength and Retirement; n=67

Moisture barriers. Moisture barriers were also evaluated for seam strength. Four samples were cut from each moisture barrier, and if one sample failed the moisture barrier was failed as a whole. Out of

188

188

the 67 moisture barriers tested, (37 from Phase II, 30 from Phase I) 21 (31.34%) of the moisture barriers did not meet NFPA requirements. Figure 4.24 summarizes of the overall failure rate in the moisture barriers tested for seam strength.

PassFail

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Moisture Barrier

Perc

ent

68.6567

31.3433


Seam Strength-Moisture Barrier Results

Figure 4.25. Overall Seam Strength-Moisture Barrier; n=67

Like the outer shells, the moisture barrier failures were broken down by the areas tested; seat seam and inseam samples. Of moisture barrier inseams, 36.36% produced a failure, and 31.34% of moisture barrier seat seams did not meet the NFPA requirements for moisture barrier seam strength. This outcome was very similar to the outer shell results; both saw slightly more failures in the inseam than in the seat seams.

Also like the outer shell, the moisture barrier seam strength performance was compared to the evaluation given to the moisture barrier in the advanced visual inspection. Possible evaluation ratings included poor, fair, good, and excellent depending on the visual and physical condition of the moisture barrier. Majority of moisture barriers that were categorized as in “good” condition met the NFPA requirements for moisture barrier seam strength; however, there was a much larger sample size in the “good” category (n=56) than in the other categories (Figure 4.25). A one-way ANOVA demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the moisture barrier seam strength and the visual evaluation of the moisture barrier (p=0.005); but, there were very small sample sizes in the “poor” category (n=2), the “fair” category (n=4) and in the “excellent” category (n=5). It may be recommended to evaluate more moisture barriers that are rated as poor, fair, and excellent. The following interval plot show with 95% confidence that moisture barriers rated as “excellent” were more likely to meet NFPA requirements than garments rated as “poor”.

189

189

4321

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Moisture Barrier Evaluation

Seam

Bre

akin

g St

reng

th A

vera

ge

75

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Moisture Barrier Seam Breaking Strength

Figure 4.26. Moisture Barrier Seam Breaking Strength; n=67

When addressing retirement, the one-way ANOVA found a significant relationship (p=0.014) between retirement status and the moisture barrier seam strength. The same test found no statistical significance between moisture barrier seam strength and years of use (p=0.727) or between moisture barrier seam strength and moisture barrier type (0.132). We can conclude from this that moisture barrier type and age of the garment do not predict the results of seam breaking strength. Figure 4.26 displays the relationship between the moisture barrier seam breaking strength and the retirement of the garment. Based on a 95% confidence interval, retired garments had lower moisture barrier seam breaking strength values than those of the not retired garments.

190

190

YesNo

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Retired

Seam

Bre

akin

g St

reng

th-

Moi

stur

e B

arri

er

75

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Seam Breaking Strength-Moisture Barrier

Figure 4.27. Chart of Moisture Barrier Seam Strength and Retirement. Thermal liners. In this study, thermal liners were also evaluated for seam strength performance against NFPA requirements. Sixty-seven thermal liners were evaluated for seam strength (37 from Phase II, and 30 from Phase I), and only two of these thermal liners did not meet the NFPA requirement of a seam strength of 75 lbf; the lowest seam strength recorded for thermal liners was 67.40 lbf. The average of all 67 thermal liners tested resulted in 114.90 lbf. It may be noted in discussion of visual inspection versus performance that one thermal liner that failed was evaluated and rated as “good” condition; the other thermal liner that failed was evaluated as “poor” condition. After evaluating retirement of the garments and how the thermal liners performed in seam strength, it was found that no retired garments failed the thermal liner seam strength evaluation. A one-way ANOVA indicated no statistical significance between thermal liner seam breaking strength and age of garment (p=0.877), liner seam breaking strength and retirement (p=0.767), or between thermal liner seam breaking strength and thermal liner type (p=0.286). For raw data detailing the seam strength results and the break location, see Appendix F. Breaking Strength Breaking strength was conducted according to ASTM D-5034 Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test). Six samples were cut from the outer shell component of each garment (3 in the warp direction and 3 in the fill direction). In total, 143 outer shells (76 from Phase II and 67 from Phase I) were evaluated for breaking strength. As with the other testing in this study, if one sample from the outer shell component did not meet NFPA requirements, the garment outer shell was failed as a whole. NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition requires that the outer shell shall not break at less than 140 lbf (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Any outer shell that broke below the NFPA mandated 140 lbf was given a “fail” rating.

191

191

Of the outer shells evaluated, 10.49% did not meet the NFPA requirement of 140 lbf. The range of breaking strength fell between 79.70 lbf and 345.50 lbf, while the average sample broke at 190.23 lbf. Very few outer shells (15) failed the breaking strength testing, but the outer shells that did not meet NFPA requirements were listed as either “fair” or “good” condition during the visual inspection. A one-way ANOVA showed no significance (p=0.215) between the outer shell breaking strength results and the visual inspection of the outer shell. Retirement status and performance was another important variable considered in this research. A one-way ANOVA indicated that there was no statistical significance between breaking strength results and retirement status (p=0.857). An interval plot in Figure 4.26 illustrates the retirement status of the outer shells and their performance in breaking strength. It is clear in the interval plot that retirement is not a factor that affects the breaking strength value of the garment’s outer shell. It may also be noted that of 21 retired outer shells in this study, only two failed to meet the minimum NFPA requirement for breaking strength.

21

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

Retired

Bre

akin

g St

reng

th A

vera

ge

140

95% CI for the MeanInterval Plot of Breaking Strength

Figure 4.28. Breaking Strength and Retirement; n=143

Age was also addressed in relation to the minimum NFPA 1971 requirement of breaking strength. Five outer shells less than four years of age did not meet the minimum requirement; this indicates that outer shell breaking strength results do not support the 10 year retirement mandated by NFPA.

192

192

BS RateYears of Use

PassFail>5<4>5<4

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Cou

nt

82

48

85

Breaking Strength and Years of Use

Figure 4.29. Breaking Strength and Years of Use; n=143 Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation The water penetration barrier evaluated was completed according to NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition, section 12.3. The water penetration barrier evaluation is designed to evaluate the performance of the moisture barrier in preventing liquids from penetrating the garment and contacting the firefighter’s skin. Water was held at one psi against the moisture barrier for fifteen seconds before the specimens were evaluated for water penetration. If water penetrated the moisture barrier, the specimen was given a “fail” rating. Moisture barriers that showed no visible signs of water or leakage were given a “pass” rating. On each moisture barrier, two seam areas and two fabric areas were evaluated; the same four locations that were used in the leakage evaluation were used in the water penetration barrier evaluation. If any of the four locations of the moisture barrier showed leakage, the garment was failed as a whole. It may be noted that the researcher only evaluated water penetration, not whether the water penetration was catastrophic or repairable. Special attention was paid to the location of the water penetration. When evaluating the seam locations on the garments, the researcher noted whether water penetration was in the location of the actual seam or on the surrounding fabric. Of 143 samples tested (76 from Phase II, 67 from Phase I), 65.73% failed the water penetration barrier evaluation. A bar graph (Figure 4.27) was constructed to depict the results.

193

193 PassFail

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Hydrostatic Testing Results

Per

cent

34.2657

65.7343


Hydrostatic Test

Figure 4.30. Hydrostatic Test Results; n=143 It was necessary to further examine the results to determine if the hydrostatic testing was dependent on age or retirement status of the turnout gear. To evaluate the failures by age, a graph was constructed (Figure 4.28). To address dependence, the Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence, Fisher’s Exact Test and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test were used. Table 4.7 illustrates the hydrostatic test and its dependence on variables like retirement, years of use, and moisture barrier type. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates dependence of the hydrostatic test on the variables listed in the column. Of all the variables tested, the Chi-Square test indicated that the hydrostatic test only showed borderline significant association (p= 0.114) with the moisture barrier. Table 4.8

194

194

Hydrostatic Testing Dependence

Hydrostatic Testing and Dependence

Pearson Chi-Square Test Fisher's Exact Test

Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel Test (CMH)

Retired Years of Use

Years of Use (Not Retired)

Years of Use (Retired)

Years of Use (Adjusted for Retired)

Moisture Barrier Type

0.88 0.759 0.891 1 0.949 (CMH) 0.114 It was expected that more failures occur in the older moisture barriers. 41.96% of the moisture

barriers evaluated showed failure in the greater than five years age category; 23.78% of the moisture barrier samples tested demonstrated failure fell into the less than four years of age category. Although the expected majority of failures fell into the “greater than five years age” range, the “less than four years of age” category demonstrated an alarming rate of failures. This rate of moisture barrier failures in the “less than four years of age” category allows us to determine that the 10- year retirement currently mandated by the NFPA is not supported by the water penetration barrier evaluation. It can also be denoted that current liner inspections are mandated every three years by the NFPA, but the results of this analysis show that moisture barrier failures may be occurring sooner and consequently, may need to be inspected more frequently than every three years.

Years of UseOverall Hydro

>5yrs<4yrsPassFailPassFail

40

30

20

10

0

Per

cent

FailPass

TestingHydrostatic

20.979

41.958

13.2867

23.7762



Figure 4.31. Hydrostatic Testing by Age Category; n=143

195

195

It is possible that some of the moisture barrier failures that occurred in the “less than four years” age category were retired garments. To eliminate any confusion about gear that was in use versus retired, a graph was created to display not only the age of the moisture barriers and the failure rate, but also the retirement status of the moisture barriers in all age categories. As you see in Figure 4.29, there was a 50% failure rate of moisture barriers that were less than four years old and retired. There was also a 64.71% failure rate in moisture barriers less than four years old and not retired; however, there were only two observations in the sample of retired and less than four years of age.

RetiredYears of Use


100

80

60

40

20

0

Per

cent

PassFail

Hydrostatic100

67.5

100

50

100

66

100

64.7059

Hydrostatic Test vs. Years of Use and Retirement

Figure 4.32. Hydrostatic Testing by Years of Use and Retirement; n=143 While performing the Chi-Square test of independence, a borderline significant association (p=0.114) with the moisture barrier and hydrostatic test was found (only when the 1 sample of Aquatech was excluded).

To address any possible relationship between total heat loss value and hydrostatic testing, the water penetration barrier evaluation was performed on all composites cut for THL testing. The previous (Phase I) study hypothesizes that the unusual rise in THL value with age of the garment may be due to small pinholes present on the moisture barrier that allow air to go through the material. To test this theory, hydrostatic testing was completed on the moisture barrier of all THL samples after they were cut (67 samples). The Fisher’s Exact Test was used to test the association between moisture barrier retirement and hydrostatic testing.

In relation to retirement and hydrostatic testing result, the Pearson Chi-Square test produced a p-value of 0.010, and Fisher’s Exact test produced a p-value of 0.024. Both tests confirmed that retirement has a significant relationship with the hydrostatic testing results.

A binary logistic regression was completed to determine significance between hydrostatic testing of 64 THL samples (moisture barrier component) and the number of years the garments were used. The logistic regression validated that age does have a statistically significant relationship (p=0.031) with

196

196

hydrostatic testing. The odds ratio of 1.40 produced by the logistic regression translates that for each increased year of age, the odds of leakage against that of no leakage increase by 40% given that all other conditions hold constant. It should be noted that this is consistent with leaking moisture barriers allowing higher moisture/heat transfer in the THL test. Table 4.9 Logistic Regression Table-Hydrostatic Testing and Years of Use

Logistic Regression Table-Hydrostatic Testing and Years of Use

Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper

Constant -3.83585 1.14718 -3.34 0.001

Years of Use 0.339206 0.156789 2.16 0.031 1.40 1.03 1.91

One objective of this study was to determine if the visual inspection is predictive of performance results in turnout gear. Since the water penetration barrier evaluation showed a high rate of failure, the Pearson Chi-Square test of independence was completed to address a correlation between testing and how the moisture barrier was evaluated visually (poor, fair, good, excellent). The Chi-Square test signifies that there is no statistical significance (p=0.708) between the moisture barrier evaluation and the hydrostatic testing completed on the moisture barrier component. This indicates that the visual condition of the garment may not be predictive of how the garment would perform in hydrostatic testing.

After investigating actual seam failures versus fabric failures on moisture barriers in hydrostatic testing, it was found that 43.43% of moisture barrier fabric evaluated failed the test, while 42.11% of the moisture barrier seam areas failed hydrostatic testing. Figure 4.30 depicts the hydrostatic failure locations.

Test SeamsFabric

100

80

60

40

20

0

Per

cent

PassFail

Result100

42.1053

100

43.4211

Hydrostatic Testing- Fabric vs. Seam Failures

197

197

Figure 4.33. Evaluating fabric versus seam failures in hydrostatic testing; n=143 Water Penetration vs. Leakage Evaluation Ideally, the water penetration barrier evaluation and the leakage evaluation would show similar results; this implies that a firefighter in the field yields the same assessment for a garment’s fitness for use as personnel testing the garments in a laboratory setting. Using the water penetration barrier evaluation and leakage evaluation results from both Phase I and Phase II, totaling in 143 garment evaluations, an Attribute Agreement Analysis was completed to determine if the laboratory test and field test agree. When evaluated based on the results of the laboratory test (which is considered to be more sophisticated), it was found that out of 143 specimens (76 from Phase II and 67 from Phase I), 58 specimens showed a false “pass” in the cup test, and 7 showed a false “fail”. More specifically, 58 of the garments tested showed failure in the water penetration barrier evaluation, but were rated as a “pass” in the leakage evaluation. In other words, this false pass indicates that the firefighter would judge the garment fit for use via the field test whereas the laboratory test showed failure. This could put the fire fighter at risk of steam burns and other moisture barrier failure-related injuries. The false fails and false passes together (disagreement between 45.45% of moisture barriers evaluated) indicate that the leakage evaluation is not validated by the hydrostatic test results. Table 4.9 demonstrates the false fails and false passes present in the Attribute Agreement Analysis. Table 4.10 Attribute Agreement Analysis-Cup Test and Hydrostatic Testing

Cup Test

Pass Fail All

Hydro Test

Pass 42 7 49

29.37% 4.90% 34.27%

Fail 58 36 94

40.56% 25.17% 65.73%

All 100 43 143

69.93% 30.07% 100%

Fleiss’ Kappa was used to assess the agreement. The Kappa statistics represent the degree of

absolute agreement among ratings; Kappa greater than 0.75 usually indicates good agreement, while a Kappa value less than 0.40 indicates poor agreement. The analysis concluded that the Kappa value represented by agreement in hydrostatic and cup testing on moisture barriers was 0.089 for both “fail” and “pass” ratings, indicating very poor agreement. Table 4.10 reports the results of Fleiss’ Kappa regarding agreement between the water penetration barrier evaluation and leakage evaluation. Table 4.11 Fleiss’ Kappa Agreement between Leakage Evaluation and Hydrostatic Test

Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P (vs. > 0) Fail 0.089 0.084 1.07 0.14 Pass 0.089 0.084 1.07 0.14

198

198

Retroflectivity and Fluorescence Test Retroflectivity testing was conducted according to ASTM E-809 Standard Practice for Measuring Photometric Characteristics of Retroflector. Modifications clarified in NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition, section 8.46.4.1. were also used to complete the testing. The NFPA standard of 100 RA (Coefficient of retroflectivity) is for new materials; however, this test was completed on used turnout gear, with test garments collected from both volunteer (Phase II) and career (Phase I) firefighting units. The performance reference point used for this analysis is 100 RA. It has been reported that the coefficient of retroreflectivity of trim materials in a high visibility pattern can decrease well below 100 RA without statistically significant performance impact, when quantified by measured detection and identification distances in a realistic simulated visual search task (Sayer & Mefford, 2004). The high visibility materials required in NFPA 1971 have been shown to make turnout gear effective high visibility apparel. (Tuttle, Sayer, & Buonarosa, 2009) The NFPA design uses bands of material at the ends of the limbs to optimize conspicuity and create clues that the garment wearer is human. This kind of “biomotion pattern” has been reported to be more effective than other placements of high visibility materials,(Balk, Tyrell, Brooks, & Carpenter, 2008; Tyrell et al., 2009) such as those limiting them only to the torso.

Phase I. For Phase I of the study, 23 coats and 21 pairs of trousers were tested for retroflectivity. The results indicated that the average value for coats was 337 while the average value for pants was 310 (Cotterill, 2009a). Figures 3.34 and 3.35 were obtained from Phase I of the study and depict detailed results of both the coat and trouser elements tested for retroflectivity (Cotterill, 2009a).

199

199

Figure 4.34. Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase I

Figure 4.35. Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase I

200

200

It was also found in Cotterill’s study (2009) that the fluorescent properties did not

degrade due to the exposure to heat, flame, sunlight, or care procedures (Cotterill, 2009a). Cap Y

is a measure of daytime luminance and because the material fluoresces, the value can be above

100. As defined in ANSI 107, fluorescent material is “Material that instantaneously emits optical

radiation within the visible range at wavelengths longer that absorbed and for which emission

ceases upon removal of the source of irradiation”. This fluorescence is what enhances daytime

visibility.

Small x and small y define the CIE chromaticity of the material. The boxes in Figure

4.34 define either of the color spaces in which the color of the fluorescent portions must fall in

order to meet the requirements of the NFPA.

Figure 4.36. The Color Box Values of Fluorescence: Phase I

Phase II. To provide a representative conclusion of testing, 29 coats were tested in 46 different locations,

and 30 pairs of trousers were evaluated in 12 locations. In total, the trim on 59 garments from Phase II was evaluated. The retroreflective results were reported as RA (candelas/lux/m2). The average RA value reported for coats was 292, and the average RA value for pants was 230; both categories were significantly above the NFPA requirement of 100 RA for new materials. For the coats, the 2-3 year age category was reported as the highest average RA value of 324. The lowest RA value obtained was from the

201

201

trousers in the 6-8 year age category at 249. The results are documented in the charts diagrammed in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. It may be noted that garments in Phase II demonstrated lower RA values than those tested in Phase I.

Figure 4.37. Average Coat Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase II

202

202

Figure 4.38. Average Pant Coefficient of Retroreflectivity by Age: Phase II

The fluorescence results were measured in accordance with ASTM E1164 Standard Practice for Obtaining Spectrometric Data for Object-Color Evaluation using a HunterLab ColorFlex 45/0 spectrophotometer under a D65 Standard Illuminant with a two degree observer, backed up by black glass. The results were reported on a color box and cap Y value.

203

203

Figure 4.39. The Color Box Values of Fluorescence: Phase II Questionnaire It was important in Phase II of the durability study to attempt to define the “use” parameters of the turnout gear evaluated. As garments were submitted for Phase II of the study, firefighters were asked to fill out a brief questionnaire about their department’s “use” of the gear. This questionnaire was composed of 13 questions and related to the care and use aspects of the specific department donating. For example, respondents were asked how often their gear is cleaned, the number and type of fires (structural, industrial, residential) the gear experiences in a typical week, and criteria used for retirement (appearance, physical damage, age, etc). The administered questionnaire is located in Appendix D. In Phase II, 65 questionnaires were answered and analyzed. Use. Majority of respondents (85.15%) classified the weekly use of their gear as “light”. Some departments (6.15%) said their gear goes through a “moderate” amount of fires on a weekly basis; and, 7.69 % classified the weekly use as “extreme”. Another question on the survey asked how the garments were used, specifically the types of fire/situation that the garments went through (structural, industrial, rescue, or all). A large number of respondents (40%) reported that their gear is used for both rescue and structural fires. Over half said that their garments are used for all of the situations listed (structural fires, industrial fires, and rescue). Finally, 6.67% reported that their garments were only used for structural fires. Respondents were also questioned about reasons for retirement of their garments. The questionnaire provided six different options regarding retirement: style, age, appearance (physical), fit, appearance (soil), or other. Five respondents said that their gear is retired for three different reasons: age, physical appearance, and soiling. Age, appearance, and fit were reasons given by two participants. The majority of respondents (93.65%) answered that their reason(s) for retirement was age and/or physical

204

204

appearance. Figure 4.40 illustrates how the departments classified their gear when asked to provide the condition of the garments.

ExcellentGoodPoor

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gear Condition

Per

cent

6.15385

49.2308

44.6154


Questionnaire- Gear Condition

Figure 4.40. Questionnaire-Gear Condition; n=65

Care. An interesting result was determined when the participants were asked if the cleaning of their gear was voluntary or mandatory; based off of 64 surveys (1 participant did not answer the question), 43.75% said that the cleaning of their garments was voluntary. Further, only 24.62% of contributors answered that their gear was cleaned either by a professional or at the station by a trained individual as specified in NFPA 1851. All other participants answered that their gear is cleaned either at the station or at home.

When asked how often their garments are cleaned, 46.15% of participants reported that their gear was cleaned annually. Figure 4.41 illustrates the cleaning frequency of the gear; the majority of respondents said that their gear was cleaned annually; however, participants in the study fell into each cleaning frequency category.

205

205


30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Questionnaire

Cou

nt

12

30

8

2

8

Cleaning Frequency

Figure 4.41. Cleaning Frequency-Questionnaire; n=65

In attempt to gather more information about the reality of the cleaning process of turnout gear, contributors were asked what washer type and detergent were used, if the liner and shell were removed during cleaning, and if the liner and shell were separated during cleaning. The options on the survey chosen for washer type were front loader and commercial washing machines; 61.54% answered that their gear was washed in a front loading machine, while the other 38.46% responded that their gear was cleaned in a commercial washer. Specially-formulated detergent made for fire fighter’s turnout gear was used by 35.48% of respondents; 48.39% answered that they use liquid detergent, and 16.13% responded that powder detergent is used to clean their gear.

All of the 65 participants (100%) stated that their liner system was removed from the shell in the cleaning process; however, when asked if the liner system is cleaned separately from the outer shell, only 78.46% answered “yes”.

Another question addresses the practice of turning the outer shell and/or the liner system inside out before the cleaning process. A majority of respondents do turn the outer shell inside out before cleaning; only two participants said that they do not. In terms of the liner system, 72.31% said they do turn the liner system inside out before cleaning, while 27.69% said that they do not.

After cleaning, it was important to understand how firefighters’ dry their gear. NFPA 1851 section 7.4 clarifies that in the absence of manufacturer’s instructions, turnout gear should be dried either in area out of direct sunlight with good ventilation, or on a “no heat-air dry” option in a dryer. Line drying was the main method chosen by the firefighters’ participating in this study: 63.08% chose this method as their main means of drying turnout gear. The next most popular option was the dryer- 23.08% of respondents said they use the clothes dryer after cleaning; however, it should be noted that it was not specified whether a “no-heat” drying option was used. The last 13.84% said that “flat dry” is their preferred method of drying gear.

206

206

Research Questions Research Question #1. Is there a correlation between the care and maintenance of

volunteer and career fire fighting turnout gear and the durability of the turnout gear’s

performance properties (TPP, THL, and water penetration) when evaluated to the minimum

requirements of NFPA 1851 and 1971?

All flat fabric testing was evaluated to determine how care impacts garments performance

in use. As a function of washing cycles and total heat loss, a regression analysis indicated a

significant interaction was found between wash cycle and outer shell (p=0.020) and between

wash cycle and moisture barrier type (p=0.000). Further, interaction plots that displayed THL

values after washing with the wash cycle demonstrated a drop in the THL value after ten wash

cycles.

The analysis of cleaning cycles in regards to TPP presented similar results. A Regression

analysis for the effect of materials on TPP and wash cycles demonstrated a significant

relationship between TPP, wash cycle, and outer shell material (p=0.000), and TPP, wash cycle,

and outer shell material (0.000). An interaction plot displayed to us that after five washes, the

TPP value significantly increases.

This interaction tells us that different materials perform differently after cleaning. More

importantly, it tells us that cleaning does have an effect on the performance properties of fire

fighting turnout gear. This information can be used to further reiterate the importance of properly

maintaining turnout gear. Note that this analysis was based on new samples only and does not

take into account the effect of use and cleaning cycles on the actual garment.

Research Question #2. Do the performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear

strength, seam strength, and water penetration) of used structural fire fighting turnout gear worn

by career firefighters and volunteer firefighters meet the requirements of NFPA 1971, 2007

Edition?

Thermal protective performance. All 143 garments (100%) evaluated for thermal

protective performance met the NFPA performance requirement of 35 cal/cm2. Since all

garments met the minimum requirements of NFPA 1971, there did not appear to be a loss of

thermal performance with use.

Total Heat Loss. It was determined after evaluating 101 THL samples, 55.71% failed to

meet the minimum NFPA requirement of 205 W/m2. A one-way ANOVA uncovered that there is

207

207

a significant relationship between Total Heat Loss and outer shell (p=0.003), as well as a

relationship between Total Heat Loss and retirement (p=0.001). It was also discovered that

retired garments had a better chance of meeting the NFPA minimum requirement for Total Heat

Loss testing. These results confirm that garment use can have a negative impact on THL

performance.

A binary logistic regression indicated significance (p=0.31) between the hydrostatic

testing of 64 THL samples cut from garments and the numbers of years the garments were used.

This model also produced an odds ratio of 1.40% meaning that for every year of age, the odds of

water penetration increase by 40%.

Flammability. All 143 samples (one cut from each garment outer shell) met the NFPA

minimum requirements for flammability. For each the moisture barrier and thermal liner 2.17%

specimens produced a failure to meet minimum NFPA requirements. The two moisture barrier

failures that occurred were due to char lengths above 4.0 inches. The two thermal liners that did

not meet requirements were failed because they both had an afterglow time that lasted longer

than two seconds. The flammability results indicate that the flammability of the components does

not decrease with use.

Tear Resistance. It was found that 13.97% of outer shell samples did not meet the

minimum NFPA requirement of 22 lbf. All (100%) of moisture barriers and thermal liners

evaluated met the minimum NFPA requirement of a tearing strength of 5 lbf. Six of the

garments that failed the tear resistance testing were less than four years of age indicating that the

tear resistance is impacted by garment use.

Sewn Seam Strength. The minimum NFPA requirement for sewn seam strength on outer

shells is 150 lbf; out of 67 garments evaluated, 29.85% did not meet the NFPA requirement. The

inseam samples of the garments produced slightly more failures (37.31%) than the seat seams

(32.84%). Seven garments less than four years of age showed failure in the seam strength test;

this test does not confirm the 10 year retirement mandated by the NFPA. A one-way ANOVA

indicated a statistical significance (p=0.034) between the outer shell seam breaking strength and

the outer shell material used on the garment. The moisture barrier and thermal liner components

of the same 67 garments were also evaluated for seam breaking strength; 31.34% of the moisture

barriers tested did not meet the NFPA requirement of 75lbf. Like the outer shell, the moisture

barrier component produced more failures in the inseam samples from the moisture barrier

208

208

(36.36%) than the seat seams (31.34%) Only two thermal liners failed to meet the NFPA

requirement; the average of the thermal liners evaluated fell well above the NFPA requirement at

114.90 lbf.

Breaking Strength. The garments collected in both Phase I and Phase II of the durability

study were tested for breaking strength; out of 143 garments, 10.49% (15 garments) did not meet

the minimum NFPA breaking strength requirement of 140 lbf. Even though 10.49% did not meet

requirements, the average breaking strength value was 190.23 lbf, which is well above the NFPA

minimum. Majority of the fifteen garments that did not meet the NFPA requirement were not

retired. Five of 143 garments tested for breaking strength showed failure and were less than five

years of age; this test does not support the 10-year retirement mandated by NFPA 1971.

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation. One hundred forty-three garments were evaluated

using the hydrostatic tester for water penetration; 65.73% of the garments did show leakage in

the evaluation. It should be noted that these “failures” were not classified as repairable or

catastrophic. The Chi-Square test of independence found a borderline significant relationship

with the moisture barrier material and the water penetration barrier evaluation. The water

penetration barrier evaluation does not support the ten year retirement mandated by NFPA 1971;

23.74% of the samples showed failure and were less than four years of age.

Retroflectivity and Fluorescence. All garments exceeded the NFPA requirements for

retroflectivity. It was noted that the volunteer garments had a lower coefficient of retroflectivity

that the career turnout gear that was tested in Phase I of the study. Even though the results

slightly differed, all garments from both Phase I and Phase II met the NFPA minimum

requirement of 100 RA. Research Question #2a. Does this study validate similarity between results in the water

penetration barrier evaluation and the leakage evaluation? This study did not validate similarity between results in the water penetration barrier evaluation

and the leakage evaluation; in fact, it did the opposite. An Attribute Agreement Analysis was completed on the data (143 garments) and with a Kappa value of less than 0.40, it was found that the two tests have very poor agreement. Again, it may also be noted that in order to fail a leakage evaluation, water must pass through both the moisture barrier and the thermal liner, while water must only pass through the moisture barrier in the water penetration barrier evaluation to constitute a failure. Another note to consider is that pinhole leakage is easily detected in the water penetration barrier evaluation; even though it is a very small leakage, any water passing through the moisture barrier would be rated as a “failure”. The same pinhole leakage may not be as easily detected in the leakage evaluation.

209

209

Further, of 143 garments evaluated (each in four locations), 30.06% of the garments were

rated as failures because they showed leakage in the evaluation. The nature of this test did not

allow the researcher to note if the failure was present on the seam or on the fabric component of

the garment. Pearson’s Chi-Square test showed significant dependence on the age of the garment

with the leakage evaluation (p=0.041); the same test also showed a statistical significance

between the moisture barrier type and the leakage evaluation (p= 0.011). The Chi-Square test

found no significance on retirement status (p=0.545).

While 30.06% of garments did not pass the leakage evaluation, 65.73% of the garments

did show leakage in hydrostatic testing. The Chi-Square test of independence found a borderline

significant relationship with the moisture barrier material and the water penetration barrier

evaluation. From the Fleiss’ Kappa test (kappa value of 0.089) and general evaluations, it can be concluded that the leakage evaluation and water penetration barrier evaluation did not produce similar result. The results of the leakage evaluation were not verified by hydrostatic testing results.

Research Question #2b. Are seams or fabric materials responsible for a loss of integrity in moisture barrier water penetration failures?

A simple bar graph demonstrated it cannot be necessarily concluded that either the seam or fabric performed better than the other. The seams failed at a rate of 57.89%, while the fabric failed at a rate of 56.58%.

Research Question # 2c. Is there a correlation between the results of testing (THL testing, TPP testing, water penetration barrier evaluation) and thickness?

A one-way ANOVA and regression analysis completed to determine relationships between the used garments’ THL values, thickness, and hydrostatic testing indicated a statistically significant relationship between the used THL value and thickness (p=0.001).

A regression analysis determined a significant relationship between TPP and thickness (p=0.000). This regression analysis showed us that the TPP value increases as thickness increases. From this statistical information, we can conclude that as the composites thickness increased, the THL value decreased. It may also not be surprising that the thicker the garment, the better the TPP. We may also conclude that the thickness of a garment will not necessarily provide protection from water penetration.

Research Question # 3. Can the performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength, breaking strength, and water penetration) be accurately predicted based upon the inspection criteria set forth in NFPA 1851?

In order to address the research question, analysis was completed on testing that produced a failure rate above 10%. The Chi-Square test and one-way ANOVAs were used to uncover statistical relationships (or lack thereof) between testing and the visual inspection.

Total Heat Loss. A one-way ANOVA indicated no statistically significant relationship between THL value and outer shell evaluation (p=0.054) or THL and thermal liner (p=0.061). A significant relationship (p=0.031) was indicated between THL and the moisture barrier evaluation; however, this result is based on very small observations in the fair (n=2) category and in the excellent (n=2) category.

210

210

Tear Resistance. There was no significant relationship (p=0.4064) found between the visual inspection and the outer shell visual evaluation in a one-way ANOVA. All moisture barriers had a 100% passing rate on tear resistance.

Seam Breaking Strength. When outer shells were tested for seam breaking strength, 29.85% failed. A one-way ANOVA was then completed to determine if there was a relationship between the visual inspection and seam breaking strength; a significant relationship was indicated (p=0.034). It should be noted that there was a low number of observations in the “poor” and “excellent” categories. When evaluating moisture barriers for seam strength, it was found that 31.34% did not meet the NFPA requirement. A significant relationship (p=0.005) was found between moisture barrier evaluation and moisture barrier performance in seam strength in a one-way ANOVA. Like the outer shells, it should be noted that there was a small number of observations in the “poor”, “fair”, and “excellent” categories.

Breaking Strength. A one-way ANOVA was completed and it was determined that there was no statistical significance between the outer shell breaking strength and the visual evaluation (p=0.0215). It should be noted that there was a small sample size of outer shell components that were rated as “poor” (n=3) or “excellent” (n=7) in the advanced visual inspection.

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation. Since this evaluation had a large failure rate (65.73%), the Pearson Chi-Square test of independence was used to investigate a relationship between the hydrostatic testing and the visual evaluation of the moisture barrier. No statistical relationship was found (p=0.708).

Research Questions # 3a. Is the NFPA 1851 mandated liner inspection every three years validated by the results of physical testing?

The NFPA 1851 mandated liner inspection of every three years was not validated by the results of physical testing. In the leakage evaluation, 18.87% of the garments that were less than four years of age showed leakage. In the water penetration barrier evaluation, 23.78% of the samples evaluated showed failure and were less than four years old. These failure rates suggest that a liner inspection every three years may need to be addressed further.

Research Question # 4. Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength, and water penetration) specified in NFPA 1851 and 1971?

Total Heat Loss. An unexpected result was for THL testing; the retired garments did pass the test while the garments that were not retired did not. A one-way ANOVA found a significant relationship (p=0.001) between retirement and total heat loss value; it appeared that retired garments had a better chance of passing THL testing.

Flammability. All of the outer shells passed the flammability testing; so, it may be concluded that for this particular test that all retired garment outer shells still met the NFPA requirements. Only two moisture barriers failed flammability testing due to char lengths exceeding four inches; one of the samples was from a retired garment, the other was not. Like the moisture barriers, only two thermal liners failed to meet NFPA requirements; however, this was due to an after flame time exceeding two seconds. Since all other garments (retired included) met the NFPA requirement, it may be assumed that the retirement of the garment is not relevant to flammability testing. Tear Resistance. No significant relationship was found between outer shell tear strength and retirement (p=0.311) after a one-way ANOVA was performed. All of the moisture barriers and thermal liners passed the tear resistance testing; therefore, no retired garments showed failure. A small amount of retired garments (six) failed to meet NFPA requirements in relation to outer shell tear resistance.

211

211

Sewn Seam Strength. For seam breaking strength, a one-way ANOVA indicated a statistically significant relationships between retirement and the outer shell (p=0.047) and retirement and moisture barrier (p=0.014). Of the moisture barriers, 16 retired garments evaluated failed to meet the minimum NFPA requirement. Another 16 retired garments evaluated failed to meet the NFPA requirement for seam breaking strength in regards to the outer shell.

Breaking Strength. A one-way ANOVA indicated no significant influence of retirement on breaking strength (p=0.857). Only two of the 21 retired garments did not meet the minimum NFPA requirement for breaking strength.

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation. The Pearson Chi-Square test of independence did not indicate a significant relationship between retirement and hydrostatic testing (p=0.880). Garments of all age categories and both retirement status showed leakage in the water penetration barrier evaluation. It was found that 67.5% of garments greater than five years of age and retired also failed hydrostatic testing. Summary The results of the data analysis and discussion enable conclusions to be made in Chapter Five. Answering and discussing research questions in Chapter Four allows us to address the study’s objectives in Chapter Five.

212

212

Chapter Five Conclusions

This study evaluated post-use firefighter turnout gear from both career and volunteer firefighters. Garments were collected, tested, and resulting data was analyzed in two different segments (67 garments in Phase I and 76 garments in Phase II). Data obtained on career turnout gear in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study was included in this research (Phase II) in order to provide a more representative sample size of both career and volunteer firefighters. The phases together combine garments collected from small, medium, and large department sizes, and represents both career and volunteer firefighters.

Garments were divided into two different age groups in Phase II (less than four years of age, greater than five years of age), and also by retirement status. All garments were subjected to an advanced visual inspection according to NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition, and tested according to NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition. Garment testing included thermal protective performance, total heat loss, leakage evaluation, water penetration barrier evaluation, thickness, seam breaking strength, outer shell breaking strength, tear resistance, and flammability. Flat fabric was also laundered according to NFPA requirements and tested for total heat loss, thermal protective performance, and water penetration to help determine the effect laundering has on garment performance. A user questionnaire was administered to fire departments that donated garments in Phase II to gain insight on the use and care of the turnout gear. Overall performance was evaluated to enable the researcher to make recommendations and to gain in-depth knowledge on the wear life of turnout gear in general. The research objectives for this study were as follows: 1. To compare the performance properties (THL, TPP, and hydrostatic testing, etc.) of fire

fighter turnout gear materials as a function of cleaning cycles.

Flat fabrics commonly used in firefighter turnout gear was washed according to NFPA

1851, 2008 Edition and then evaluated for THL, TPP, and water penetration to better understand

the performance of firefighter materials as a function of cleaning cycles.

Relationships were determined between total heat loss testing and wash cycles, and also

with TPP values and wash cycles. It was determined that as wash cycles go up, the THL value

goes down. The opposite was true for TPP; as wash cycles of the materials increased, so did TPP

value. These findings validate that proper care and maintenance help to maintain performance of

firefighting turnout gear. This study also validates the idea of a decreasing THL, but an

increasing TPP with washing; however, it may be necessary to complete more research on

washing cycles with a larger sample size and variety of materials.

2. To compare the durability and performance properties (TPP, THL, flammability, tear

strength, seam strength, breaking strength, and water penetration) of used fire fighting turnout

gear against the requirements of NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural

Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2007 Edition.

All garments were tested following NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition, and the appropriate

ASTM standards for TPP, THL, flammability, tear strength, seam strength, breaking strength,

213

213

and water penetration. All garments (39 garments in Phase II, and data from 31 garments in

Phase I) evaluated in the Firefighter Durability Study met the NFPA requirement for Thermal

Protective Performance (100%). A positive correlation between thickness and TPP value was

established.

Seventy used garments were tested for total heat loss (39 from Phase II, and 31 from Phase I); 55.71% did not meet the NFPA requirement of 205 W/m2. The laboratories that performed testing on THL samples warned that the THL values produced may be an inaccurate assumption of data due to creases, pleats, pinholes, etc. present on the samples; however, these variables cannot always be controlled when testing used garments. Analysis showed a significant dependence on total heat loss testing of used garments and retirement status, as well as the outer shell fabric used in the composite. Borderline significance was found between used thermal liners and their THL value. Retired garments indicated a higher likelihood of meeting NFPA requirements. The thermal liner used in the composite significantly impacted UL total heat loss values before use, but showed less significance on the garment’s THL value after use. Hydrostatic testing was completed on used garment’s THL specimens to identify a relationship between water penetration results and the total heat loss value. The Pearson Chi-Square test and Fisher’s Exact Test were used to test the association; both tests confirmed that retirement has a significant association (p=0.001) with hydrostatic testing and THL value of the garment. The majority of garments tested met the flammability requirements mandated in NFPA 1971. Only 1.27% of garments tested failed to meet the requirements. All outer shells evaluated passed flammability testing. Two moisture barrier components and two thermal liner materials failed to meet flammability requirements.

The water penetration barrier evaluation showed high failure rate of 65.73%. The Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence, Fisher’s Exact Test, and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test were used to investigate dependence on hydrostatic testing with retirement, age, and moisture barrier. The hydrostatic test showed borderline significance with the moisture barrier material. A breakdown of hydrostatic testing and age showed that 64.71% of garments not retired and less than four years old showed leakage in testing.; however, there were only two observations in this category.

All 143 outer shells from (76 from Phase II, 67 from Phase I) were evaluated for breaking strength. A majority of the garments met NFPA requirements; however, 10.49% of the garments failed to meet the NFPA requirement of 140 lbf. 2a. To compare the results of the water penetration barrier evaluation with the leakage

evaluation test as specified in NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition and NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition. After the water penetration barrier evaluation and leakage evaluation were completed, an

Attribute Agreement Analysis was performed to determine if the two tests showed the same results. Only 30.06% of the garments showed leakage in the leakage evaluation, while 65.73% of garments showed leakage in the water penetration barrier evaluation. When evaluated based on the water penetration barrier evaluation, 58 garments showed a false pass in the cup test, and 7 garments showed a false fail. This information in addition to the Attribute Agreement Analysis determined very poor agreement between the leakage evaluation and the water barrier penetration evaluation. It may be concluded that the leakage evaluation did not verify the results of the water penetration barrier evaluation.

214

214

2b. To compare seam versus fabric integrity when evaluating water penetration and leakage

according to NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition and NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition.

While performing hydrostatic testing, the researcher noted the location of leakage; these

failures were documented as either being on the seam or on the fabric. There was no significant

difference found between the fabric or seam integrity of the 76 garments evaluated in Phase II.

The seams showed a failure rate of 43.43%, while the fabric failed at a rate of 42.11%.

2c. To investigate any correlation between the results of the Total Heat Loss (THL) testing,

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) testing, water penetration barrier evaluation, and

thickness testing.

It was determined that the thickness of a garment does not influence the results of the

hydrostatic testing. It was also concluded that the thickness of the garment does affect the total

heat loss test. The thicker the composite, the lower the THL value produced. When addressing

TPP, a relationship was also determined with thickness. As the thickness of the garment

increases, the TPP value also increases.

3. To determine if the physical inspection protocol for structural turnout gear in NFPA 1851 is

predictive of the results of testing for firefighting ensembles in a laboratory setting.

All 143 garments were visually inspected according to the advanced visual inspection

mandated in NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition. The outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner

components were individually inspected for signs of physical damage, thermal damage,

discoloration, broken thread, and deteriorating strength or texture. All closure systems present on

the garments were evaluated for functionality. Each garment was subjected to a flashlight test to

determine reflectivity.

Flashlight Test- 100% of garments from both Phase I and Phase II passed the flashlight test. This was a good indicator that the flashlight test is both an appropriate and effective field test for firefighters to use for turnout gear inspection.

It was concluded that the visual inspection was predictive of the test results for some tests. The visual inspection of the moisture barrier was predictive of total heat loss test results; however, there was a small sample size of moisture barriers rated as poor. The visual inspection was also predictive of seam breaking strength results in regards to the outer shell. A correlation was not found between the results of the visual inspection and tear strength or the water penetration barrier evaluation. 3a. To determine if the current 3 year liner inspection mandated in NFPA 1851, 2008 Edition is

appropriate.

It was concluded that the liner inspection every three years mandated by NFPA 1851 was

not supported by testing. In the leakage evaluation, 18.87% of garments less than four years of

215

215

age demonstrated leakage. In the hydrostatic testing, 23.78% of the samples showing failure

were classified as less than four years old. These results indicate that it may be necessary to

perform liner inspections more frequently than every three years. Phase II further supports the

NFPA 1851 proposal written in 2010 to amend the requirement to a liner inspection every two

years as opposed to three for safety precautions.

4. To determine if the recommended ten year retirement age for volunteer firefighters and career

fire departments is appropriate for coats and trousers by evaluating the ensemble and fabrics

using methods outlined in NFPA 1851 2008 edition and in NFPA 1971 2007 edition.

Thermal protective performance and total heat loss both supported the 10 year retirement of

firefighter’s turnout gear. Every garment evaluated passed the thermal protective performance

test and was above the minimum requirement for NFPA 1971. Although over half of the

garments did not meet the minimum NFPA requirement for total heat loss, an interval plot

indicated that with 95% confidence, retired garments were more likely to pass this test.

Flammability testing also supported the 10-year retirement mandated by NFPA 1971

since the testing indicated a small number of overall failures (1.27%). The outer shells had a

100% passing rate in correlation to the NFPA 1971 requirement.

Three of the 19 tear strength samples that did not meet NFPA requirements were less

than four years of age; therefore, the results of the tear resistance test does not support the 10

year retirement mandated by NFPA 1971.

The results found that 10.45% of outer shells samples that did not meet the NFPA

requirement for seam breaking strength were less than four years of age. From this, it was

concluded that seam breaking strength performance does not support the 10-year wear retirement

recommended by NFPA.

Five outer shells that were less than four years of age did not meet the minimum NPFA

requirement for breaking strength. This indicates that breaking strength testing does not support

the 10-year retirement requirement in NFPA 1851.

The water penetration barrier evaluation also did not support the 10-year retirement;

23.74% of samples tested for water penetration were less than four years of age and showed

failure. This finding supports the conclusions made in Phase I of the Firefighter Durability Study.

5. To obtain specific use, care, and maintenance information of used fire fighter turnout gear

using a questionnaire.

216

216

Firefighters contributing to the study (65 respondents) were asked to complete a 13

question survey about the use and care of their garments in order to provide a better

understanding of the garment’s life. The majority (85.15%) of firefighters classified their gear’s

weekly use as “light” or one to five uses. The remaining respondents said their garment use was

either moderate (six to 10 uses) or extreme (11 or more uses). Forty percent of respondents

answered that their gear is used for both structural fires and rescue; over half of respondents

answered that their gear is used for structural fires, industrial fires, and rescue. It was determined

that 93.65% of the firefighters answered that reasons for retirement included age and/or physical

appearance.

Firefighters were also asked to answer questions about the cleaning of their gear; 43.75%

said that the cleaning of their garments was voluntary. This gave us an indication that many

firefighters are not following NFPA 1851 protocol. When asked where their gear is cleaned,

24.62% of participants responded that their gear was either cleaned by a trained professional, or

at the station by a professional; all other responses indicated that gear was either cleaned at the

station or at home. Participants’ answers fell into every category when asked about cleaning

frequency; majority (46.15%) said that their gear was cleaned annually. Some respondents said

that their gear was cleaned after every use (12.31%). According to the survey results, all

respondents wash their garments in either a front loading washing machine (61.54%), or a

commercial washing machine (38.46%). When asked about detergent, 35.48% answered that

they used a detergent that was specially formulated for firefighter’s turnout gear. Almost half

(48.39%) answered that their gear was cleaned with liquid detergent, and the remaining 16.13%

used powder detergent. One hundred percent answered that their liner systems were removed

from the outer shell before cleaning; however, when asked if the liner system was cleaned

separately from the outer shell, only 78.46% said “yes”. Only two respondents (3.08%) said

“no” when asked if the outer shell was turned inside out before cleaning.

Drying method was also addressed in the care section of the questionnaire. NFPA 1851

mandates that garments either be air dried in a well ventilated area and out of direct sunlight, or

in a dryer using a “no heat/air-dry” option. Line drying was the main method of drying indicated

by participants (63.08%). Another 23.08% said that they use a clothes dryer to dry their

garments; however, it was not clarified whether or not a “no heat” drying option was used.

217

217

It was concluded from the results of the survey that not all firefighters follow proper care

procedures in regards to their turnout gear. It may also be verified in this study that cleaning does

have an effect on the performance of the materials.

Limitations A limitation of this research was the small sample size. Few garments fell into the poor, fair, and excellent categories which means there was a low number of observations for comparisons between testing and visual inspection. A larger sample size in every category from the visual inspection (especially poor, fair, and excellent) would allow for a more representative study. The researcher had no control over the accumulation of the garments used for testing. Another limitation was the small sample size present for evaluations regarding the care of firefighter materials and performance. A larger sample size would have provided more meaningful data. Recommendations for Future Research

For future research and analysis, it is recommended that a researcher address the liner inspection mandated by NFPA 1851. The standard requires a liner inspection every three years; however, this study showed a significant amount of leakage (23.78%) in garments less than four years of age. It is recommended that more samples of gear falling into this age range and both retired and non retired statuses be acquired and analyzed to support or disprove this requirement.

This study was able to verify that cleaning does have both a positive and negative effect on turnout gear; however, there was a relatively small sample size of fabric used. It is recommended that one study in entirety be completed on the cleaning functions of turnout gear materials in order to obtain a better understanding of how cleaning affects the performance of gear. It is also recommended that a larger variety of fabrics be used in order to gain a more representative sample.

It is also recommended that a sole comparison study be completed on the leakage evaluation and the hydrostatic testing. This study found that while 65.73% of the 143 garments tested failed the hydrostatic test, only 30.06% of the same garments failed the leakage evaluation. Even more troubling is that 58 of the total 143 garments evaluated passed the leakage evaluation, yet failed the hydrostatic testing. It may be necessary to further address this data in accordance with NFPA requirements. Based on results of Phase I and predictions for Phase II, a proposal was submitted to NFPA in 2010 to bring to their attention the differences between the two evaluations. The results of Phase II reiterate that the leakage evaluation is not verified by the results of the water penetration barrier evaluation. The water penetration barrier evaluation and the leakage evaluation are currently mandated in NFPA 1851; it may be recommended that the requirements be revised, or that more research be completed on the lack of agreement between the two tests. Some options would be to eliminate the cup test, move the cup test to the annex, or to provide a caveat about the disagreement between the two test methods.

When comparing performance to visual inspection, a larger sample population that varies in condition would be useful. High statistical significance was found in this study supporting the visual inspection; however, it was also noted that the sample size was small in the categories that were rated as “poor” or “excellent”. A more statistically sound study could have been completed if there were a larger variety of garments in different visual and physical conditions. It may even be recommended to conduct performance testing on garments rated as either “fair” or “poor” to gain a better understand of how these garments perform in physical testing.

A large study based on a user survey is recommended. It may be helpful to gain insight from members of small, medium, and large sized departments, as well as both volunteer and career firefighters

218

218

in order to get a more representative sample of firefighters as a whole. It may also assist in gaining a better understanding of the care procedures and the effect care has on turnout gear.

219

219

References

3M. (2011). 3M Scotchlite Reflective Material Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/ScotchliteReflectiveMaterial/Scotchlite/

American Red Cross. (n.d.). Fire Facts about Fires - Maryland Retrieved June 11, 2009, from http://www.redcross-cmd.org/Chapter/fireFactsMD.html

ASTM. (2002). Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate (Vol. F 1868 - 02, pp. 1-8). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.

ASTM. (2007). Standard Test Method for Failure in Sewn Seams of Woven Apparel Fabrics. West Conschohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM International.

ASTM. (2008a). ASTM F1060-08 Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.astm.org/Standards/F1060.htm

ASTM. (2008b). Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Test) (pp. 11): ASTM International.

ASTM. (2009). Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

ATSSA. (2011). Retroflection Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://www.atssa.com/cs/root/retroreflectivity/what_is_retroreflectivity/basics

Balk, S. A., Tyrell, R. A., Brooks, J. O., & Carpenter, T. L. (2008). Highlight Human Form and Motion Information Enhances the Conspicuity of Pedestrians at Night. Perception, 37(8), 1276-1284. doi: 10.1068/p6017

Brehm, D. (2003). Firefighter, Protect Thyself. Fire Chief, 47, 1. Byrne, P. (2009). Blaze a Path Into Firefighting. [Article]. Career World, 38(1), 14-18. Carr, K. (2009, February 25, 2009). Steam. Kidipede Retrieved June 24, 2010, from

http://kidipede.net/scienceforkids/chemistry/atoms/steam.htm Carroll, T. R. (1995). New Advances in High Performance Composites for the Protective Clothing

Market. Journal of Industrial Textiles, 24, 313-321. doi: 10.1177/152808379502400406 Cotterill, D. G. (2009a). Post Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear. Master of Science, University of

Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Cotterill, D. G. (2009b). Post Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear. Master of Science, University of

Kentucky, Lexington, KY. DuPont. (2009). DuPont Personal Protection NOMEX® & KEVLAR® Firefighter Products Home

Retrieved 6-22, 2009, from http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/Nomex/firefighter/firefighter_products.html

DuPont. (2011a). Firefighter:Tradenames Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/Nomex/firefighter/tradenames.html

DuPont. (2011b). Thermal Protective Performance Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://www.dpp-europe.com/-Thermal-Protective-Performance,82-.html?lang=en

Fahy, R. F., LeBlanc, P. R., & Molis, J. L. (2010a). Firefighter Fatalities in the United States-2009. Fahy, R. F., LeBlanc, P. R., & Molis, J. L. (2010b). Firefighter Fatalities in the United States-2009. NFPA

Journal, 104(4), 88. FiberSource. (2010). PBI Fiber, from http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/pbi.htm FiberSource. (n.d.). Aramid Fiber, from http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/aramid.htm Giovanni, A. D. (2006). Fire Protective Clothing: As Complex as any Other PPE. Fire Engineering, 126-

128. Globe. (2010). The Project Retrieved August 5, 2010, from http://www.globefiresuits.com/cb-ready/the-

project/ Globe Holding Company LLC. (2009a). Globe Firefighter Suits : Moisture Barrier Retrieved July 6,

2009, from http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/moisture-barrier/default.aspx

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/ScotchliteReflectiveMaterial/Scotchlite/�


http://www.astm.org/Standards/F1060.htm�

http://www.atssa.com/cs/root/retroreflectivity/what_is_retroreflectivity/basics�

http://kidipede.net/scienceforkids/chemistry/atoms/steam.htm�



http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/Nomex/firefighter/tradenames.html�

http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/Nomex/firefighter/tradenames.html�

http://www.dpp-europe.com/-Thermal-Protective-Performance,82-.html?lang=en�

http://www.dpp-europe.com/-Thermal-Protective-Performance,82-.html?lang=en�

http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/pbi.htm�

http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/aramid.htm�

http://www.globefiresuits.com/cb-ready/the-project/�

http://www.globefiresuits.com/cb-ready/the-project/�

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/materials/moisture-barrier/default.aspx�

220

220

Globe Holding Company LLC. (2009b). Globe Firefighter Suits : Thermal Liner Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.cairnsclothing.com/globe/materials/thermal-liner/thermal-liner-materials.aspx

Globe Holding Company LLC. (2011). Total Heat Loss (THL) Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://globeturnoutgear.com/globe/technical-data/nfpa-test-methods/thl

Gore. (2009). Gore™ Fabric Performance: Waterproof and Liquid Resistant Retrieved 9/4, 2009, from http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/2.2.1-Waterproof/2.2.1-Waterproof?sectorid=1169509172163

Gore. (2010). Gore RT7100 Fabric Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/RT7100-Fabric-Parent/RT7100-Fabric-Parent?sectorid=1169509172142

Guzzi Jr, A. F. (2009). Tank Water: The 500-Gallon Onboard Water Supply. [Article]. Fire Engineering, 162(10), 95-97.

Hall, G. (2009). Toxicology of Smoke Inhalation. [Article]. Fire Engineering, 162(8), 30-40. Janesville. (n.d.). Outer Shells Retrieved July 7, 2009, from http://www.janesville.bz/OuterShells.html Jeong, W. Y., Jeon, Y. H., An, S. K., Kamijo, M., & Shimizu, Y. (2007). Tactile Comfort Properties of

Thermal Protective Clothing in Static State. Sen'I Gakkaishi, 64(4), 102-107. Jorgensen, H. (2005). Expert Advice on Contaminated Gear Hazards and Cleaning. Firehouse, 30(3), 2. Karter, M. J., & Molis, J. L. (2010). U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009. NFPA, 104(6), 96. Lin, L.-Y., & Jou, G. T. (n.d.). A Study on Total Heat Loss of Clothing Materials for Firefighters'

Protective Clothing. Tawain Textile Research Institute. Lion Apparel. (2003a). Understanding High Heat and Fire. e-facts, MMIII(1). Retrieved from

http://www.lionpsg.bz/library/0103eFacts.pdf. Lion Apparel. (2003b). Wet and Dry Thermal Liners: Part 1. Retrieved November 24, 2008

http://www.lionpsg.bz/library/0803eFacts.pdf Lion Apparel. (2011). Janesville Chambray Pure Retrieved March 7, 2011, from

http://www.lionprotects.com/innovations-thermal-liners-chambray-pure Lion Apparel Inc. (2011). Janesville PBI Matrix, from http://www.lionprotects.com/innovations-outer-

shells-pbi-matrix National Fallen Firefighter Foundation. (2009, September 2009). National Fallen Firefighter Foundation

Retrieved December 2, 2009, from www.firehero.org/resources/benefits/mt.html National Fire Protection Association. (2006). NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for

Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting (pp. 126). Quincy, MA: NFPA. National Fire Protection Association. (2007a). NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance

of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting 2008 Edition (pp. 50). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Assiciation.

National Fire Protection Association. (2007b). NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting 2008 Edition (pp. 20). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Assiciation.

National Fire Protection Association. (2008a). NFPA :: About NFPA :: Overview Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=495&URL=About%20Us/%20Overview&cookie%5Ftest=1

National Fire Protection Association. (2008b). NFPA :: Research :: Fire statistics :: The U.S. fire service Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=955&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service

National Fire Protection Association. (2009). NFPA :: Research :: Fire statistics :: The U.S. fire service Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=955&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20service

http://www.cairnsclothing.com/globe/materials/thermal-liner/thermal-liner-materials.aspx�

http://globeturnoutgear.com/globe/technical-data/nfpa-test-methods/thl�



http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/RT7100-Fabric-Parent/RT7100-Fabric-Parent?sectorid=1169509172142�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/RT7100-Fabric-Parent/RT7100-Fabric-Parent?sectorid=1169509172142�

http://www.janesville.bz/OuterShells.html�



http://www.lionprotects.com/innovations-thermal-liners-chambray-pure�

http://www.lionprotects.com/innovations-outer-shells-pbi-matrix�

http://www.lionprotects.com/innovations-outer-shells-pbi-matrix�

http://www.firehero.org/resources/benefits/mt.html�







221

221

National Fire Protection Association. (2010a). An Overview of the U.S. Fire Problem Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=953&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20problem

National Fire Protection Association. (2010b). Proposals (ROP) and Comments (ROC) Retrieved October 14, 2010, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=817&URL=Codes%20&%20Standards/Code%20development%20process/Proposals%20%28ROP%29%20and%20Comments%20%28ROC%29

National Fire Protection Association. (2011). Codes and Standards Retrieved March 31, 2011, from http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=124&URL=Codes%20&%20Standards&cookie_test=1

PBI Performance Products Inc. PBI Fibers Retrieved August 5, 2010, from http://www.pbiproducts.com/en/pbi_fibers

Perkins, K. B. (1987). Volunteer Fire Departments: Community Integration, Autonomy and Survival. Human Organization, 46(4), 342-348.

Redler, D. (2005). Rugged Turnout Gear Requires Delicate Care. [Commentary]. Firehouse, 30(3), 1. Refinery Terminal Fire Company. (2005). Emergency Response Services Retrieved June 15, 2010, from

http://www.rtfc.org/wiki/RTF/EmergencyResponse Sayer, J. R., & Buonarosa, M. L. (2008). The Roles of Garment Design and Scene Complexity in the

Daytime Conspicuity of High-Visibility Safety Apparel. J Saf Res, 29, 281-286. Sayer, J. R., & Mefford, M. L. (2004). High Visibility Safety Apparel and Nighttime Conspicuity of

Pedestrians in Work Zones (Vol. 35, pp. 537-546): The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Schnepp, R. O. B., Reilly, K. J., & Gagliano, M. (2010). Wear Your Air: It's Key to a Healthy Career. [Article]. Fire Engineering, 163(3), 115-122.

Shanley, L. A., Slaten, L. B., & Shanley, P. S. (1993). Military Protective Clothing:Implications for Clothing and Textiles Curriculum and Research. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11(55), 55-59. doi: 10.1177/0887302X9301100308

Simpson, C. R. (1996). A Fraternity of Danger. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55(1), 17-34.

Starfield Lion. (2010). Glide TL AraFlo E-89. Fire & Rescue Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.lionprotects.com/node/1318

Stull, J. O., & Stull, G. G. (2009a). Evolution of the Moisture Barrier Use in PPE. 2009(February 19), 2. Retrieved from

Stull, J. O., & Stull, G. G. (2009b, October 20,2009). How to Use Firefighter Protective Clothing Reinforcements. Globe Firefighter Suits Retrieved November 14, 2009

TenCate. (2011). Outer Shells Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.tencate.com/TenCate/Protective_fabrics_USA/documents/EmergencyResponse/OuterShells/PRODUCT_COMPARISON.pdf

Tuttle, S. J., Sayer, J. R., & Buonarosa, M. L. (2009). The Conspicuity of First-Responder Safety Garments.: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Tyrell, R. A., Wood, J. M., Chaparro, A., Carberry, T. P., Chu, B. S., & Marszalek, R. P. (2009). Seeing Pedestrians at Night: Visual Clutter Does Not Mask Biological Motion. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(2), 506-512. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.001

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2010). Residential Structure Fires Retrieved June 15, 2010, from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/residential.shtm

United States Department of Labor. (2010). Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Labor Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco329.htm.

Vogelpohl, T. L. (1996). Post-Use Evaluation of Fire Fighter's Turnout Coats. Master of Science Master of Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=953&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20problem�

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=953&URL=Research/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20problem�

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=817&URL=Codes%20&%20Standards/Code%20development%20process/Proposals%20%28ROP%29%20and%20Comments%20%28ROC%29�



http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=124&URL=Codes%20&%20Standards&cookie_test=1�

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=124&URL=Codes%20&%20Standards&cookie_test=1�

http://www.pbiproducts.com/en/pbi_fibers�

http://www.rtfc.org/wiki/RTF/EmergencyResponse�

http://www.lionprotects.com/node/1318�

http://www.tencate.com/TenCate/Protective_fabrics_USA/documents/EmergencyResponse/OuterShells/PRODUCT_COMPARISON.pdf�

http://www.tencate.com/TenCate/Protective_fabrics_USA/documents/EmergencyResponse/OuterShells/PRODUCT_COMPARISON.pdf�

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/residential.shtm�

http://www.bls.gov/oco329.htm�

222

222

Volunteer FD. (2008). Volunteer FD.org Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.volunteerfd.org/ W.L. Gore & Associates. (2010). Gore RT7100 Fabric Retrieved March 7, 2011, from

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/RT-construction/RT-construction?sectorid=1169509172142

Watkins, S. M. (1984). Clothing the Portable Environment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Zeigler, J. P. (2001). Proper sizing: The key to extra durability of protective apparel. [Periodical].

Professional Safety, 46(11), 2. Zender, D. (2008). Maintaining Firefighter Ensemble for Safety and Compliance. Fire Engineering.

http://www.volunteerfd.org/�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/RT-construction/RT-construction?sectorid=1169509172142�

http://www.goreprotectivefabrics.com/remote/Satellite/RT-construction/RT-construction?sectorid=1169509172142�

223

223

Appendix A Definition of Terms

Advanced Cleaning- The thorough cleaning of ensembles or elements by washing with cleaning agents (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Body Fluids- Fluids that are produced by the body including, but not limited to, blood, semen, mucus, feces, urine, vaginal secretions, breast milk, amniotic fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, and pericardial fluid (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Char- the formation of brittle residue when a material is exposed to thermal energy(National Fire Protection Association, 2006) Cleaning- the act of removing soils and contaminants from ensembles or ensemble elements by mechanical, chemical, thermal, or combined processes (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Contamination- the process by which ensembles and ensemble elements are exposed to hazardous materials, body fluids, or chemicals, biological agents, and radiological particulates (CBRN) terrorism agents. (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Flame Resistance- The property of a material whereby combustion is prevented, terminated, or inhibited following the application of a flaming or nonflaming source of ignition, with or without subsequent removal of the ignition source (National Fire Protection Association, 2006) Functional- The ability of an element or component of an element to continue to be utilized for its intended purpose (National Fire Protection Association, 2006) Hardware- Nonfabric components of the protective clothing and equipment including, but not limited to, those made of metal or plastic (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Independent Service Provider (ISP)- An independent third party utilized by an organization to perform any one or any combination of advanced inspection, advanced cleaning, and repair services (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Liner System- the moisture barrier and thermal barrier components as used in a garment (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Major A Seam- Outermost layer seam assemblies where rupture could reduce the protection of the garment by exposing the garment’s inner layers (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Major B Seam- Inner layer seam assemblies where rupture could reduce the protection of the garment by exposing the next layer of the garment, the wearer’s station/work uniform, other clothing, or skin (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Moisture Barrier- The component of an ensemble element or item that principally prevents the transfer of liquids (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a). Outer Shell- the outermost component of an ensemble element or item, not including trim, hardware, reinforcing material, pockets, wristlet material, accessories, fittings, or suspension systems (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a) Particulates- finely divided solid matter that is dispersed in air (National Fire Protection Association, 2006) Retroflection/Retroflective- the reflection of light in which the reflected rays are preferentially returned in the direction close to the opposite of the direction of the incident rays, with this property being maintained over wide variations of the direction of the incident rays (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Sample- the ensemble, element, component, or composite that is conditioned for testing (National Fire Protection Association, 2006) Seam- any permanent attachment of one or two materials in a line formed by joining separate material pieces (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Service Life- the period for which compliant product can be useful before retirement (National Fire Protection Association, 2007).

224

224

Soil/Soiling- the accumulation of materials that are not considered hazardous materials, body fluids, CBRN terrorism agents but that could degrade the performance of the ensemble or ensemble element (National Fire Protection Association, 2007) Standard- a document, the main text of which contains only mandatory provisions using the word “shall” to indicate requirements and which is in a form generally suitable for mandatory reference by another standard or code or for adoption into law. No mandatory provision shall be located in an appendix or annex, footnote, or fine-print note and are not to be considered a part of the requirements of a standard. (National Fire and Protection Association, 2007). Stress Area- Those areas of the garment that are subjected to more wear, including, but not limited to, crotches, knees, elbows, and shoulders (National Fire Protection Association, 2007a) Structural Fire fighting Protective Ensemble- Multiple elements of compliant protective clothing and equipment that when worn (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Thermal Barrier- The component of an ensemble element or item that principally provides thermal protection (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). Trim- Retroreflective and fluorescent materials attached to the outermost surface of the protective ensemble for visibility enhancement. Retroreflective materials enhance nighttime visibility, and fluorescent materials enhance day-time visibility. “Trim” is also known as “visibility markings” (National Fire Protection Association, 2006). Wristlet- The interface component of the protective element or item that provides limited protection to the protective coat/glove interface area (National Fire Protection Association, 2006).

225

225

Appendix B Photographs of Garments

Figure B1 Damage on Garments

226

226

Appendix C Material Trademark Glossary

Advance™- a 60/40 blend of Kevlar® and Nomex® used for outer shell fabric: manufactured by TenCate (DuPont, 2011a).

Aralite™- a Kevlar® Nomex® batt with spun facecloth used as a thermal liner manufactured by TenCate (DuPont, 2011a).

Aralite® NP- a spun Nomex® fiber face cloth with a single layer of Aralite batting, manufactured by Globe (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2009b).

Aralite® SL2- a spun Nomex® fiber face cloth with 2-layer E-89 batting; manufactured by Globe (Globe Holding Company LLC, 2009b).

Caldura™- Kevlar®:Nomex® batt with filament-spun twill facecloth used as a thermal liner. Manufacturerd by Southern Mills/TenCate(DuPont, 2011a).

Caldura™ SL- Kevlar®:Nomex® batt with a filament-spun twill facecloth used as a thermal liner. Manufactured by TenCate(DuPont, 2011a).

Chambray Pure- a blend of aramid and paraaramid fibers quilted to a Nomex® spun facecloth; chambray pure is used as a thermal liner and sold by Lion Apparel (Lion Apparel, 2011).

Crosstech®- a PTFE (Teflon®)film laminated fabric used as a moisture barrier manufactured by W.L. Gore & Associates (DuPont, 2011a).

Crusader™- a 60/40 blend of Kevlar® and Nomex® outershell fabric manufactured by DIFCO(DuPont, 2011a).

Fusion®- 60/40 Nomex®:Kevlar® outershell fabric manufactured by Safety Components (DuPont, 2011a).

Gemini™-a 60/40 blend of Kevlar® and PBI fiber outer shell manufactured by TenCate (TenCate, 2011).

227

227

Appendix C (continued) Material Trademark Glossary

Glide 2L- a 2-layer spunlace with Nomex® and AraFlo® thermal liner sold by Lion Apparel (Starfield Lion, 2010).

Kevlar®-a high strength para-aramid fiber manufactured by DuPont (DuPont, 2011a).

Kombat™- a 60/40 Kevlar/PBI blend outer shell fabric manufactured by TenCate (DuPont, 2011a).

Nomex®-a flame-resistant meta-aramid fiber manufactured by DuPont(DuPont, 2011a).

Nomex® IIIA-a fabric with a 93/5/2 blend of Nomex®. Kevlar®, and P140 fibers manufactured by DuPont (DuPont, 2011a).

Nomex® E89- spunlaced non-woven fabric produced from a blend of Nomex® and Kevlar® staple fibers. Nomex® E89 is manufactured by DuPont.(DuPont, 2011a).

PBI- Polybenzimidaxazole fiber manufacturered by Celanese(DuPont, 2011a).

PBI Matrix™- a 60/40 Kevlar PBI fabric blended outer shell sold by Lion Apparel (Lion Apparel Inc, 2011).

PJ- Pajama check woven fabric used in faceloths. PJ is made by various manufacturers.(DuPont, 2011a).

RT7100- a 2-layer constructed moisture barrier manufactured by W.L. Gore & Associates (W.L. Gore & Associates, 2010).

Scotchlite™- a reflective material (trim) manufactured by 3M (3M, 2011).

Stedair 3000- PTFE based bicomponent fill laminated to Nomex® E-89 substrate; manufactured by Stedfast.(DuPont, 2011a).

Appendix D Questionnaire

228

228

Please take a moment to look over this questionnaire regarding the history of the “used” garment that you will be donating for research. Directions: Please fill in the circle and/or blank to answer each question below. Fire Department ________________________________________________________ Gear Serial Number _________________________ Date of Manufacture as on the label ___________ Outer Shell Fabric __________________________ Moisture Barrier Fabric _______________________ Thermal Barrier Fabric ________________________ 1 A) Approximately how many years has your garment been in use?

Less than 5 More than 5 Retired_____________; why was gear retired?___________________

Years in service 1 B) Please rate the WEEKLY level of use of the garment.

Light (1-5 uses) Moderate (6-10 uses) Extreme (11 or more uses)

1 C) How would you classify the types of fire your gear typically goes through? Structural fires (residential, barn, etc.) Industrial fires (factory, chemical, busniesses) Rescue (EMT, vehicle extracation, etc.)

All 2) How would you rate the condition of the garment? Excellent Condition

Good Condition Poor Condition

3) Is the cleaning of your garment MANDATORY or VOLUNTARY? If voluntary, do you have a requirement for cleaning your garments? 4) How is the garment cleaned? (Please refer to your professional PPE)

Professional specializing in PPE cleaning At the station by a trained individual

Appendix D (continued) Questionnaire

At the station At home

5) How often is the garment cleaned?

FIRE FIGHTER TURNOUT GEAR DURABILITY RESEARCH (In partnership with NFPA members & Researchers in the Textile Testing Lab)

229

229

After each use Once a week Once a month Once every 6 months Once a year Other

6) What type of washer is used when cleaning the garment? Consumer Top Loader Consumer Front Loader Commercial Washer

7a) When the garment was cleaned was the liner removed from the shell? Yes

No 7b) Were the liner and the shell of the garment cleaned separately?

Yes No

8a) When the garment was cleaned was the shell turned inside out? Yes No

8b) When the garment was cleaned was the liner turned inside out? Yes No

9) In what water temperature was the garment washed? Cold (tap cold) Warm (85-110°F) Hot (115 – 125°F) Very Hot (140°F or above)

10) What type of detergent was used to wash the garment? Detergent formulated for Fire Fighter protective gear Liquid Consumer detergent (any brand) Powder Consumer detergent (any brand) Other - _______________

11) How did you dry your garment after it has been cleaned? Clothes Dryer Flat Dry Line Dry

*12) Has this garment ever been repaired? Yes No

*If you answered yes to question 12 then please send any records you have on the repair with this questionnaire 13) What criteria do you follow when deciding to retire a garment? Select all that apply.

230

230

Appendix D (continued) Questionnaire

Style – update and/or upgrade style Age of Gear Appearance – Physical Damage, e.g. rips, tears and/or holes Fit Appearance – Level of Soil Other - _______________

Thank You!

231

231

Appendix E Inspection Checklist

ADVANCED INSPECTION CHECKLIST

Coat/Pant Identification: __________________________

Date Inspected:_______________________________

Inspector:___________________________________

LABELS YES NO Comments

Review labels to determine if shell and liner are compatible (serial #, date of mfr, material components, etc)

Inspect labels on shell to evaluate legibility Inspect labels on shell to determine if it is properly attached

Inspect labels on liner to evaluate legibility Inspect labels on liner to determine if it is properly attached

OUTER SHELL 1. Cleanliness

Overall Soiling (if localized, identify) 2. Physical Damage

Overall Evaluation Thin spots, holes, cuts, abrasions, rips, and tears Thermal damage (charring, burn holes, melting, discoloration) – 1” or larger

Examine for missing or broken stitches Discoloration Changes in material texture Changes in material strength Determine if knit wristlet is serviceable 3A. Closure Systems – Outer

Missing or damaged hardware Inspect and test for functionality Inspect for corrosion and/or damage Evaluate proper attachment 3B. Closure Systems – Inner Missing or damaged hardware

232

232

Inspect and test for functionality Inspect for corrosion and/or damage Evaluate proper attachment 4. Reflective Trim

Determine if trim is securely attached to garment

Inspect for damage – 1” or larger

Conduct Flashlight Test at cuff area on pants and coats

Moisture Barrier 1. Cleanliness


Outside Only

2. Physical Damage

Overall Evaluation

Thin spots, holes, cuts, abrasions, rips, and tears


Examine seam seal tape

Discoloration



Thermal Liner 1. Cleanliness


2. Physical Damage

Overall Evaluation

Thin spots, holes, cuts, abrasions, rips, and tears


Examine for broken stitches - quilting

Discoloration



233

233

Appendix F Data Tables

Table F1 Visual Inspection-(Phase I) Background Information, Label Information, and Trim

Background Information Label Information Trim

Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

1* 1* 2* 1* 1* 2* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 12 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 14 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 15 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 16 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 17 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 18 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 19 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

*Codes located in the Data Key (Table F9)

234

234

Table F1 (continued) Visual Inspection-(Phase I) Background Information, Label Information, and Trim Background Information Label Information Trim

Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

1 20 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 21 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 22 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 23 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 24 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 27 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 28 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 29 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 30 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 31 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 32 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 33 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 34 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 36 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 37 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 38 2 1 2 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

235

235

Table F1 (continued) Visual Inspection-(Phase I) Background Information, Label Information, and Trim Background Information Label Information Trim

Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

1 39 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 41 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 45 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 46 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 47 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 49 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 50 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 52 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 53 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 54 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 55 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 56 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Table F1 (continued)

236

236

Visual Inspection-(Phase I) Background Information, Label Information, and Trim


Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

1 57 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 58 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 59 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 60 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 62 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 63 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 64 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 65 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 66 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 67 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

237

237

Table F2 Visual Inspection-(Phase II) Background Information, Label Information, and Trim


Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

2 68 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 69 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 70 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 71 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 72 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 73 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 74 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 75 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 76 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 77 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 78 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 79 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 80 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 81 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 82 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 83 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 84 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 85 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 86 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 87 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 88 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 89 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Codes are located in Data Key (Table F9)

238

238

Table F2 (continued) Visual Inspection-(Phase II) Background Information, Label Information, and Trim


Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

2 90 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 91 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 92 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 93 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 94 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 95 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 96 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 97 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 98 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 99 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 100 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 101 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 102 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 103 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 104 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 105 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 106 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 107 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 108 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 109 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 110 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 111 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

239

239



Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

2 112 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 113 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 114 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 115 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 116 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 117 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 118 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 119 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 120 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 121 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 122 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 123 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 124 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 125 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 126 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 127 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

240

240



Phas

e

Garm

ent

Year

s of U

se

Retir

ed?

Out

er S

hell

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r

Ther

mal

Lin

er

Com

patib

le L

abel

s

Shel

l Leg

ibili

ty

Shel

l Att

achm

ent

Line

r Leg

ibili

ty

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Is tr

im se

cure

?

Dam

age

1" o

r Gre

ater

Flas

hlig

ht T

est

2 128 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 129 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 130 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 131 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 132 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 133 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 134 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 135 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 136 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 137 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 138 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 139 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 140 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 141 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 142 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 143 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

241

241

Table F3 Visual Inspection-Liner Attachment and Closure Functionality (Phase I)

Liner Attachment Closures

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Miss

ing

or D

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/Da

mag

e

Prop

er A

ttac

hmen

t

Hook

/Loo

p M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Hook

/Loo

p Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/Loo

p Pr

oper

ly A

ttac

hed

Zipp

er-M

issin

g/Da

mag

ed

Zipp

er-F

unct

iona

lity

Zipp

er-C

orro

sion/

Dam

age

Zipp

er-P

rope

r Att

achm

ent

Clas

p-M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Clas

p-Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Clas

p-Co

rros

ion/

Dam

age

Clas

p-Pr

oper

Att

achm

ent

1* 1* 2* 1* 1* 1* 2* 2* 2* 1* 2* 1* 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2* 1* 1* 1* 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 8 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 9 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

10 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 12 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 13 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 14 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 15 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

16 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 17 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 18 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 19 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 20 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 22 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 23 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 24 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

*Codes are located in Data Key (Table F9)

242

242

Table F3 (continued) Visual Inspection-Liner Attachment and Closure Functionality (Phase I)


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Miss

ing

or D

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/Da

mag

e

Prop

er A

ttac

hmen

t

Hook

/Loo

p M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Hook

/Loo

p Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/Loo

p Pr

oper

ly A

ttac

hed

Zipp

er-M

issin

g/Da

mag

ed

Zipp

er-F

unct

iona

lity

Zipp

er-C

orro

sion/

Dam

age

Zipp

er-P

rope

r Att

achm

ent

Clas

p-M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Clas

p-Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Clas

p-Co

rros

ion/

Dam

age

Clas

p-Pr

oper

Att

achm

ent

25 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 26 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 27 2 1 2 1

2 1 2 1 28 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 29 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 30 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 31 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

1 2 1 1

32 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 33 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 34 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 35 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

36 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 37 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 38 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 39 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 40 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

41 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 42 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 43 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 44 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 45 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

243

243

Table F3 (continued) Visual Inspection-Liner Attachment and Closure Functionality (Phase I)


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Miss

ing

or D

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/Da

mag

e

Prop

er A

ttac

hmen

t

Hook

/Loo

p M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Hook

/Loo

p Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/Loo

p Pr

oper

ly A

ttac

hed

Zipp

er-M

issin

g/Da

mag

ed

Zipp

er-F

unct

iona

lity

Zipp

er-C

orro

sion/

Dam

age

Zipp

er-P

rope

r Att

achm

ent

Clas

p-M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Clas

p-Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Clas

p-Co

rros

ion/

Dam

age

Clas

p-Pr

oper

Att

achm

ent

46 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 47 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 48 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 49 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 50 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 51 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 52 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 53 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

54 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 55 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 56 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 57 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 58 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 59 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 60 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 61 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 62 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 63 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 64 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 65 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 66 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 67 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

244

244

Table F4 Visual Inspection-Liner Attachment and Closure Functionality (Phase II)


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Miss

ing

or D

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/Da

mag

e

Prop

er A

ttac

hmen

t

Hook

/Loo

p M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Hook

/Loo

p Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/Loo

p Pr

oper

ly A

ttac

hed

Zipp

er-M

issin

g/Da

mag

ed

Zipp

er-F

unct

iona

lity

Zipp

er-C

orro

sion/

Dam

age

Zipp

er-P

rope

r Att

achm

ent

Clas

p-M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Clas

p-Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Clas

p-Co

rros

ion/

Dam

age

Clas

p-Pr

oper

Att

achm

ent

68 2* 1* 2* 1* 2* 1* 1* 2* 1* 2* 1* 69 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2* 1* 2* 1*

70 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 71 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 72 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 73 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 74 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 75 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 76 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 77 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 78 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 79 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 80 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 81 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 82 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 83 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 84 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 85 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 86 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 87 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

88 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 89 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 90 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

*Codes are located in the Data Key (Table F9)

245

245

Table F4 (continued) Visual Inspection-Liner Attachment and Closure Functionality (Phase II)


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Miss

ing

or D

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/Da

mag

e

Prop

er A

ttac

hmen

t

Hook

/Loo

p M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Hook

/Loo

p Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/Loo

p Pr

oper

ly A

ttac

hed

Zipp

er-M

issin

g/Da

mag

ed

Zipp

er-F

unct

iona

lity

Zipp

er-C

orro

sion/

Dam

age

Zipp

er-P

rope

r Att

achm

ent

Clas

p-M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Clas

p-Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Clas

p-Co

rros

ion/

Dam

age

Clas

p-Pr

oper

Att

achm

ent

91 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 92 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 93 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 94 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 95 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 96 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 97 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 98 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 99 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

100 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 101 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 102 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 103 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 104 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 105 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 106 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 107 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 108 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 109 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 110 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 111 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 112 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 113 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 114 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 115 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 116 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

246

246

Table F4 (continued) Visual Inspection-Liner Attachment and Closure Functionality (Phase II)


Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Miss

ing

or D

amag

ed

Func

tiona

lity

Corr

osio

n/Da

mag

e

Prop

er A

ttac

hmen

t

Hook

/Loo

p M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Hook

/Loo

p Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Hook

/Loo

p Pr

oper

ly A

ttac

hed

Zipp

er-M

issin

g/Da

mag

ed

Zipp

er-F

unct

iona

lity

Zipp

er-C

orro

sion/

Dam

age

Zipp

er-P

rope

r Att

achm

ent

Clas

p-M

issin

g or

Dam

aged

Clas

p-Fu

nctio

nalit

y

Clas

p-Co

rros

ion/

Dam

age

Clas

p-Pr

oper

Att

achm

ent

117 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 118 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 119 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 120 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 121 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 122 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 123 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 124 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 125 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 126 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 127 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 128 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 129 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 130 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 131 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 132 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 133 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 134 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 135 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 136 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 137 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 138 2 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 1 2 1 139 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 140 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 141 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

142 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 143 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

247

247

Table F5 Visual Inspection-Outer Shell (Phase I)

Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

1 3* 3* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 1* 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 9 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 *

10 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 * 11 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 12 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 14 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 15 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 16 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 17 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 18 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 19 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 20 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 21 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 22 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 23 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 24 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 *


248

248

Table F5 (continued) Visual Inspection-Outer Shell (Phase I)

Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

25 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 * 26 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 27 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 * 28 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 29 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 30 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 31 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 * 32 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 33 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 34 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 35 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 36 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 37 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 38 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 39 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 * 40 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 41 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 42 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 43 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 44 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 45 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 46 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 * 47 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 48 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 49 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

249

249

Table F5 (continued) Visual Inspection-Outer Shell (Phase I)

Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

50 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 51 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 52 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 * 53 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 * 54 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 55 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 56 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 57 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 58 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 59 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 60 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 61 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 62 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 63 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 64 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 65 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 66 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 67 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 *

250

250

Table F6 Visual Inspection-Outer Shell (Phase II)

Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

68 1* 3* 1* 2* 1* 2* 2* 2* * 69 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 70 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 71 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 72 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 73 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 74 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 75 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 * 76 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 77 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 * 78 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 79 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 80 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 81 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 82 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 * 83 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 84 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 85 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 86 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 87 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 88 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 89 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 * 90 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1


251

251

Table F6 (continued) Visual Inspection-Outer Shell (Phase II)

Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

91 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 92 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 93 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 94 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 95 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 96 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 97 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 98 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 99 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 *

100 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 101 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 * 102 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 * 103 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 104 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 105 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 106 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 107 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 108 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 109 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 110 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 *

252

252


Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

111 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 112 0 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 113 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 114 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 115 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 116 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 117 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 118 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 119 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 120 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 121 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 122 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 123 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 124 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 * 125 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 126 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 127 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 * 128 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 129 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 130 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1

253

253


Outer Shell

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

Knit

Wris

tlet S

ervi

ceab

le?

131 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 132 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 133 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 * 134 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 * 135 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 * 136 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 137 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 138 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 139 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 * 140 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 141 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 * 142 0 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 143 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

254

254

Table F7 Visual Inspection-Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner (Phase I)

Garm

ent N

umbe

r


eanl

ines

s

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Seal

Tap

e Se

cure

?

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es-Q

uilti

ng

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

1 2* 3* 2* 2* 1* 2* 2* 2* 2* 3* 2* 2* 2* 2* 1* 1* 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 6 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 7 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 9 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2

10 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 12 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 14 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 18 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 21 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 23 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 24 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 25 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2


255

255

Table F7 (continued) Visual Inspection-Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner (Phase I)

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Seal

Tap

e Se

cure

?

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es-Q

uilti

ng

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

26 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 27 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 28 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 29 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 30 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 31 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 32 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 34 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 35 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 37 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 38 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 39 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 41 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 42 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 43 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 44 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 45 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 46 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 47 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 48 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 49 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

256

256

Table F7 (continued) Visual Inspection-Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner (Phase I)

Garm

ent N

umbe

r


eanl

ines

s

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Seal

Tap

e Se

cure

?

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

Clea

nlin

ess

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es-Q

uilti

ng

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

50 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 51 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 52 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 53 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 54 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 55 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 56 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 57 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 58 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 59 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 61 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 62 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 63 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 64 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 65 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 66 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 67 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2

257

257

Table F8 Visual Inspection-Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner (Phase II)

Garm

ent N

umbe

r

Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner So

iling

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Seal

Tap

e Se

cure

?

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es-Q

uilti

ng

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

68 0* 3* 2* 2* 1* 1* 2* 2* 0* 3* 2* 2* 1* 1* 2* 2* 69 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 70 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 71 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 72 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 73 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 74 0 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 75 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 76 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 77 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 78 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 79 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 80 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 81 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 83 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 84 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 85 0 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 86 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 87 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 88 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 89 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 91 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 92 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 93 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 94 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

Codes are located in Data Key (Table F9)

258

258

Table F8 (continued) Visual Inspection-Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner (Phase II)

Garm

ent N

umbe

r


iling

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Seal

Tap

e Se

cure

?

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es-Q

uilti

ng

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

95 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 96 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 97 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 98 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 99 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

100 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 101 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 102 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 103 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 104 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 105 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 106 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 107 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 108 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 109 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 110 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 111 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 112 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 113 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 114 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 115 0 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 116 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 117 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 118 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 119 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 120 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 121 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 2

259

259

Table F8 (continued) Visual Inspection-Moisture Barrier and Thermal Liner (Phase II)

Garm

ent N

umbe

r


iling

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Seal

Tap

e Se

cure

?

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

Soili

ng

Ove

rall

Eval

uatio

n

Spot

s, H

oles

, Cut

s

Ther

mal

Dam

age

Brok

en S

titch

es-Q

uilti

ng

Disc

olor

atio

n

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Tex

ture

?

Chan

ge in

Mat

eria

l Str

engt

h?

122 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 123 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 124 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 125 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 126 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 127 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 128 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 129 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 130 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 131 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 132 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 133 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 134 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 135 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 136 0 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 137 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 138 0 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 139 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 140 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 141 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 142 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 143 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

260

260

Table F9 Data Key

Back

grou

nd In

form

atio

n

Garment Number As listed

Years of Use 1- less than 4 2-greater than 5

Retired 1-Yes 2-No

Outer Shell Fabric

1-Nomex/Kevlar 2-PBI/Kevlar 3-Millenia Gold 4-100% Nomex 5-Basofil/Kevlar

Moisture Barrier

1-Crosstech 2-RT7100 3-Stedair 2000 4-Aquatech

Thermal Liner 1-E-89 2-Aramid

Labe

l Inf

orm

atio

n

Shell & Liner Labels Match 1-Yes 2- No

Shell Label Integrity 1-Yes 2- No

Shell Label Attached 1-Yes 2- No

Liner Label Legibility 1-Yes 2- No

Liner Label Attached 1-Yes 2- No

Trim

Trim Securely Attached? 1-Yes 2- No

Trim-Damage 1" or Greater 1-Yes 2- No

Flashlight Test 1-Pass 2- Fail

261

261

Table F9 (continued) Data Key

Clos

ure

Syst

ems

Hook/Loop Missing or Damaged 1-Yes 2-No

Hook/Loop Functionality 1-Yes 2-No

Hook/Loop Proper Attachment 1-Yes 2-No

Zipper-Missing or Damaged 1-Yes 2-No

Zipper-Functionality 1-Yes 2-No

Zipper- Corrosion/Damage 1-Yes 2-No

Zipper-Proper Attachment 1-Yes 2-No

Clasp-Missing or Damaged 1-Yes 2-No

Clasp-Functionality 1-Yes 2-No

Clasp-Proper Attachment 1-Yes 2-No

Line

r Att

achm

ent

Liner Attachment-Missing or Damaged 1-Yes 2-No

Liner Attachment- Functionality 1-Yes 2-No

Liner Attachment- Corrosion/Damage 1-Yes 2-No

Liner Attachment-Proper Attachment 1-Yes 2-No

262

262

Table F9 (continued) Data Key

Out

er S

hell,

Moi

stur

e Ba

rrie

r, an

d Th

erm

al L

iner

Info

rmat

ion

Cleanliness (Phase I)

1-Poor 2-Fair 3-Good 4-Excellent

Soiling (Phase II)

0-None 1-Slight 2-Moderate 3-Extreme

Overall Evaluation

1-Poor 2-Fair 3-Good 4-Excellent

Spots, Holes, Cuts 1-Yes 2-No

Thermal Damage 1-Yes 2-No

Seal Tape Secure 1-Yes 2-No

Broken Stitches 1-Yes 2-No

Discoloration 1-Yes 2-No

Change in Material Texture 1-Yes 2-No

Change in Material Strength 1-Yes 2-No

Knit Wristlet Serviceable 1-Yes 2-No

156

156

Table F10

Thermal Protective Performance

Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time

TPP Value FFF Value Pain

Time TPP Time Average

TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average Initial

TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²

(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²) sec. sec. cal / cm²

(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²) sec.

69 A 21.3 42.6 4.7 14.7

22.4 44.8 4.9 15.4 B 21.6 43.3 4.8 15.1 C 24.2 48.5 5.3 16.3

70 A 28.6 57.2 6.3 20.1

26.9 53.8 5.9 18.6 B 26.7 53.4 5.9 18.4 C 25.4 50.9 5.6 17.4

71 A 22.5 45 5 16

22.9 45.9 5.1 16.5 B 22.6 45.2 5 16.2 C 23.7 47.4 5.2 17.3

72 A 24.4 48.9 5.4 16.7

26.8 53.7 5.9 18.9 B 28 56.1 6.2 20 C 28.1 56.2 6.2 20

73 A 24.8 49.7 5.5 17.9

24.7 49.5 5.5 17.8 B 24.8 49.6 5.5 17.5 C 24.5 49.1 5.4 17.9

74 A 32.7 65.4 7.2 23.4

32.0 64.1 7.1 22.7 41.2 46.5 B 32.5 65 7.2 22.7 C 30.9 61.9 6.8 21.9

157

157




Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time



TPP Value Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average

Initial TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²


(cal / cm²) / (oz / yd²)

sec.

76 A 31.7 63.4 7 21.6

29.6 59.3 6.6 20.4 41.2 46.5 B 29.8 59.7 6.6 20.8 C 27.4 54.9 6.1 18.9

78 A 26.4 52.9 5.8 18.4

25.2 50.5 5.6 17.3 40.8 43.3 B 25.3 50.7 5.6 17.6 C 23.9 47.8 5.3 15.8

80 A 27.6 55.2 6.1 19.9

27.7 55.4 6.1 20.2 B 28.2 56.4 6.2 20.6 C 27.3 54.7 6 20.1

85 A 24.3 48.6 5.4 17.2

24.8 49.7 5.5 17.5 41.2 46.5 B 25.7 51.5 5.7 18 C 24.4 48.9 5.4 17.2

87 A 25.7 51.5 5.7 18.2

24.5 49.2 4.4 17.2 41.2 46.5 B 24.1 48.3 5.3 16.9 C 23.8 47.7 2.3 16.6

88 A 25 50 5.5 17.8

24.0 48.0 5.3 17.0 41.2 46.5 B 23.5 47.1 5.2 16.7 C 23.5 47 5.2 16.6

158

158


Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time



TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average

Initial TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²



90 A 24.1 48.0 5.3 17.1

23.2 46.2 5.1 15.8 40.8 43.3 B 24.3 48.3 5.3 17.4 C 21.2 42.2 4.6 12.8

91 A 23.9 47.6 5.2 15.9

23.0 45.7 5.0 14.7 B 21.5 42.8 4.7 12.4 C 23.5 46.8 5.2 15.7

92 A 27.4 54.5 6.0 19.4

28.1 55.9 6.2 20.1 41.2 46.5 B 27.6 55.0 6.1 19.4 C 29.3 58.3 6.4 21.4

94 A 23.1 46.1 5.1 15.9

22.7 45.3 5.0 15.4 40.1 43.3 B 23.0 45.9 5.1 15.6 C 22.0 43.8 4.8 14.8

95 A 22.2 44.2 4.9 15.3

22.2 44.1 4.9 15.2 41.3 B 22.2 44.1 4.9 15.2 C 22.1 44.0 4.8 15.1

96 A 24.0 47.8 5.3 16.5

24.3 48.3 5.3 16.7 40.1 43.3 B 25.1 49.9 5.5 17.5 C 23.7 47.2 5.2 16.1

159

159



Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time



TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average

Initial TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²



97 A 21.7 43.3 4.8 14.8

22.2 44.3 4.9 15.1 41.3 B 23.4 46.5 5.1 15.9 C 21.6 43.1 4.7 14.7

107 A 23.4 47.3 5.2 15.1

22.6 45.7 5.0 14.6 42.5 B 21.7 43.9 4.8 14.2 C 22.7 45.9 5.1 14.5

108 A 25.8 52.1 5.7 17.3

26.6 53.7 5.9 18.1 41.2 46.6 B 27.4 55.4 6.1 19 C 26.5 53.7 5.9 18.1

109 A 22.8 46 5.1 15.5

22.5 45.5 5.0 15.2 36.6 42.5 B 22.9 46.3 5.1 15.6 C 21.9 44.3 4.9 14.5

114 A 24.1 48.6 5.4 16.8

24.9 50.3 5.6 17.3 B 25.5 51.6 5.7 17.8 C 25 50.6 5.6 17.2

115 A 23.2 46.2 5.1 15.5

22.8 45.3 5.0 15.1 36.6 42.5 B 22.4 44.6 4.9 14.9 C 22.7 45.2 5 15

160

160



Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time



TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average

Initial TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²



116 A 22.3 45 5 14.4

22.8 46.0 5.1 14.7

B 23 46.5 5.1 14.9 C 23 46.5 5.1 14.9

117 A 22.7 45.2 5 15.1

22.8 45.4 5.0 15.1

B 22.4 44.6 4.9 14.9 C 23.2 46.3 5.1 15.4

118 A 22.5 45.5 5 14.3

23.1 46.7 5.2 14.9

B 23.3 47 5.2 14.8 C 23.6 47.7 5.3 15.5

121 A 25.1 50.7 5.6 16.7

23.9 48.3 5.3 15.0 40.1 43.3 B 24.5 49.6 5.5 15.9 C 22 44.5 4.9 12.4

122 A 32 64.3 7.1 23.7

32.0 64.3 7.1 23.6 41.2 46.5 B 31.4 63.2 7 22.9 C 32.5 65.4 7.2 24.2

125 A 27.6 55.8 6.2 19.7

28.2 57.0 6.3 20.4 41.2 46.5 B 28.6 57.7 6.4 20.9 C 28.5 57.6 6.4 20.5

161

161



Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time



TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average

Initial TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²



126 A - - - -

27.3 55.3 6.1 19.5 41.2 46.5 B 29.2 59.1 6.5 20.7 C 29.5 59.6 6.6 21.2

128 A 23.7 47.7 5.3 16.3

22.6 45.4 5.0 15.1 40.1 41.3 B 22.2 44.6 4.9 14.7 C 21.8 43.9 4.9 14.3

129 A 22.7 45.6 5 15.8

22.6 45.4 5.0 15.0 40.1 41.3 B 22.6 45.5 5 15 C 22.4 45 5 14.2

130 A 22 44.3 4.9 14.3

22.0 44.3 4.9 14.3 36.6 36.6 B 21.5 43.3 4.8 13.9 C 22.5 45.2 5 14.7

131 A 22.6 45.4 5 15.2

22.6 45.6 5.0 15.0 40.1 40.1 B 23.2 46.8 5.2 15.5 C 22.1 44.5 4.9 14.3

132 A 22.2 44.6 4.9 14.8

22.0 44.3 4.9 14.7 40.1 40.1 B 22 44.2 4.9 14.6 C 21.9 44.1 4.9 14.8


156

156


Garment Number

Sample ID

TPP Time



TPP Value

Average

FFF Value Average

Pain Time Average

Initial TPP

New Flat Fabric

TPP sec. cal / cm²



137 A 30.2 61.1 6.7 21.7

30.8 62.2 6.9 22.1 41.2 41.2 B 30 60.6 6.7 21.7 C 32.1 64.8 7.2 22.9

142 A 26.8 54.2 6 20

27.2 54.9 6.1 19.9 B 26.8 54.1 6 19.6 C 27.9 56.4 6.2 20.1

143 A 28.1 56.9 6.3 20.2

28.7 58.1 6.4 20.6 41.2 41.2 B 29.3 59.3 6.5 21 C 28.8 58.2 6.4 20.5

157

157

Table F11

THL Results-Flat Fabric

Sample Outer Shell Fibers Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner Wash Cycles THL

1 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 0 220

2 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aramid 0 205

3 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 0 226

4 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 0 229









158

158


THL Results- Flat Fabric

Sample Outer Shell Fibers Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner Wash Cycles THL













159

159

Table F11

THL Results-Garments

Coat Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal

Liner Years of

Use


THL Company

Initial

THL New Fabric

69 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 9 227.6 253.0


71 Nomex/Kevlar RT 7100 E-89 9 224.9 257.0

72 Nomex/Kevlar RT 7100 E-89 11 168.3 257.0

73 Nomex/Kevlar RT 7100 E-89 10 216.2 257.0

74 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 2000 Aramid 7 199.6 250.9 205

76 Nomex/Kevlar Stedair 2000 Aramid 5 172.7 250.9 205

78 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 6 221.7 259.1 221

80 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 E-89 5 215.5 257.0

85 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aramid 10 210 250.9 205

87 Nomex/Kevlar RT7101 Aramid 10 244.7 250.9 205



160

160

Table F11



Liner Years of

Use


THL Company

Initial

THL New Fabric



94 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3 194.9 259.1 221 95 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 3 251.1 268.8 226


97 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 3 254.4 268.8 226 107 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 5 126.2 267.2 220


109 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 2 151.8 267.2 220

114 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 E-89 4 115.7 257.03

115 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 5 145.8 267.2 220

116 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 E-89 7 101.8 257.03

117 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 E-89 7 158.4 257.03

161

161

Table F11



Liner Years of

Use


THL Company

Initial

THL New Fabric

118 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 E-89 6 124.7 257.0

121 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 8 104.9 259.1 221 122 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 (Stedair 3000) Aramid 3 140.3 250.9 205 125 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 (Stedair 3000) Aramid 6 107.6 250.9 205 126 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 (Stedair 3000) Aramid 4 54.2 250.9 205 128 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech 2C E-89 3 180.9 268.8 226 129 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech 2C E-89 3 219.3 268.8 226 130 Millenia Gold Crosstech 2C E-89 7 142.1 267.2 220 131 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech 2C E-89 3 187.2 268.8 226 132 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech 2C E-89 6 155.5 268.8 226 137 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 (Stedair 3000) Aramid 6 119.9 250.9 205 142 PBI/Kevlar RT7100 (Stedair 3000) Aramid 6 106.4 240.7 143 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 (Stedair 3000) Aramid 6 80.8 250.9 205

162

162

Table F12

Flammability Results

Flammability-Outer Shell Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length Garment

Number After Flame After Glow Char Length

68 0 14.75 1/2 88 0 46.88 19/32 69 0 16.65 1 89 0 26.62 1 27/32 70 0 13.72 1 5/32 90 0 16.51 31/32 71 0 17.35 1 9/32 91 0 53.78 1 5/16 72 0 30.09 1 11/32 92 0 14.29 7/8 73 0 17.25 1 13/32 93 0 46.49 1 13/32 74 0 23.65 5/8 94 0 18.12 13/16 75 0 23.7 15/32 95 0 28.93 9/16 76 0 26.63 13/32 96 0 49.21 29/32 77 0 21.33 19/32 97 0 20.22 27/32 78 0 28.22 3/4 98 0 14.24 1 79 0 17.84 17/32 99 0 14.86 1 1/16 80 0 36.45 15/32 100 0 20.37 21/32 81 0 11.87 13/32 101 0 28.82 1 1/16 82 0 19.33 13/32 102 0 22.03 19/32 83 0 60.09 7/8 103 0 18.92 1 5/32 84 0 45.3 5/8 104 0 76.27 9/16 85 0 30.09 1 3/32 105 0 20.42 9/16 86 0 45.4 7/8 106 0 67.2 1/2 87 0 15.13 15/32

Note. After flame-seconds, After Glow- seconds, Char Length-inches

163

163



Flammability-Outer Shell Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length Garment


107 0 25.8 7/16 125 0 11.09 15/16 108 0 22.13 9/16 126 0 10.1 31/32 109 0 66.31 7/8 127 0 9.75 23/32 110 0 22.84 27/32 128 0 18.03 29/32 111 0 16.1 27/32 129 0 17.62 9/16 112 0 34.6 7/8 130 0 0 3/16 113 0 26.91 1 19/32 131 0 50.03 29/32 114 0 31.24 25/32 132 0 27.09 3/4 115 0 28.3 15/32 133 0 0 1/8 116 0 29.69 1 9/32 134 0 5.76 29/32 117 0 22.76 3/4 135 0 39.81 1 9/32 118 0 29.7 1 13/32 136 0 21.6 21/32 119 0 25.36 19/32 137 0 25.36 1 3/8 120 0 33.19 11/16 138 0 11.4 5/8 121 0 21.07 27/32 139 0 40 15/32 122 0 13.57 7/8 140 0 19.12 15/16 123 0 11.69 23/32 141 0 41.3 1 1/16 124 0 11.7 25/32 142 0 39.7 22/32 124 0 11.7 25/32 143 0 20.84 31/32


164

164



Flammability-Moisture Barrier Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length Garment


68 0 0.25 1 1/32 88 0 0.43 1 15/32 69 0 0 3 5/32 89 0 0 2 3/32 70 0 0.25 2 11/32 90 0 0.5 3 1/8 71 0 0 1 5/32 91 0 0.25 2 3/4 72 0 3.67 2 3/32 92 0 0.31 3 3/16 73 0 0.34 1 1/8 93 0 0.45 3 17/32 74 0 11.33 1 29/32 94 0 0.43 2 21/32 75 0 10.28 2 13/32 95 0 0 2 11/16 76 0 3.27 1 21/32 96 0 0.33 2 3/4 77 0 5 2 7/32 97 0 0.4 2 3/4 78 0 0.24 4 1/8 98 0 0.3 2 7/16 79 0 4.31 15/32 99 0 0.45 2 23/32 80 0 0 3 13/32 100 0 0.22 3 81 0 0.34 1 13/32 101 0 0.3 1 5/16 82 0 0.55 1 1/2 102 0 0 2 1/32 83 0 0.55 1 17/32 103 0 0.31 2 3/4 84 0 0 2 3/4 104 0 0.75 2 1/8 85 0 0.46 13/32 105 0 0.27 3 15/32 86 0 0.27 13/32 106 0 0.3 3 7/8 87 0 0 1 11/16


221



Flammability-Moisture Barrier Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length Garment


107 0 0.3 3 7/8 125 0 6.09 1 7/8 108 0 0 2 11/32 126 0 12 1 5/16 109 0 0 3 127 7.66 0 3 29/32 110 0 0 1 15/16 128 0 0.4 2 111 0 0 3 13/32 129 0 0.29 1 17/32 112 0 0.22 1 11/32 130 0 0.33 1 5/16 113 0 24.58 4 19/32 131 0 0.39 31/32 114 0 0.48 2 7/16 132 0.71 0.71 1 1/4 115 0 2.28 3 1/2 133 0 0 1 31/32 116 0 0.25 2 13/16 134 9.79 10.8 2 3/8 117 0 0.28 1 21/32 135 0 7.63 1 31/32 118 0 0 2 3/8 136 0 0.33 2 1/2 119 0 0.43 2 7/32 137 0 13.32 2 3/32 120 0 0.27 3 1/8 138 0 7.76 1 121 0 0.36 3 7/16 139 0 0.31 2 15/16 122 0 0.31 3 9/16 140 0 0.37 2 1/8 123 0 0.4 3 1/16 141 0 0 2 21/32 124 0 1.22 1 3/4 142 0 0 1 1/8 124 0 5.85 1 15/32 143 0 1.85 2 25/32


222



Flammability-Thermal Liner Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length Garment


68 0 7.45 1/2 88 0 3.58 21/32 69 0 3.82 1 1/8 89 0 1.01 31/32 70 0 4.27 5/32 90 0 14.01 9/16 71 0 21 1 91 0 15.16 17/32 72 0 10.88 9/32 92 0 15.16 11/16 73 0 24.39 1 5/8 93 0 7.37 1/2 74 0 5.66 5/32 94 0 12.67 9/16 75 0 6.66 31/32 95 0 23.27 3/8 76 0 19.39 5/32 96 2.43 6.78 1/4 77 0 0 1/2 97 0 32.52 7/8 78 0 9.23 1/8 98 0 3.51 9/32 79 1.01 5.91 15/32 99 0 10.79 7/16 80 0 7.7 1 1/2 100 0 3.94 3/4 81 0 3.73 15/32 101 0 5.18 5/8 82 0 14.62 31/32 102 0 15.7 13/16 83 0 6.01 1 103 0 6.51 9/16 84 0 3.28 5/32 104 0 89.32 31/32 85 0 7.61 1 3/32 105 0 0 7/16 86 0 3.28 1 7/32 106 0 28.31 23/32 87 0 2.1 1 11/32


223

Table F12 (continued).


Flammability-Thermal Liner Garment Number After Flame After Glow Char Length Garment


107 0 28.31 23/32 125 0** 14.36 15/16 108 0 2.82 9/32 126 0 0 1/2 109 0 13.03 15/32 127 2.34 4.58 13/32 110 0 8.68 13/16 128 0 25.28 25/32 111 0 2.21 7/32 129 0 22.45 1 1/4 112 0 3.26 15/16 130 1.76 4.32 1 7/8 113 0 6.49 7/16 131 0 7.12 1 15/32 114 0 4 9/20 11/16 132 0 8.87 1 7/16 115 0 9.91 29/32 133 0 9.18 1 15/32 116 0 10.61 11/16 134 0 7.64 1 3/32 117 0 8.58 17/32 135 0 16.37 1/8 118 0 3.32 21/32 136 0 25.27 1 13/32 119 0 11.94 1 15/32 137 0 20.28 15/32 120 0 15.88 21/32 138 0 6.27 7/32 121 0 3.87 11/16 139 0 2.23 15/16 122 0 1.91 1/2 140 0 16.67 1 7/16 123 0 3.43 1/4 141 0 15.52 13/32 124 0 4.7 3/4 142 0 12.64 25/32 124 0 20.16 2 143 0 24.58 9/16


224

Table F13

Leakage Evaluation Results

Water Penetration Garment Number

Moisture Barrier Fabric Moisture Barrier Seam Overall Average Location Rater 1 Rater 2 Average Location Rater 1 Rater 2 Average

68 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Pass

69 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail

70 A Pass Pass Pass C Fail Fail Fail

Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Fail

71 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass

72 A Fail Fail Fail C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail

73 A Fail Fail Fail C Fail Fail Fail


74 A Pass Pass Pass C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Fail

75 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Fail

Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

225

Table F13 (Continued)


Garment Number



77 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Pass B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass

78 A Pass Pass Pass C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass

79 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass



82 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail


Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

226



Garment Number





87 A Pass Pass Pass C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass





Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

227



Garment Number


92 A Pass Pass Pass C Fail Fail Fail Pass B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass








Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

228



Garment Number





103 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass





Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

229



Garment Number










Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

230



Garment Number










Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

231



Garment Number






128 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass




Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

232



Garment Number





135 A Fail Fail Fail C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass


137 A Pass Pass Pass C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail



Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

233



Garment Number



141 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass



Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

234

Table F14

Tear Resistance- Outer Shell

Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average 68 25.83 22.73 24.28 93 28.72 22.51 25.62 69 16.24 18.39 17.32 94 25.57 12.29 18.93 70 24.67 29.33 27.00 95 33.85 39.18 36.52 71 20.40 26.14 23.27 96 18.37 22.61 20.49 72 16.62 24.62 20.62 97 13.36 13.80 13.58 73 17.58 21.62 19.60 98 33.28 27.80 30.54 74 24.38 28.26 26.32 99 30.48 21.95 26.22 75 19.41 32.47 25.94 100 42.32 37.36 39.84 76 15.15 18.62 16.89 101 33.86 41.46 37.66 77 24.20 28.44 26.32 102 31.47 52.38 41.93 78 20.67 23.58 22.13 103 28.57 23.74 26.16 79 34.31 27.81 31.06 104 25.18 29.27 27.23 80 32.79 20.80 26.80 105 24.6 26.54 25.57 81 25.42 30.90 28.16 106 13.87 35.20 24.54 82 24.44 27.35 25.90 107 23.03 22.07 22.55 83 22.87 30.18 26.53 108 38.30 40.26 39.28 84 30.42 24.96 27.69 109 22.67 29.33 26.00 85 19.65 29.03 24.34 110 22.77 16.77 19.77 86 26.09 35.56 30.83 111 25.80 18.29 22.05 87 20.03 21.42 20.73 112 24.42 28.66 26.54 88 22.35 27.85 25.10 113 27.71 24.38 26.05 89 20.55 22.94 21.75 114 21.69 22.29 21.99 90 21.26 20.58 20.92 115 23.78 34.85 29.32 91 22.41 29.33 25.87 116 27.70 26.01 26.86 92 28.82 34.89 31.86 117 20.63 18.74 19.69

235

Table F14

Tear Resistance- Outer Shell

Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average 118 20.78 24.07 22.43 119 20.76 23.11 21.94 120 15.06 16.77 15.92 121 13.98 20.46 17.22 122 31.19 24.74 27.97 123 34.92 29.70 32.31 124 22.23 20.97 21.60 125 22.20 19.81 21.01 126 25.29 27.61 26.45 127 33.12 26.24 29.68 128 32.14 23.11 27.63 129 18.79 21.68 20.24 130 31.55 31.59 31.57 131 14.69 27.82 21.26 132 14.79 19.38 17.09 133 41.87 40.21 41.04 134 25.81 29.98 27.90 135 16.30 20.06 18.18 136 28.58 25.54 27.06 137 16.27 9.50 12.89 138 27.47 34.29 30.88 139 32.47 27.11 29.79 140 25.85 23.15 24.50 141 21.16 21.86 21.51 142 31.05 25.21 28.13

236


Tearing Strength- Moisture Barrier

Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average 68 14.63 11.83 13.23 106 13.85 12.49 13.17 69 12.34 14.65 13.50 107 12.61 11.64 12.13 70 15.42 13.80 14.61 109 12.49 14.15 13.32 71 8.78 7.92 8.35 110 13.48 14.33 13.91 73 5.81 7.06 6.44 111 12.85 12.58 12.72 78 15.47 13.80 14.64 113 13.93 14.02 13.98 89 10.42 10.82 10.62 115 11.56 12.72 12.14 90 46.99 13.62 30.31 116 12.13 11.65 11.89 91 15.40 15.00 15.20 117 11.62 10.40 11.01 92 * 18.49 18.49 118 12.92 11.25 12.09 93 12.46 12.88 12.67 119 10.53 12.28 11.41 94 15.51 14.05 14.78 120 10.83 12.07 11.45 95 13.08 14.09 13.59 121 11.95 10.72 11.34 96 12.63 13.30 12.97 128 12.22 12.82 12.52 97 11.81 13.64 12.73 129 9.79 9.69 9.74 98 * 29.90 29.90 130 10.52 13.64 12.08 99 21.81 22.09 21.95 131 13.16 12.14 12.65

100 15.24 14.28 14.76 132 12.78 13.80 13.29 101 12.31 13.45 12.88 133 11.91 12.76 12.34 102 11.3 12.67 11.99 136 14.53 13.93 14.23 103 12.56 11.68 12.12 139 10.61 10.06 10.34 104 13.35 13.29 13.32 140 14.24 12.33 13.29

237


Tearing Strength Results-Thermal Liner

Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average 68 44.01 54.86 49.44 94 32.05 77.33 54.69 69 72.07 28.83 50.45 95 29.82 * 29.82 70 61.00 37.72 49.36 96 * 80.36 80.36 71 * 70.01 70.01 97 53.84 * 53.84 72 69.43 35.59 52.51 98 36.67 42.02 39.35 73 41.36 72.49 56.93 99 57.54 33.97 45.76 74 25.88 26.91 26.40 100 61.41 * 61.41 75 14.64 14.64 101 52.86 63.16 58.01 76 29.55 44.44 37.00 102 44.15 46.39 45.27 77 29.41 25.06 27.24 103 87.21 * 87.21 78 74.67 43.78 59.23 104 65.03 32.11 48.57 79 * 46.46 46.46 105 37.55 68.7 53.13 80 76.36 22.10 49.23 106 44.07 57.80 50.94 81 33.62 48.90 41.26 107 30.18 * 30.18 82 44.15 * 44.15 108 * 39.57 39.57 83 59.34 * 59.34 109 27.83 44.19 36.01 84 50.01 18.32 34.17 110 82.19 * 82.19 85 170.88 * 170.88 111 * 38.13 38.13 86 58.87 * 58.87 112 48.07 46.61 47.34 87 188.22 * 188.22 113 115.96 25.54 70.75 88 33.12 * 33.12 114 49.26 34.43 41.85 89 155.90 * 155.90 115 * 43.92 43.92 90 29.94 * 29.94 116 42.47 * 42.47 92 66.13 32.50 49.32 117 49.07 138.36 93.72 93 * 149.82 149.82 118 31.67 138.36 85.02

238


Tearing Strength Results-Thermal Liner

Sample # Vertical Horizontal Average 119 74.33 39.90 57.12 120 80.54 45.76 63.15 121 31.79 74.51 53.15 122 51.88 84.57 68.23 123 113.79 67.20 90.50 124 49.27 * 49.27 125 * 45.49 45.49 126 33.27 * 33.27 127 17.89 46.70 32.30 128 * 59.51 59.51 129 62.89 42.31 52.60 130 145.57 128.04 136.81 131 86.77 * 86.77 132 68.76 94.74 81.75 133 23.82 88.87 56.35 135 49.95 102.93 76.44 136 170.18 94.80 132.49 137 * 53.35 53.35 138 30.37 39.82 35.10 139 * 83.46 83.46 140 43.73 73.86 58.80

239

Table F15

Seam Strength- Outer Shell-Seat Seams

Outer Shell- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Seat Seam 1 Break Location Seat Seam 2 Break Location Average Seat Seam

68 187.9 S 172.0 S 180.0 75 257.1 S 183.6 S 220.4 77 172.9 FB 144.6 FB 158.8 79 100.2 S 92.9 S 96.5 81 220.5 FB 204.7 FB 212.6 82 204.7 FB/S 195.4 FB/S 200.1 83 216.6 FB 220.7 FB 218.7 84 249.3 S 222.9 S 236.1 86 194.8 S 274.4 S 234.6 89 135.9 S 234.6 FB 185.3 93 183.5 S 203.8 S 193.7 98 174.1 FB 211.4 FB 192.8 99 159.8 S 183.9 S 171.9 100 141.1 FB 156.1 FB 148.6 101 217.6 FB 207.9 FB 212.8 102 227.5 S 181.1 S 204.3 103 179.8 FB 204.5 FB 192.2 104 211.0 FB 207.8 FB 209.4

FB Fabric Yarn Rupture

S Sewing Thread Rupture

Y Sewn Seam Yarn Slippage

240


Seam Strength- Outer Shell-Seat Seams

Outer Shell- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Seat Seam 1 Break Location Seat Seam 2 Break Location Average Seat Seam

105 208.1 FB 206.1 FB 207.1 106 251.1 FB 171.5 FB 211.3 110 170.7 FB 124.2 FB 147.5 111 152.8 FB 133.9 FB 143.4 112 194.3 FB 203.6 FB 199.0 113 199.5 FB/S 216.4 FB/S 208.0 119 176.1 FB 167.9 FB 172.0 120 138.6 FB 107.3 FB 123.0 123 159.1 S 193.4 S 176.3 124 175.3 FB 113.2 FB 144.3 127 189.4 FB 139.4 FB 164.4 133 119.9 S 264.4 S 192.2 134 141.6 FB 150.6 FB 146.1 135 140.7 S 99.7 S 120.2 136 142.6 S 189.4 S 166.0 138 153.6 FB 176.0 FB 164.8 139 180.3 S 187.4 S 183.9 140 171.7 FB 171.1 FB 171.4 141 146.5 FB 212.0 FB 179.3




241


Seam Strength- Outer Shell-Inseams

Outer Shell- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Inseam 1 Break Location Inseam 2 Break Location Average Inseam

68 181.5 Y 152.2 FB 166.9 75 171.5 S 257.1 S 214.3 77 173.4 FB 208.7 FB 191.1 79 115.3 S 172.6 FB/S 144.0 81 200.4 S 159.5 S 180.0 82 189.8 S 206.5 FB/S 198.2 83 295.4 S 253.5 FB 274.5 84 301.7 S 171.8 FB/S 236.8 86 236.0 S 243.5 S 239.8 89 230.0 FB/S 166.1 FB/S 198.1 93 125.5 S 131.2 S 128.4 98 153.7 S 135.0 FB 144.4 99 198.3 FB/S 182.1 S 190.2 100 176.6 S 299.8 S 238.2 101 207.6 S 161.1 FB 184.4 102 247.4 FB 168.6 Y 208.0 103 223.2 S 244.2 Y/FB 233.7 104 82.5 S 173.0 S 127.7




242


Seam Strength- Outer Shell-Inseams

Outer Shell- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Inseam 1 Break Location Inseam 2 Break Location Average Inseam

105 212.4 Y/FB 210.6 Y/FB 211.5 106 194.4 FB 217.4 S 205.9 110 188.1 FB 132.5 FB 160.3 111 229.2 S 192.6 S 210.9 112 178.8 FB 186.4 FB 182.6 113 179.0 S 181.1 S 180.1 119 138.3 FB 153.7 Y 146.0 120 132.3 FB 103.2 FB 117.8 123 202.8 FB/S 165.8 FB/S 184.3 124 170.5 FB 133.5 FB 152.0 127 126.8 S 229.1 Y/FB 178.0 133 276.3 S 203.2 S 239.8 134 178.3 FB 183.4 FB/S 180.9 135 160.5 S 157.9 FB/S 159.2 136 183.3 FB 168.2 FB/S 175.8 138 199.5 S 235.6 FB 217.6 139 156.3 S 146.2 S 151.3 140 170.1 FB/S 129.7 S 149.9 141 148.7 FB 228.0 S 188.4




243


Seam Strength- Moisture Barrier-Seat Seams

Moisture Barrier- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Seat Seam 1 Break Location Seat Seam 2 Break Location Average Seat Seam

68 73.5 S 86.7 S 80.1 75 69.1 FB 71.5 FB 70.3 77 75.7 FB 68.4 FB 72.0 79 24.3 FB 64.6 FB 44.5 81 84.1 FB 80.1 FB 82.1 82 91.9 FB 91.7 FB 91.8 83 42.9 FB 47.1 FB 45.0 84 29.5 FB 29.7 FB 29.6 86 40.6 FB 38.2 FB 39.4 89 103.7 FB 84.9 FB/S 94.3 93 105.4 FB 99.9 FB 102.7 98 86.9 FB 89.9 FB 88.4 99 81.1 FB 90.1 FB 85.6 100 86.8 FB 88.3 FB 87.5 101 95.4 S 77.6 FB 86.5 102 65.8 FB 72.3 FB 69.1 103 92.4 FB 78.9 FB 85.6 104 90.9 FB 82.9 FB 86.9




244


Seam Strength- Moisture Barrier-Seat Seams

Moisture Barrier- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Seat Seam 1 Break Location Seat Seam 2 Break Location Average Seat Seam

105 93.9 FB 83.9 FB 88.9 106 98.1 FB 86.7 FB 92.4 110 86.1 FB 73.6 FB 79.8 111 90.3 FB 78.1 FB 84.2 112 84.5 S 94.2 FB 89.3 113 100.9 FB 95.4 FB/S 98.1 119 95.6 S 92.2 FB 93.9 120 101.1 S 107.1 FB 104.1 123 66.8 FB 64.8 FB 65.8 124 84.8 FB 70.6 FB 77.7 127 55.9 FB 47.3 FB 51.6 133 79.7 S 75.6 FB 77.6 134 65.5 FB 51.6 FB 58.6 135 71.2 FB 65.8 FB 68.5 136 90.0 FB 83.5 FB 86.8 138 36.5 FB 69.2 FB 52.8 139 81.7 FB 78.4 FB 80.1 140 85.9 FB 95.2 FB 90.6 141 85.0 FB 90.6 FB 87.8




245


Seam Breaking Strength- Moisture Barrier-Inseams

Moisture Barrier- Recorded in ponds of force (lbf)

Sample # Inseam 1 Break Location Inseam 2 Break Location Average Inseam

68 65.6 S 83.1 S 74.4 75 64.3 FB 65.3 FB 64.8 77 81.0 FB 60.8 FB 70.9 79 40.3 FB 64.1 FB 52.2 81 89.0 FB 96.7 FB 92.9 82 107.4 FB 98.3 FB 102.8 83 30.5 FB 31.4 FB 30.9 84 33.7 FB 26.3 FB 30.0 86 38.2 FB 41.9 FB 40.0 89 85.2 S 101.4 S 93.3 93 108.3 S 99.0 S 103.7 98 93.3 FB 107.9 FB 100.6 99 84.0 FB 94.9 FB 89.5 100 98.9 FB 103.1 S 101.0 101 102.3 S 96.0 FB 99.2 102 105.1 FB 97.4 FB 101.3 103 94.4 FB 106.0 FB 100.2 104 92.7 S 86.3 S 89.5




246


Seam Breaking Strength- Moisture Barrier-Inseams

Moisture Barrier- Recorded in ponds of force (lbf) Sample # Inseam 1 Break Location Inseam 2 Break Location Average Inseam

105 104.0 FB 92.9 FB 98.4 106 95.8 FB 94.3 FB 95.1 110 96.3 FB 95.7 S 96.0 111 105.7 FB 105.3 FB 105.5 112 90.6 FB 92.7 FB 91.7 113 100.1 FB 102.5 FB 101.3 119 94.4 S 79.3 S 86.8 120 100.9 S 81.5 S 91.2 123 71.6 Y 56.1 FB 63.8 124 71.7 FB 87.0 FB 79.3 127 90.0 FB 52.8 FB 71.4 133 96.4 S 90.5 S 93.5 134 55.9 FB 20.4 FB 38.2 135 77.7 FB 887.2 FB 482.5 136 80.1 FB 104.8 FB 92.5 138 62.0 FB 43.3 FB 52.6 139 84.2 FB 101.6 FB 92.9 140 79.4 FB 107.1 FB 93.3 141 98.9 FB/S 76.8 FB 87.8




247


Seam Breaking Strength- Thermal Liner-Seat Seams

Thermal Liner- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Seat Seam 1 Break Location Seat Seam 2 Break Location Average Seat Seam

68 190.9 Y 152.1 Y 171.5 75 139.2 Y 138.3 FB 138.8 77 173.5 FB 160.2 Y/FB 166.9 79 139.9 FB 157.4 S 148.7 81 100.5 Y 147.9 S 124.2 82 99.7 FB 93.0 S 96.3 83 102.5 S 121.4 S 112.0 84 85.7 S 90.1 S 87.9 86 87.0 S 129.2 FB 108.1 89 132.7 FB 116.8 FB 124.8 93 132.9 FB 147.0 FB 140.0 98 117.2 S 118.9 FB 118.1 99 146.7 S 134.7 FB/S 140.7 100 147.9 FB 124.0 FB 136.0 101 146.0 FB 138.6 S 142.3 102 133.7 S 123.6 FB 128.7 103 130.8 FB 137.2 FB 134.0 104 163.4 FB 96.0 S 129.7




248


Seam Breaking Strength- Thermal Liner-Seat Seams

Thermal Liner- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Seat Seam 1 Break Location Seat Seam 2 Break Location Average Seat Seam

105 100.2 S 96.0 S 98.1 106 152.7 S 119.3 S 136.0 110 148.7 FB 127.4 FB 138.1 111 148.5 S 121.6 S 135.1 112 115.3 S 143.8 S 129.6 113 119.7 FB 134.0 FB 126.9 119 73.8 FB 85.1 FB 79.4 120 105.5 S 101.0 S 103.3 123 127.2 Y 97.9 FB 112.6 124 152.2 Y/FB 140.7 FB 146.5 127 129.1 FB * Y 129.1 133 55.0 FB 81.8 FB 68.4 134 168.4 Y/S * Y 168.4 135 121.9 FB * S 121.9 136 142.4 Y/S * S 142.4 138 127.4 FB 125.8 FB 126.6 139 148.8 FB * Y 148.8 140 140.3 D * Y 140.3 141 168.7 D 147.4 S 158.1

* indicates lack of space for second seat seam sample




249


Seam Breaking Strength- Thermal Liner-Inseams

Thermal Liner- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf)

Sample # Inseam 1 Break Location Inseam 2 Break Location Average Inseam

68 163.4 Y 139.9 S 151.7 75 107.2 FB 134.7 FB 121.0 77 145.2 FB 109.9 FB 127.6 79 138.5 Y/S 124.8 S 131.7 81 107.2 Y/FB 100.8 FB 104.0 82 108.4 Y/FB 70.9 FB 89.7 83 88.3 S 106.6 S 97.5 84 94.4 S 71.9 S 83.2 86 84.2 S 136.7 S 110.5 89 127.5 Y/S 133.3 S 130.4 93 114.6 FB 118.4 S 116.5 98 119.3 Y/FB 119.4 Y/FB 119.4 99 126.8 Y/FB 122.1 S 124.5 100 137.3 Y 117.6 FB 127.5 101 122.0 Y/FB 121.0 Y/FB 121.5 102 124.8 FB 118.6 Y/FB 121.7 103 122.7 Y 116.7 Y/FB 119.7 104 75.7 S 112.7 S 94.2




250


Seam Breaking Strength- Thermal Liner-Inseams

Thermal Liner- Recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Inseam 1 Break Location Inseam 2 Break Location Average Inseam

105 146.3 S 112.7 S 129.5 106 119.0 FB 136.2 Y/FB 127.6 110 131.8 S 127.5 Y/FB 129.7 111 118.6 S 129.0 S 123.8 112 121.8 S 129.8 S 125.8 113 126.3 S 135.9 Y/FB 131.1 119 95.6 Y 94.9 Y/FB 95.2 120 102.4 Y/S 88.3 S 95.4 123 90.5 Y 72.7 Y/FB 81.6 124 120.0 S 143.2 Y/FB 131.6 127 83.2 Y 137.5 S 110.3 133 72.3 Y 84.6 S 78.4 134 63.9 Y 72.0 Y/FB 67.9 135 129.1 Y/S 123.2 S 126.2 136 82.7 Y/S 119.9 Y/FB 101.3 138 147.7 Y/FB 140.2 FB 144.0 139 100.4 Y 128.4 Y 114.4 140 50.5 Y 44.0 Y 47.2 141 73.4 Y 71.9 Y 72.6




251

Table F16


Garment Number


68 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Pass



71 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass

72 A Fail Fail Fail C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail

73 A Fail Fail Fail C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Fail



Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

252



Garment Number


76 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass




Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass







Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail


Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

253



Garment Number






Pass B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass







Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Pass Pass Pass


Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

254



Garment Number



Pass B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass






96 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass

97 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass






Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

255



Garment Number
















Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

256



Garment Number









112 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail







Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

257



Garment Number















Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

258



Garment Number















Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

259



Garment Number




133 A Fail Fail Fail C Pass Pass Pass Fail B Pass Pass Pass D Fail Fail Fail





136 A Pass Pass Pass C Pass Pass Pass Pass B Fail Fail Fail D Fail Fail Fail






Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

260



Garment Number




141 A Fail Fail Fail C Fail Fail Fail Fail B Fail Fail Fail D Pass Pass Pass





Coat

Pants

A - Right Pass

A - Right Seat

B -Left Pass

B - Left Knee

C - Shoulder Seam

C - Seat Seam

D - Underarm Seam

D - Crotch Seam

261

Table F17

Flat Fabric- Water Penetration Results

Moisture Barrier Washes Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Overall Pass/Fail

RT7100 0 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass RT7100 5 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass RT7100 10 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass RT7100 20 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

Crosstech 0 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Crosstech 5 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Crosstech 10 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Crosstech 20 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

262

Table F18

Breaking Strength- Phase I-Outer Shell

Phase I- Warp direction recorded in pounds of force (lbf)

Sample # Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average Warp Sample # Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average

Warp

1 264.7 210.0 203.5 226.1 18 245.1 185.5 233.2 221.3 2 132.3 184.2 106.5 141.0 19 267.7 226.2 226.8 240.2 3 181.1 172.0 222.8 192.0 20 171.1 191.8 155.0 172.6 4 212.9 166.7 200.0 193.2 21 200.4 221.2 229.1 216.9 5 207.6 267.0 225.9 233.5 22 159.7 178.8 195.3 177.9 6 242.4 187.7 176.9 202.3 23 166.5 184.3 210.1 187.0 7 281.2 180.0 257.0 239.4 24 181.3 188.3 174.6 181.4 8 203.5 226.0 213.1 214.2 25 212.6 208.7 213.8 211.7 9 201.2 220.4 195.4 205.7 26 169.0 156.2 134.7 153.3

10 159.1 231.6 232.9 207.9 27 134.8 100.3 126.2 120.4 11 208.0 205.2 231.0 214.7 28 181.7 127.1 145.2 151.3 12 149.6 185.8 190.5 175.3 29 188.2 186.5 140.0 171.6 13 182.9 227.0 212.8 207.6 30 176.2 241.0 168.9 195.4 14 211.3 221.0 212.0 214.8 31 188.8 205.2 197.4 197.1 15 186.3 171.5 145.0 167.6 32 219.7 230.4 244.0 231.4 16 174.5 164.1 177.8 172.1 33 236.2 223.0 240.1 233.1 17 153.6 202.9 224.5 193.7 34 289.2 287.7 240.9 272.6

263


Breaking Strength-Phase I-Outer Shell


Sample # Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average Warp Sample # Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average

Warp

35 184.1 218.6 185.9 196.2 52 130.4 207.2 194.2 177.3 36 219.9 236.7 221.5 226.0 53 276.3 247.1 176.0 233.1 37 104.8 179.6 179.5 154.6 54 248.9 217.8 237.4 234.7 38 198.6 245.2 143.2 195.7 55 231.5 221.6 220.3 224.5 39 160.0 161.2 193.9 171.7 56 233.5 226.9 262.4 240.9 40 165.5 158.5 162.5 162.2 57 245.7 246.8 263.1 251.9 41 173.6 158.4 160.8 164.3 58 206.4 203.0 242.3 217.2 42 232.1 271.8 60.9 188.3 59 238.3 225.3 252.5 238.7 43 287.5 252.8 270.1 270.1 60 151.5 173.2 173.3 166.0 44 167.5 173.0 161.0 167.2 61 157.3 143.3 113.9 138.2 45 322.3 112.3 94.7 176.4 62 157.3 138.8 161.4 152.5 46 161.1 112.6 170.8 148.2 63 93.6 97.0 101.1 97.2 47 148.5 220.8 221.5 196.9 64 156.9 173.9 168.5 166.4 48 180.8 190.2 92.8 154.6 65 165.0 171.0 167.0 167.7 49 197.0 193.7 221.3 204.0 66 186.4 194.7 191.6 190.9 50 103.7 234.8 184.7 174.4 67 159.5 189.5 155.3 168.1 51 161.8 61.9 194.7 139.5

264




Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill

1 232.5 227.3 182.2 214.0 18 236.1 204.3 265.4 235.3 2 86.6 200.9 144.8 144.1 19 214.8 255.9 267.0 245.9 3 251.4 226.0 213.1 230.2 20 191.4 152.8 194.4 179.5 4 203.2 173.3 182.8 186.4 21 203.3 210.8 198.7 204.3 5 170.5 222.0 241.0 211.2 22 189.5 206.0 206.6 200.7 6 195.9 140.0 145.2 160.4 23 195.2 225.3 211.8 210.8 7 248.2 168.1 161.5 192.6 24 214.5 241.7 237.1 231.1 8 226.0 22.6 216.5 155.0 25 196.6 217.7 190.3 201.5 9 213.8 227.1 248.5 229.8 26 151.9 175.5 189.4 172.3

10 220.6 220.9 210.1 217.2 27 182.4 135.3 186.1 167.9 11 154.1 232.3 261.7 216.0 28 152.4 169.1 156.5 159.3 12 178.0 163.4 166.1 169.2 29 182.2 192.5 176.8 183.8 13 270.3 251.0 220.2 247.2 30 164.1 202.2 177.9 181.4 14 207.9 162.9 228.4 199.7 31 192.9 207.2 221.2 207.1 15 218.6 235.0 188.7 214.1 32 223.7 253.9 183.7 220.4 16 159.7 176.0 229.8 188.5 33 264.5 260.6 253.3 259.5 17 193.7 197.4 194.0 195.0 34 204.4 257.0 260.7 240.7

265




Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill

35 156.4 214.1 179.0 183.2 52 177.6 146.5 183.1 169.1 36 240.1 220.1 216.2 225.5 53 277.5 299.3 305.3 294.0 37 187.8 194.2 160.3 180.8 54 232.3 233.5 245.5 237.1 38 193.2 178.1 190.3 187.2 55 233.4 224.4 242.0 233.3 39 206.4 178.1 176.6 187.0 56 228.4 224.3 201.2 218.0 40 174.0 155.0 170.0 166.3 57 232.8 210.2 229.8 224.3 41 177.8 202.2 157.6 179.2 58 254.4 245.5 260.0 253.3 42 294.3 108.7 276.2 226.4 59 226.6 232.3 238.3 232.4 43 78.5 213.4 238.4 176.8 60 115.2 158.7 183.8 152.6 44 188.9 188.4 191.0 189.4 61 149.2 155.7 165.7 156.9 45 251.4 245.5 238.9 245.3 62 148.8 130.2 161.2 146.7 46 67.9 63.2 168.7 99.9 63 96.2 46.7 43.5 62.1 47 192.9 233.0 210.5 212.1 64 154.2 161.3 168.3 161.3 48 195.7 197.7 191.4 194.9 65 218.9 201.3 185.9 202.0 49 168.9 160.3 91.8 140.3 66 169.2 139.4 155.3 154.6 50 124.6 210.8 229.6 188.3 67 224.1 201.3 205.0 210.1 51 181.9 124.7 146.6 151.1

266


Breaking Strength-Phase II-Outer Shell

Phase II- Warp direction recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Number Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average Warp Number Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average Warp

68 157.8 172.5 182.6 171.0 87 179.4 186.4 138.8 168.2 69 160.4 147.2 148.7 152.1 88 250.4 168.3 184.8 201.2 70 203.2 233.0 220.3 218.8 89 111.1 123.5 207.3 147.3 71 126.8 229.1 196.5 184.1 90 113.4 170.8 57.9 114.0 72 128.0 57.9 180.0 122.0 91 247.5 183.9 217.1 216.2 73 174.6 190.7 224.5 196.6 92 249.0 249.5 173.8 224.1 74 197.7 108.4 193.4 166.5 93 196.6 245.3 219.3 220.4 75 211.0 244.4 241.4 232.3 94 51.6 61.8 79.9 64.4 76 128.7 93.9 168.1 130.2 95 203.9 86.3 251.8 180.7 77 160.1 134.3 187.2 160.5 96 137.2 151.7 63.9 117.6 78 171.3 180.1 171.5 174.3 97 199.5 158.5 112.1 156.7 79 188.0 127.4 126.0 147.1 98 215.6 215.9 223.9 218.5 80 179.8 225.0 215.5 206.8 99 173.9 207.1 217.5 199.5 81 149.5 208.7 182.1 180.1 100 67.3 92.6 74.5 78.2 82 213.2 73.2 189.5 158.6 101 76.9 93.0 75.0 81.6 83 232.9 171.0 252.0 218.6 102 241.3 269.3 221.6 244.1 84 254.1 232.9 245.1 244.0 103 200.9 231.9 255.0 229.3 85 251.1 242.6 151.4 215.0 104 206.9 56.4 198.4 153.9 86 199.5 251.8 254.6 235.3 105 216.4 212.3 193.9 207.5

267



Phase II- Warp direction recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Number Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average Warp Number Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Average Warp

106 214.4 186.1 206.1 202.2 125 134.4 132.9 171.5 146.3 107 175.7 82.6 193.3 150.5 126 131.3 178.8 186.1 165.4 108 250.3 208.4 241.1 233.3 127 190.2 233.9 247.4 223.8 109 256.0 232.7 229.9 239.5 128 207.0 206.5 155.7 189.7 110 153.5 194.6 167.5 171.9 129 139.6 116.5 217.7 157.9 111 154.7 170.5 184.5 169.9 130 340.1 367.9 220.6 309.5 112 233.1 189.1 202.3 208.2 131 75.5 148.7 140.4 121.5 113 243.1 268.9 251.2 254.4 132 117.8 108.4 138.5 121.6 114 226.5 239.1 236.0 233.9 133 359.0 385.3 134.3 292.9 115 264.5 281.2 129.4 225.0 134 202.5 218.1 198.4 206.3 116 231.1 213.4 228.3 224.3 135 168.0 186.7 190.3 181.7 117 155.9 158.3 174.7 163.0 136 192.8 216.0 207.0 205.3 118 217.7 115.2 200.0 177.6 137 103.5 89.7 108.8 100.7 119 203.4 174.5 160.6 179.5 138 236.0 260.2 218.8 238.3 120 107.3 119.1 114.3 113.6 139 178.0 210.5 266.0 218.2 121 184.5 183.6 208.1 192.1 140 247.4 222.4 218.9 229.6 122 217.5 185.7 224.3 209.2 141 183.5 207.6 224.2 205.1 123 221.5 210.7 222.6 218.3 142 177.5 181.1 171.7 176.8 124 141.2 166.2 187.1 164.8 143 192.7 229.9 223.8 215.5

268



Phase II- Fill direction recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill

68 231.7 231.4 124.2 195.8 87 262.7 219.0 259.9 247.2 69 166.5 143.0 144.5 151.3 88 249.5 244.0 223.1 238.9 70 182.8 200.3 237.0 206.7 89 192.5 73.4 124.3 130.1 71 223.8 137.0 207.7 189.5 90 165.3 184.7 109.8 153.3 72 216.8 223.5 191.5 210.6 91 218.5 212.4 187.9 206.3 73 199.0 195.2 187.9 194.0 92 258.7 233.3 132.5 208.2 74 204.6 191.7 204.2 200.2 93 78.9 189.1 185.8 151.3 75 241.3 245.5 261.8 249.5 94 184.2 180.3 59.6 141.4 76 148.8 54.4 186.4 129.9 95 89.5 102.4 105.1 99.0 77 176.1 167.3 149.5 164.3 96 150.4 117.1 116.7 128.1 78 150.4 165.9 185.5 167.3 97 187.2 190.5 68.0 148.6 79 226.5 178.2 214.6 206.4 98 204.8 229.1 202.8 212.2 80 164.5 183.1 213.3 187.0 99 230.1 214.3 212.3 218.9 81 219.1 208.4 245.2 224.2 100 81.1 263.4 83.2 142.6 82 211.4 98.3 199.5 169.7 101 257.8 240.0 116.3 204.7 83 190.9 238.0 173.9 200.9 102 246.2 76.1 90.0 137.4 84 241.6 276.8 273.3 263.9 103 242.7 235.5 244.3 240.8 85 221.9 211.2 242.0 225.0 104 101.1 115.4 123.2 113.2 86 252.0 264.0 252.5 256.2 105 69.4 58.4 174.8 100.9

269



Phase II- Fill direction recorded in pounds of force (lbf) Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill Sample # Fill 1 Fill 2 Fill 3 Average Fill

106 96.5 85.8 93.9 92.1 125 66.0 68.3 178.5 104.3 107 191.1 215.2 253.5 219.9 126 109.5 122.6 170.4 134.2 108 266.6 254.0 252.9 257.8 127 222.7 213.3 213.3 216.4 109 244.5 246.0 226.5 239.0 128 190.3 132.0 201.0 174.4 110 186.3 187.0 159.9 177.7 129 195.9 203.0 191.0 196.6 111 190.8 186.0 177.5 184.8 130 43.7 35.5 78.6 52.6 112 233.6 200.8 231.4 221.9 131 210.9 237.2 130.7 192.9 113 239.2 244.5 263.8 249.2 132 100.2 136.2 167.6 134.7 114 218.9 219.3 237.9 225.4 133 448.4 439.9 306.0 398.1 115 227.4 208.5 194.4 210.1 134 177.3 154.9 211.8 181.3 116 198.8 246.7 173.2 206.2 135 171.1 168.3 174.9 171.4 117 71.2 122.5 156.8 116.8 136 236.0 205.4 188.1 209.8 118 209.5 187.9 211.3 202.9 137 120.7 124.0 176.8 140.5 119 181.3 193.4 165.7 180.1 138 244.2 257.2 224.1 241.8 120 118.8 106.4 132.5 119.2 139 205.7 233.5 214.3 217.8 121 75.7 134.5 183.1 131.1 140 268.0 179.0 200.9 216.0 122 199.6 209.7 214.7 208.0 141 165.8 202.5 155.8 174.7 123 220.4 238.4 237.1 232.0 142 203.4 209.3 212.8 208.5 124 203.0 147.7 166.4 172.4 143 169.0 184.7 236.3 196.7

270

Table F20

Flat Fabric Thickness

Group # Washes Outer Shell Moisture Barrier Thermal Liner Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Average

1 0 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 2.68 2.56 2.54 2.50 2.58 2.57 2 0 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aramid 3.52 3.78 3.84 3.66 3.78 3.72 3 0 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 2.64 2.66 2.48 2.68 2.68 2.63 4 0 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.40 3.06 3.28 3.26 3.30 3.26 5 0 PBI Matrix Crosstech E-89 2.66 2.46 2.56 2.54 2.54 2.55 6 0 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.28 3.32 3.10 3.00 3.10 3.16 7 5 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 3.06 3.00 2.92 2.90 2.92 2.96 8 5 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aramid 3.72 4.22 4.18 3.94 3.98 4.01 9 5 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 3.04 3.10 3.10 3.06 2.80 3.02

10 5 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.38 3.36 3.48 3.42 3.60 3.45 11 5 PBI Matrix Crosstech E-89 2.98 2.88 2.88 2.78 2.70 2.84 12 5 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.60 3.42 3.44 3.46 3.66 3.52 13 10 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 2.96 2.88 2.94 2.84 2.96 2.92 14 10 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aramid 4.34 4.24 4.46 4.56 4.14 4.35 15 10 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 3.02 3.26 2.90 2.90 2.90 3.00 16 10 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.52 3.62 3.72 3.44 3.48 3.56 17 10 PBI Matrix Crosstech E-89 2.94 2.90 2.98 2.86 2.86 2.91 18 10 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.52 3.56 3.50 3.34 3.78 3.54 19 20 Nomex/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 2.82 3.00 2.94 2.96 2.90 2.92 20 20 Nomex/Kevlar RT7100 Aramid 3.94 4.08 4.28 3.84 4.18 4.06 21 20 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech E-89 3.08 2.84 2.98 2.80 2.80 2.90 22 20 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.68 3.58 3.68 3.48 3.68 3.62 23 20 PBI Matrix Crosstech E-89 3.10 2.98 2.82 2.88 2.82 2.92 24 20 PBI/Kevlar Crosstech Aramid 3.30 3.48 3.46 3.32 3.54 3.42

221

Table F21 Garment Thickness Results-Phase I

Garment Number

Thickness 1

Thickness 2

Thickness 3

Thickness 4

Thickness 5 Average

1 3.38 3.22 3.22 3.20 3.32 3.27 2 3.58 3.76 3.48 3.36 3.32 3.50 4 3.28 3.08 4.46 3.14 3.06 3.40 5 3.32 3.48 4.68 3.80 3.62 3.78 7 3.52 3.46 3.26 3.24 3.18 3.33 9 3.30 3.44 3.12 3.10 3.58 3.31

12 2.94 2.92 2.90 2.72 2.96 2.89 13 3.00 2.76 3.12 2.86 2.86 2.92 15 2.64 2.66 3.98 2.40 3.10 2.96 16 2.94 2.90 3.08 3.02 2.96 2.98 21 3.14 2.50 3.18 3.12 3.12 3.01 28 2.42 2.20 2.68 2.70 2.56 2.51 29 2.58 2.64 2.58 2.54 2.58 2.58 30 3.52 3.74 3.56 3.72 3.62 3.63 33 3.54 3.60 3.52 3.42 3.34 3.48 34 4.02 3.92 4.04 3.76 3.96 3.94 35 2.36 2.66 3.50 2.34 2.30 2.63 36 2.30 2.40 2.60 2.42 2.38 2.42 37 2.60 2.36 2.48 2.42 2.26 2.42 38 2.86 2.78 2.98 2.76 2.86 2.85 40 2.34 4.96 2.60 2.88 3.84 3.32 41 2.54 2.22 2.36 2.42 2.32 2.37 42 2.68 2.66 2.68 2.78 2.46 2.65 45 2.60 2.56 2.56 2.46 2.50 2.54 48 2.42 2.40 2.40 2.68 2.54 2.49 49 2.39 2.46 2.56 2.62 2.52 2.51 50 2.52 2.52 2.32 2.44 2.62 2.48 51 2.70 2.30 2.40 2.34 2.54 2.46 55 3.52 3.62 3.26 3.62 3.42 3.49 56 3.44 3.48 3.46 3.26 3.18 3.36 59 3.52 3.48 3.34 3.30 3.52 3.43

Note. Results were recorded in millimeters (mm)

222

Table F22

Garment Thickness Results-Phase II

Garment Number Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Average

69 2.54 2.74 2.50 2.74 2.76 2.66 70 2.86 2.86 2.98 2.84 3.06 2.92 71 2.92 3.26 3.34 2.88 3.06 3.09 72 3.66 4.12 4.14 4.84 3.76 4.10 73 2.78 3.00 2.82 2.94 2.98 2.90 74 4.04 4.52 3.98 4.40 3.90 4.17 76 3.52 3.92 3.10 3.12 3.34 3.40 78 2.82 3.02 2.80 2.62 2.66 2.78 80 3.12 3.06 3.14 3.40 3.20 3.18 85 3.02 3.00 3.04 2.80 2.86 2.94 87 3.12 2.90 2.82 2.92 2.90 2.93 88 2.90 2.84 2.80 2.94 2.90 2.88 90 2.50 2.56 2.52 2.50 2.48 2.51 91 2.36 2.46 2.50 2.52 2.44 2.46 92 3.48 3.64 3.38 3.64 3.50 3.53 94 2.66 2.60 2.50 2.70 2.70 2.63 95 2.50 2.52 2.60 2.62 2.48 2.54 96 2.72 2.56 2.78 2.50 2.60 2.63 97 2.48 2.90 2.64 3.44 3.42 2.98

107 2.60 2.48 2.50 2.52 2.52 2.52 Note. Results were recorded in millimeters (mm)

223


Garment Thickness Result-Phase II

Garment Number Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Average

108 3.48 3.76 3.82 3.90 3.92 3.78 109 2.50 2.46 2.54 2.58 2.54 2.52 114 3.10 3.18 2.94 3.10 3.12 3.09 115 3.72 2.44 2.40 2.44 2.44 2.69 116 2.70 2.62 2.50 2.50 2.48 2.56 117 2.64 2.56 2.48 2.52 2.42 2.52 118 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.60 2.54 2.54 121 3.08 2.90 2.96 2.98 2.96 2.98 122 3.68 4.08 3.72 3.70 3.86 3.81 125 3.28 3.50 3.60 3.58 3.46 3.48 126 3.78 3.92 3.84 3.72 3.90 3.83 128 2.74 2.66 2.44 2.44 2.60 2.58 129 2.64 2.40 2.72 2.52 2.56 2.57 130 2.28 2.44 2.42 2.30 2.40 2.37 131 2.5 2.66 2.42 2.5 2.56 2.53 132 2.2 2.3 2.32 2.34 2.32 2.30 137 3.6 3.42 3.9 4.44 3.9 3.85 142 3.54 3.44 3.3 3.54 3.56 3.48 143 3.4 3.66 3.6 3.54 3.58 3.56

Note. Results were recorded in millimeters (mm)

224

VITA

Stacy Lynn Trenkamp was born in Taylor Mill, Kentucky on May 30, 1987. Stacy graduated from Scott High School in May of 2005. She attended the University of Kentucky where she earned a Bachelor of Science in Merchandising, Apparel, and Textiles upon graduation in May of 2009. Stacy worked through graduate school in the Textile Testing Lab at the University of Kentucky where she was a lab technician for one year, and lab manager for one year. In June 2010, Stacy was granted a research assistantship. In January 2011, Stacy received a Six Sigma Green Belt.

Post Use Analysis of Firefighter

Turnout Garments Phases I & II

Deena G. Cotterill & Stacy Trenkamp Klausing Dr. Elizabeth Easter

University of Kentucky Merchandising, Apparel & Textiles Department

Sponsors E.I. DuPont TM

Fire-Dex, LLC Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC.

Lion Apparel, Inc. TenCate

3M TM

WL Gore & Associates, Inc.

The purpose of this research was to conduct a post use

evaluation of both volunteer and career firefighter

turnout garments that had been in service

The research evaluated used firefighter’s turnout garments

according to the NFPA 1851 standard inspection protocol

&using test procedures from NFPA 1971.

The results of the physical inspection and testing of the

turnout garments is intended to help determine if the current

ten year wear life (retirement age) is appropriate by assessing

the performance criteria over time

Purpose

› Does the Advanced Inspection predict garment and/or

material performance?

› Explore how/if garment performance changes with time.

› Is there a correlation between turnout gear fabrics and

composite performance and the age/use pattern of the

garment?

› To obtain specific use, care, and maintenance information

using a questionnaire

› To compare performance properties of turnout gear as a

function of cleaning cycles

Research Objectives

› Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance

properties specified in NFPA 1851 and 1971?

› Are the Advanced Inspection criteria of NFPA 1851

effective in evaluating garment performance?

› What criteria do departments use in retiring gear?

› Is there a correlation between care and maintenance of

turnout gear and performance properties?

› Do the performance properties of used turnout gear meet

the requirements of NFPA 1971?

Research Questions

71 turnout garments from medium to large departments ;

career firefighters (Phase I)

76 turnout garments from small departments; volunteer

firefighters (Phase II)

65 Surveys obtained from volunteer firefighters regarding care

and maintenance of gear

24 Combinations of flat fabric evaluated at 0 washes, 5

washes, 10 washes, and 20 washes

Sample Description

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Photograph the Garment Locations: front closed, back

closed, open inside of liner, labels,

shell inside out, back side of liner

---

Advanced Visual

Inspection

Use advanced inspection checklist,

photograph unique findings.

NFPA 1851

Light Evaluation of the

Liners

Evaluate coat body or pant inseam

area of thermal liner

NFPA 1851

Leakage Evaluation

(cup test)

Evaluate areas identified for Water

Penetration Evaluation

NFPA 1851

Evaluate Closure

Systems Functionality

NFPA 1851

Visual Evaluation


Good

Poor

Outer Shell


Good

Poor

Garment Liner (based on Outer Shell Rating)

Visible Defects

Results of Visual Evaluation

› Closure Functionality – all primary closures functional

2 garments in 9-10 category had nonfunctional hook & loop Stitching on zippers were loose on 2 garments, but zippers

remained functional Dee on 5-7 year old garment was missing rivet, nonfunctional

› Trim Flashlight Evaluation

› Liner Flashlight Evaluation

Coats: tested back, shoulder, and underarm Trousers: tested seat and inseam 14 garments failed; 8 pants in seat and 6 in crotch

10% needle punch failed in 2-3 years; 35% E-89 failed in 2-3 years

Results of Leakage Evaluation

Coat: Right shoulder seam; left underarm seam; right & left front

panels

Pant: Seat inseam, crotch seam, right rear & left knee

› 43 out of 143 failed the test – 30.06%;

› >5 years of age: 36.67% showed leakage

› < 4 years of age: 18.87% showed leakage

RetiredYears of UseOverall Cup



40

30

20

10

0

Co

un

tFailPass

EvaluationLeakage

26

14

20

31

19

41

10


Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP)

Samples to be taken from coats only (due to size of sample)

NFPA 1971

Total Heat Loss (THL) Samples to be taken from coats only (due to size of sample)

NFPA 1971

Results: All 70 garments met or exceeded the minimum TPP

requirement of 35 cal/cm2.

The median TPP value (70 samples) was 50.68 cal/cm2, which was an average of 20% increase in TPP values over the manufacturer’s 2000 certification value.

55.71% of the 70 samples tested did not meet the minimum requirements for THL (205 w/m2)

Found that retirement status and outer shell type have a significant relationship with THL Value.

Performance Testing

Flammability Testing

136 Outer Shells

100% passed

91 Thermal Liners

97.8% passed

91 Moisture Barriers

97.8% passed

All samples taken from right

front coat sleeve & left front

pant leg

Performance Testing

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Tear Resistance (outer shell) Took 2 samples from each garment – one horizontal and one vertical.

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing

Results:

› Vertical tear strength averages

decreased slightly with age but all three age categories exceeded the min. of 22 lbff,with the exception of 2 garments in the 9-10 year old and retired category .

› Analysis indicated that as fabrics aged, tear strength decreased

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Breaking Strength (outer shell)

3 samples from warp direction, 3 samples from fill direction on 143 samples

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing

Results:

› 10.49% did not meet the minimum requirement

› Average break was at 190.23 lbf

› 5 outer shells <4 years of age did not meet

the minimum requirement

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Seam Breaking Strength

(all layers) Samples to be taken from pants only. Two

samples from the seat seam, and two samples from the inseam.

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing

Results: › The results indicated a borderline

relationship between seam strength

performances of the outer shell seat seam

and the use and/or age of the garment.

This statistical significance did not exist for

the moisture barrier and thermal liner.

› Relationship found between seam strength

and visual evaluation

› The pants inseam of the moisture barrier

had a constant decrease in strength with

the years of use and/or age.

Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Water Penetration Barrier Evaluation (hydrostatic test)

Take 2 samples from moisture barrier, and 2 samples from moisture barrier seams

NFPA 1851

Performance Testing

Failures: › 65.73% of 143

garments

showed

leakage

› 23.77% of

leakers were

< 4 years old

› 43.43% seam

failures, 42.11%

fabric failures

Years of UseOverall Hydro

>5yrs<4yrsPassFailPassFail

40

30

20

10

0

Pe

rce

nt

FailPass

TestingHydrostatic

20.979

41.958

13.2867

23.7762



Test Method

Test Details

NFPA 1971 or

NFPA 1851

Retroreflectivity and

Fluorescence Test (ambient conditions only)

Test if the garment history is available

NFPA 1971

Performance Testing – Retroreflectivity

Results: › Avg. RA value

(Coefficient of

retroreflection)

of 23 coats was

337; avg. for

pants was 310

› Phase II

› Coats: 292

› Pants: 230

› Thermal Manikin Testing 2 Ensembles of Turnout Garments

122 sensors on body

10 second exposure/heat flux of 2.0 cal/sq

Performance Testing – Ensemble

› Results indicate a 5% predicted burn injury for both sets of

turnout garments.

THERMO-MAN®Thermal Protection Evaluation System

Front Back

Burn Injury Prediction2nd Degree Burn = 3%


No Information

Total Burn Injury 5%

University of Kentucky Garment 1A/2A


®

Results of Laboratory

Evaluation

Care & Performance-Flat Fabric

Results: › Spike in TPP Value after 5 Wash Cycles

› TPP/Thermal insulation increases with washing

› The opposite was true for THL

› THL decreased 3.88% after 5 washes

201050

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

Wash Time

Me

an


Outer Shell


Questionnaire Responses

Results: › Majority (85.15%) classified the use of their gear as “light” or 1-5

times a week

› Over half said their gear is used for structural and industrial fires,

rescue

› Retirement Criteria

› Age

› Physical Appearance

› 43.47% answered that the cleaning of their gear is “voluntary”

› 24.62% said their gear is cleaned by a professional or verified

ISP

› 46.15% said their gear is cleaned annually


30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Questionnaire

Co

un

t

12

30

8

2

8

Cleaning Frequency

Summary

Are the Advanced Inspection criteria of NFPA 1851 effective in evaluating garment performance?

Effective for flashlight test, Total Heat Loss, and Seam Breaking

Strength

Not predictive of performance in water penetration or tear

strength

Hydrostatic testing (143 samples):

65.73% showed leakage in the water penetration evaluation

30.06% showed leakage in the leakage evaluation

Summary, continued

Is there a correlation between turnout gear material and composite performance and the age/use pattern

of the garment?

TPP: No statistical difference, with 2/3 yr old garments ranging from 45.4 – 58.0, while the 9/10 year old garments exhibited a range of 45.1 – 60

Water Penetration: No significant difference in age groups

THL: did not show significant change with age/use

Flammability testing: Slight difference between char length and age/use of moisture barrier

Seam strength: Slight relationship between pant shell seat seam strength and use/age of garment

Summary, continued

Do “retired” garments pass or fail the performance properties specified in NFPA 1851 and NFPA 1971?

THL, Flammability, Breaking Strength meet

requirements

Tear Strength, Seam Strength, Water Penetration do

not

Summary, continued

Is there a correlation between care and maintenance of turnout gear and performance

properties?

As wash cycles increased, so did TPP

THL decreased with wash cycles

Thickness of the fabrics increased with wash cycle

Summary, continued

Do the performance properties of used turnout gear meet the requirements of NFPA 1971?

TPP, Flammability, and Retroreflectivity met

requirements

THL, Tear strength, breaking strength, seam strength,

and the water penetration barrier evaluation did not

Results of cup test and water penetration did not

match

Summary, continued

What criteria do departments use in retiring gear?

Age

Physical Appearance

1851 Proposals

Retirement Age

Sometimes retirement may need to occur before 10

years

Leakage Evaluation

Recommended to move to Annex

Liner Inspection

Recommended an inspection every 2 years instead of 3

Trim

Cleaning and Maintenance

QUESTIONS?

• What’s Next?

Looking for support for the next phase

What would you like to see?

Contact Information

• Dr. Elizabeth Easter

• [email protected]

• Post-Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear by Deena G.

Cotterill

• Presentations at the ASTM Conference, Anaheim, CA

June 2011& PPE Symposium in Charlotte, NC

• Post-Use Analysis of Firefighter Turnout Gear Phase II by Stacy

Trenkamp

• Link to Access Theses: • http://libraries.uky.edu/

Substantiation: The task group provided the following modifications in order to further

clarify and expand the requirements for verification, ISP’s and organizations. This

language is intended to clarify what entities can perform various functions and the level of

training needed and who can provide this training.

3.3.49 Independent Service Provider (ISP). See 3.3.XX Verified Independent Service

Provider (ISP).

3.3.XX Verified Independent Service Provider (ISP). An independent service provider

verified by a third party certification organization to conduct any one or any combination of

Advanced Inspection, Advanced Cleaning, Basic Repair or Advanced Repair services.

3.3.59* Organization. The entity that provides the direct management and supervision for the

emergency services personnel.

3.3.59.1 Manufacturer trained organization. A non-verified organization trained by an

element manufacturer of the same element type to conduct Advanced Cleaning,

Advanced Inspection and basic repair on the organization’s elements.

3.3.59.2 Verified organization. An organization verified by a third party certification

organization to conduct Advanced Cleaning, Advanced Inspection, Basic Repair and

Advanced Repair on any organizations’ elements.

4.2.4 The organization shall use one of the following to perform advanced cleaning, advanced

inspection and repair services of ensembles and ensemble elements:

(a)* Manufacturer trained organization.

(b)* Verified organization.

(c)* Verified ISP.

Table 4.2.4 Responsibilities for Garment Element Inspection, Cleaning and Repair

MFG V ISP V ORG MT ORG ORG/USER

Routine Inspection (6.2) •

Advanced Inspection (6.3) • • • •

Complete Liner Inspection (6.4) • • • •

Routine Cleaning (7.2) • Advanced Cleaning and Decontamination (7.3) • • • •

Basic Repair (8.3) • • • •

Advanced Repair (8.4) • • •

Training Provider • • MFG=Element Manufacturer; V ISP=Verified ISP; V ORG=Verified Organization; MT ORG=Manufacturer Trained Organization; ORG/USER=Organization/User

4.2.4.1 Verified organizations or verified ISPs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 11,

Verification and shall be verified by a third-party certification organization.

4.2.4.2 Where the organization is a verified organization or uses a verified ISP, approval from

the element manufacturer shall not be required.

4.2.4.3* Verified organizations or verified ISP’s shall receive written verification from the third-

party certification organization to conduct garment element advanced cleaning, advanced

inspection and advanced repair services.

4.2.4.4 The written verification shall indicate that the verified organization or the verified ISP

has demonstrated a working knowledge of this standard as well as the design and performance

requirements of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and

Proximity Fire Fighting.

4.2.4.5 All garment advanced repairs shall be conducted by the garment manufacturer, a verified

organization or verified ISP.

4.2.4.6 Manufacturer trained organizations performing advanced cleaning and advanced

inspection shall be trained by an element manufacturer of the same element type or by a verified

ISP. The element manufacturer or verified ISP shall provide documentation that the

organization has received the necessary training.

4.4.2* Where the manufacturer’s instructions regarding the care or maintenance of the protective

ensembles or elements differ from a specific requirement(s) in this standard, the manufacturer’s

instructions shall be followed for that requirement.

6.3 Advanced Inspection.

6.3.1 Advanced inspection and any necessary testing shall be performed by the element

manufacturer, a manufacturer trained organization, a verified organization or a verified ISP.

6.3.2 The member(s) of the organization who has received training in the advanced inspection

of the ensembles or ensemble elements shall be responsible for performing or managing

advanced inspections.

6.3.2.1* The ensemble or ensemble element manufacturer or a verified ISP and the organization

shall determine the level of training required to perform advanced inspections. The ensemble or

ensemble element manufacturer or verified ISP shall provide written verification of training.

The remainder of 6.3 stays the same.

6.4 Complete Liner Inspection.

6.4.1 Complete liner inspection of all garment elements shall be performed by the garment

manufacturer, a manufacturer trained organization, a verified organization or a verified ISP.

6.4.2 The member(s) of the organization who has received training in the complete liner

inspection of the garment element shall be responsible for performing or managing the complete

liner inspection.

6.4.2.1 The garment element manufacturer or a verified ISP and the organization shall

determine the level of training required to perform complete liner inspections. The garment

element manufacturer or verified ISP shall provide written verification of training.

6.4.2.1.1 If the organization is a verified organization, they shall be permitted to determine the

level of training necessary to perform the Complete Liner Inspection, without any further written

verification.


7.1.9* When a verified ISP is used for cleaning or decontamination, the Verified ISP shall

demonstrate, to the organization’s satisfaction, that the procedures for cleaning and

decontamination do not compromise the performance of ensembles and ensemble elements.

7.3 Advanced Cleaning and Decontamination.

7.3.1 Advanced cleaning shall be performed by the element manufacturer, a manufacturer

trained organization, a verified organization or a verified ISP.

7.3.1.1 The advanced cleaning shall be managed by a member of the organization or conducted

by members of the organization who have received training in the advanced cleaning of

protective ensembles and ensemble elements. The ensemble or ensemble element manufacturer

or verified ISP and the organization shall determine the level of training required to perform

advanced cleaning. The ensemble or ensemble element manufacturer or verified ISP shall

provide written verification of training.

7.3.4 The training of the organization’s personnel shall be performed by the element

manufacturer or a verified ISP, who will provide written documentation of training.

7.3.4.1 If the organization is a verified organization, they shall be permitted to determine the

level of training necessary to perform Advanced Cleaning without any further written

verification.


Only the following is changed in 8.1

8.1 Requirements for All Ensembles and Ensemble Elements.

8.1.1 All repairs shall be performed by the original manufacturer, a Verified ISP who has

received training or a member of the organization who has received training. Training shall be

provided by an element manufacturer or by a verified ISP in the repair of ensembles or ensemble

elements.

8.1.1.1 Requirements for garment element repair shall be specified in Section 8.2 through 8.4

8.1.2 The member(s) of the organization who has received training in the repair of the

ensembles or ensemble elements shall be responsible for performing or managing repairs.

8.1.5 Due to the different methods of construction, the ensemble or ensemble element

manufacturer shall be contacted if the organization or Verified ISP is unsure of whether a repair

can be accomplished without adversely affecting the integrity of the ensemble or ensemble

element.

8.3 Additional Requirements for Basic Garment Element Repair.

The repairs specified in this section shall be performed by the element manufacturer,

organizations, manufacturer trained organizations, verified organizations or verified ISP’s. Basic

repairs shall be limited to the following:

(1) Patching of minor tears, char marks, and ember burns to a separable outer shell

(2) Repairing of skipped, broken, and missing stitches to a separable outer shell

(3) Replacement of missing hardware to a separable outer shell, excluding positive closure

systems

(4) Reclosing of the liner of a garment after inspection

8.4 Additional Requirements for Advanced Garment Element Repair.

8.4.1* The repairs specified in this section shall be conducted only by the element

manufacturer, a verified organization, or a verified ISP meeting the requirements as specified in

Chapter 11, Verification.

8.4.2 Repairs to the garment outer shell shall be performed consistent with the garment element

manufacturer’s methods. The garment element manufacturer shall be contacted if the

organization is unsure of the complexity of the repair.

8.4.3* All repairs to the garment moisture barrier shall be performed consistent with the

moisture barrier manufacturer’s methods. The original garment element manufacturer shall be

contacted if the organization is unsure as to whether an area to be repaired contains a moisture

barrier.

8.4.4* Repairs to garment thermal liners shall be permitted provided there is no stitching

through the moisture barrier.

8.4.5 Due to labeling requirements, as well as the complexity and specialized equipment

needed to replace entire garment element component layers (e.g., the outer shell), moisture

barrier, or thermal liner, only the garment element manufacturer or the garment element

manufacturer’s designated verified ISP shall replace entire garment component layers.

8.4.6 Restitching of more than 25 continuous mm (1 continuous in.) of a Major A seam shall

require consulting the garment element manufacturer and shall be conducted in a manner

consistent with the garment element manufacturer’s methods.

8.4.7 Repairs to Major B seams in the moisture barrier shall require consulting the garment

element manufacturer and shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the barrier

manufacturer’s recommendations.

8.4.7.1 Repairs to Major B seams in the thermal liner that do not affect any moisture barrier

material shall be permitted. Restitching of more than 25 continuous mm (1 continuous in.) of any

Major B seams shall require consulting the garment element manufacturer and shall be

conducted in a manner consistent with the garment element manufacturer’s methods.

8.4.8* All repaired stress areas shall be reinforced in a manner consistent with the garment

element manufacturer’s methods.

8.4.9 If replacing trim necessitates sewing into a Major A seam, trim replacement shall be

conducted in a manner consistent with the garment element manufacturer’s methods.

8.4.10* Replacement zippers shall be installed in a manner consistent with the garment element

manufacturer’s method of construction. If the complexity of the repair is uncertain, the garment

element manufacturer shall be consulted.

8.4.11* Replacement hook-and-loop fastener tape shall be installed in a manner consistent with

the garment element manufacturer’s method of construction. If the complexity of the repair is

uncertain, the garment element manufacturer shall be consulted.

8.4.12* Replacement reinforcement materials shall be installed in a manner consistent with the

garment element manufacturer’s method of construction.

8.5 Helmet Element Repair.

8.5.1 In addition to the requirements in Section 8.1, all repairs to helmet components other than

as specified herein shall be performed in accordance with the helmet element manufacturer’s

instructions.

8.5.2* Where there is indication of a crack, dent, abrasion, bubbling, soft spot, discoloration, or

warping in the helmet shell, the helmet element manufacturer shall be contacted to determine

serviceability.


8.6 Glove Element Repair. In addition to the requirements in Section 8.1, all repairs to glove

components shall be performed in accordance with the glove manufacturer’s instructions. The

glove manufacturer shall be contacted to determine feasibility of the repair.

8.7 Footwear Element Repair.

8.7.1 In addition to the requirements in Section 8.1, all repairs to footwear components shall be

performed in accordance with the footwear manufacturer’s instructions.

8.7.2 Other than the replacement of bootlaces and zipper assemblies, the footwear

manufacturer shall be contacted to determine feasibility of the repair.

8.7.3 All replacement bootlaces and zippers shall be provided by the footwear element

manufacturer.

8.8 Structural Fire Fighting Hood and Proximity Fire Fighting Helmet Overcover and

Proximity Fire Fighting Shroud Repair. In addition to the requirements in Section 8.1, all

repairs to hoods, helmet covers, and proximity shrouds shall be performed in accordance with the

element manufacturers’ instructions.

8.9 Additional Requirements for Structural Fire Fighting Ensembles and Proximity Fire

Fighting Ensembles with Optional CBRN Protection. In addition to the requirements in

Section 8.1, all repairs to ensembles with optional CBRN protection shall be referred to the

ensemble manufacturer for repair.

11.1 General.

11.1.1 In order for an organization or ISP to be verified, it shall meet the requirements of this

chapter.

11.1.1.1 Verification of the organization or ISP shall include advanced inspection, advanced

cleaning and advanced repairs of garment elements only. Verification of the organization or ISP

shall not apply to helmet elements, glove elements, footwear elements, hood element, or optional

CBRN ensembles.

11.1.1.2 An organization or ISP shall be permitted to be verified for Advanced Cleaning and

Advanced Inspection only.

11.1.1.3 Where an organization or ISP is verified for conducting repairs, the organization or ISP

shall also be verified for Advanced Cleaning and Advanced Inspection.

11.1.1.4 The verified organizations or ISPs shall be listed. The listing shall contain Advanced

Cleaning; Advanced Inspection; and/or the Repair categories that the organization or the ISP is

verified to conduct. Repair categories shall be garment outer shell repairs, garment moisture

barrier repairs, and garment thermal barrier repairs.

11.1.1.5 Where the verification listing includes the moisture barrier repair category, the listing

shall include the moisture barrier manufacturer and trade name designation.

11.1.2 All verification of the organization or ISP shall be performed by a certification

organization that meets at least the requirements specified in Section 11.2 and that is accredited

for personal protective equipment in accordance with ISO Guide 65, General requirements for

bodies operating product certification systems. The accreditation shall be issued by an

accreditation body operating in accordance with ISO 17011, Conformity assessment — General

requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies.

11.1.3 The verified organization or verified ISP shall not use the NFPA name or the name or

identification of this standard, NFPA 1851, in any statements about its services unless the

services are verified as compliant to this standard.

11.1.4 The certification organization shall not issue any new verifications to the 2008 edition of

NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for

Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, on or after the NFPA effective date for the

2013 edition which is [NEW EFFECTIVE DATE TO BE INSERTED]

11.1.5 Organizations or ISP’s verified to the 2008 edition of NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection,

Care and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles shall undergo verification to the 2013 edition of

NFPA 1851 within 6 months of the NFPA effective date for the 2013 edition which is [NEW

EFFECTIVE DATE TO BE INSERTED]

11.3 Inspection and Testing.

11.3.1 For verification of the organization’s or ISP’s services, the certification organization

shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section.

11.3.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for verification of the

organization or ISP shall be conducted by a certification organization’s testing laboratory that is

accredited in accordance with the requirements of ISO 17025, General requirements for the

competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

11.3.3 The certification organization’s testing laboratory’s scope of accreditation to ISO

17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, shall

encompass testing of personal protective equipment.

11.3.4 The accreditation of a certification organization’s testing laboratory shall be issued by

an accreditation body operating in accordance with ISO 17011, Conformity assessment —

General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies.

11.3.5 A certification organization shall be permitted to utilize conditioning and testing results

conducted by an organization or an ISP for verification provided the organization or the ISP

testing laboratory meets the requirements specified in 11.3.5.1 through 11.3.5.5.

11.3.5.1 Where an organization or an ISP provides conditioning and testing results to the

certification organization, the organization’s or ISP’s testing laboratory shall be accredited in

accordance with the requirements of ISO 17025, General requirements for the competence of

testing and calibration laboratories.

11.3.5.2 The organization or ISP testing laboratory’s scope of accreditation to ISO 17025,

General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, shall

encompass testing of personal protective equipment.

11.3.5.3 The accreditation of an organization’s or ISP’s testing laboratory shall be issued by an

accreditation body operating in accordance with ISO 17011, Conformity assessment — General

requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies.

11.3.5.4 The certification organization shall also approve the organization’s or ISP’s testing

laboratory.

11.3.5.5 The certification organization shall determine the level of supervision and witnessing

of the conditioning and testing for verification conducted at the organization’s or ISP’s testing

laboratory.

11.3.6 Sampling levels for testing and inspection shall be established by the certification

organization and the organization or the ISP to ensure reasonable and acceptable reliability at a

reasonable and acceptable confidence level that repair services are compliant to this standard,

unless such sampling levels are specified herein.

11.3.7 For verification of an organization’s or an ISP’s advanced cleaning services, the

certification organization shall evaluate the organization’s or ISP’s procedures in accordance

with Section 7.3 of this standard.

11.3.8 For verification of an organization’s or an ISP’s advanced inspection services, the

certification organization shall evaluate the organization’s or ISP’s procedures in accordance

with Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this standard.

11.3.9 For verification of an organization’s or an ISP’s repair services, the following series of

tests shall be required for each repair category for which the organization or the ISP is verified.

Testing shall be conducted using new materials as outlined in Table 11.3.9 (a) through Table

11.3.9 (c).

Table 11.3.9 (a) Outer Shell Repairs

Who Makes Repair Sample Material Test

Organization 5 ft felled seam

5 ft overedge seam

Outer shell material(s)

utilized by the

organization

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.13

Small tear patch Patched tear made from

the outer shell material

utilized by the

organization

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3

ISP 5 ft felled seam

5 ft overedge seam

7.5 osy Nomex IIIa plain

weave fabric

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.13


7.5 osy Nomex IIIa plain

weave fabric

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3

Table 11.3.9 (b) Thermal Liner Repairs


Organization 5 ft felled seam

5 ft overedge seam

Thermal liner material(s)

utilized by the

organization

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.13


the thermal liner material

utilized by the

organization

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3

ISP 5 ft felled seam

5 ft overedge seam

Blended filament/spun

face cloth quilted to two

layers of E89

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.13


blended filament/spun

face cloth quilted to two

layers of E89

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3

Table 11.3.9 (c) Moisture Barrier Repairs


Organization 5 ft seam Moisture barrier

material(s) utilized by the

organization

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.13

Hole patch Patched hole made from

the moisture barrier


organization

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3 and

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.15 in

the as-received condition

Tear patch Patched tear made from



organization

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3 and

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.15 in


ISP 5 ft seam All moisture barrier

materials repaired by the

ISP

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.13

Hole patch Patched hole made from



ISP

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3 and

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.15 in


Tear patch Patched hole made from



ISP

NFPA 1851 — 8.2.3 and

NFPA 1971 — 7.1.15 in


11.3.9.1 For repairs to tears in the outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal barrier, the

certification organization shall create the tear in the material(s) to be repaired in accordance with

Figure 11.3.9.1 .

****INSERT FIGURE HERE****

FIGURE 11.3.9.1 Tear Repairs.

11.3.9.2 For moisture barrier hole repairs, the certification organization shall create the hole in

the material(s) to be repaired in accordance with Figure 11.3.9.2 .

****INSERT FIGURE HERE****

FIGURE 11.3.9.2 Hole Repairs.

11.3.9.3 The certification organization shall not allow test specimens that have been

conditioned and tested for one method to be reconditioned and tested for another test method

unless specifically permitted in the test method.

11.3.10 For verification of an organization’s or ISP’s Advanced Inspection services, the

documentation and measurements specified in Table 11.1.10 shall be evaluated and verified to be

compliant by the Certification Organization.

Table 11.3.10 Advanced Inspection Evaluation

NFPA 1851 clause to be evaluated Method of evaluation

6.3.2 Audit or review of organization’s or ISP’s procedures

and documentation by Certification Organization



6.3.5.1 (1)-(4) and (6)-(15) Audit or review of organization’s or ISP’s procedures


6.3.5.7 Audit or review of organization’s or ISP’s procedures


6.3.6.1 Audit or review of organization’s or ISP’s procedures








11.3.11 For verification of an organization’s or ISP’s Advanced Cleaning services, the

documentation and measurements specified in Table 11.1.11 shall be evaluated and verified to be

compliant by the Certification Organization.

Table 11.3.11 Advanced Cleaning Evaluation

NFPA 1851 clause to be evaluated Method of evaluation







7.3.7 (1)-(3) and (5)-(9) Audit or review of organization’s or ISP’s procedures


7.3.7(4) Direct measurement or observation by a representative

of the Certification Organization









7.4.3 (1)-(3) and (5)-(6) Audit or review of organization’s or ISP’s procedures


7.4.3(4) Direct measurement or observation by a representative

of the Certification Organization

11.3.12 The organization or the ISP shall maintain all inspection and test data from the

certification organization used in the verification of the organization’s or the ISP’s services. The

organization or ISP shall provide such data, upon request, to the purchaser or authority having

jurisdiction.

11.3.13 All categories that are verified in accordance with this standard shall undergo

verification on an annual basis.

No changes to 11.4.

Annex A Explanatory Material

A.3.3.59 Organization. Examples of organizations include, but are not limited to, fire

departments, police and other law enforcement departments, rescue squads, EMS providers, and

hazardous materials response teams.

A.4.2.4(a) A manufacturer trained organization receives training from an element manufacturer

or a verified ISP in cleaning, inspection and repair services for that organization’s own elements.

For garment elements, this entity has not received any formal verification from a third party

certification organization.

A.4.2.4(b) A verified organization has demonstrated the ability to conduct cleaning, inspection

and repairs to a third party certification organization in accordance with this standard and is not

required to have the approval of the element manufacturer to perform these services. Verified

organizations are permitted to conduct these services for other organizations.

A.4.2.4(c) A verified ISP has demonstrated the ability to conduct cleaning, inspection and repairs

to a third party certification organization in accordance with this standard and is not required to

have the approval of the element manufacturer to perform these services.

A.4.2.4.3 The end user should always request the list of repair categories for which the verified

ISP is approved to perform.

A.4.4.2 It should be noted that the intent of this requirement is not to allow manufacturers to

dictate which verified ISP an organization must use. The organization is allowed a choice in

service providers for cleaning, inspection and repairs.

A.6.3.2.1 For any inspection program to be effective, ensembles and ensemble elements should

be evaluated by trained individuals. The individuals evaluating the ensembles and ensemble

elements should understand the limitations of each element and recognize the signs of failure.

Utilizing trained individuals provides consistency on whether an item should be repaired or

retired. The manufacturer and the organization; the verified ISP and the organization or a

verified organization should determine the level of training required to perform advanced

inspections. Resources for training that should be considered, as a minimum, are the

manufacturer(s) of the elements in use; the Fire and Emergency Manufacturers and Services

Association (FEMSA) user guides; NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational

Safety and Health Program; and professional cleaning and repair facilities.

A.8.2.4 Although some hardware can be replaced in the field, it should be noted that field

application might not be as permanent or as strong as when the hardware is replaced at the

factory, by a verified organization, or by a verified ISP.

A.8.4.1* For elements that are being repaired by a verified ISP, the following questions should

be asked to determine if the verified ISP is knowledgeable enough to insure repaired elements

are save and serviceable. It is important that the organization request information for the verified

ISP so that the organization can make an informed decision about who and how their gear is

being maintained. The following questions should provide assistance in making that decision,

but they should not be considered to be all inclusive and the organization may have other

questions they would like to ask as well.

1) Can the ensemble or ensemble element be repaired (i.e. is the damage too severe, or does

the age and/or overall condition of the garment make a repair too costly or safety

prohibitive?

2) Does the Verified ISP have a certificate they can provide for review?

3) Carefully read the certificate and/or the certification organization’s listing. It will identify

what materials the Verified is verified to repair. Some verifications are limited to outer

shells and therefore cannot repair moisture barriers. Other verified ISP’s elect to only

become verified to work on specific moisture barrier fabrics, not all. It is important to

confirm that a verified ISP has been verified to work on the specific type of moisture

barrier found in your garment.

4) Does the verified ISP have liability insurance for repair of replacement of lost or stolen

ensembles or ensemble elements?

5) The verified ISP should have a quality assurance program and should make that program

available to you upon request.

6) Does the verified ISP take appropriate steps to prevent cross contamination between any

and all items being repaired?

7) Does the verified ISP have training to do the required repair?

8) Does the verified ISP have documentation that the repair was completed?

9) Does the verified ISP have current calibration data for the gauges used on the Hydrostatic

testing apparatus?

10) Does the verified ISP follow guidelines of the moisture barrier manufacturer for repair of

moisture barriers?

11) At what point do you make the decision to replace a moisture barrier rather than repair

it? Does age enter into your decision?

12) If a moisture barrier has been repaired previously (examples – patches on the fabric, re-

seam-sealing small areas of the seam), and additional punctures or taping issues are

found, at what point do you stop repairing, and make the decision to replace the moisture

barrier? Does age enter into your decision?

13) Has the verified ISP attended seminars provided by moisture barrier manufacturers for

proper testing and repair?

14) Does the verified ISP have documentation that they can provide warranty repairs for the

moisture barrier manufacturer’s products? Most of the major moisture barrier

manufacturers provide warranties on their products but the ISP must be registered with

the moisture barrier manufacturer in order to perform these repairs.

15) Does the verified ISP warranty their work and if so for how long?

16) What is the normal turn around time for repairs?

A.8.4.3 Due to the complexity and specialized equipment needed to conduct moisture barrier

repairs, it is mandated that the garment be returned to the manufacturer or to a verified ISP. The

equipment needed to conduct these repairs is typically not found in the field but in specialized

repair facilities or manufacturing facilities. Moisture barrier materials are found in collars, collar

closure systems, and other assemblies, including, but not limited to, storm flaps and sleeve wells.

A.11.2.5 The contractual provisions covering verification programs should contain clauses

advising the verified organization or verified ISP that, if requirements change, the process should

be brought into compliance with the new requirements by a stated effective date through a

compliance review program involving all currently verified repairs. Without such clauses,

certification organizations would not be able to move quickly to protect their names, marks, or

reputations. A verification program would be deficient without these contractual provisions and

the administrative means to back them up.

A.11.2.12 Such inspections should include witnessing of advanced cleaning, advanced

inspections and advanced repairs and review of the quality management system.

Cleaning Task Group Report

January 11, 2012

The scope of our Task Group is to:

- Identify areas of improvement that can be made in

cleaning and disinfection methods, processes, and

cleaning agents relating to the standard.

- Prepare Comments to the ROP that make

improvements and provide useful information to end

users and ISPs before the ROC deadline.

- All Comments must be tied to a log from the ROP

and cannot add new requirements.

- Specifically look into disinfection of biohazards and

add information in the annex.

- Provide guidance and direction for research in

cleaning and disinfection.

Logs for consideration:

CP9, Page 2 - OK

22, Page 18 - OK

15, Page 19 - OK

35, Page 33 - OK

25, Page 34 - OK

CP7, Page 35 – OK

CP8, Page 36 – Remove information added by this

log. Discussion - The applicability of the test on fire

resistant fabrics has not been documented through

validation testing or field studies.

Future Work - The Cleaning Task Group will continue

evaluating methods and procedures for cleaning,

decontamination, and disinfection along with existing

and proposed research efforts of the Air Force

Research Laboratory (AFRL), North Carolina State

University and NFPA Fire Protection Research

Foundation.

Documents

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON STRUCTURAL AND PROXIMITY FIRE ...€¦ · Robert Tutterow announced the 2013 FIERO PPE Symposium to be held on March 4-6 in Raleigh, NC. It will include a tour