You are on page 1of 224

ABSTRACT

SONG, GUOWEN. Modeling Thermal Protection Outfits for Fire Exposures. (Under the
direction of Dr. Roger L. Barker and Dr. Hechmi Hamouda)

In spite of high performance fibers, fabrics, and advanced test methods, much
remains to be learned to enhance the technical basis for improving thermal protective
performance of materials and clothing to protect against burn injuries subject to intense
heat exposures. While some analytical and numerical models have been developed about
these materials, these models are based on some bench top tests. No general model exists
that explains heat transfer in a configuration that realistically simulates the shape of the
human body.

In this research, a numerical model was developed that is capable of predicting
heat transfer through two thermally protective clothing materials (Kevlar/PBI
®
and
Nomex
®
ШA) and garments exposed to intense heat environments. The thermally induced
thermophysical properties of the protective fabrics and distributions of air gaps between
garments and manikin will be considered in the model which simulates heat transfer
through single layer protective garment worn by manikin exposed in a flash fire. The
integrated generalized model developed was validated using the Pyroman
®
Thermal
Protective Clothing Analysis System.

A numerical fabric-air gap-skin model has been developed to calculate the heat
transfer at 122 sensors locations over the manikin body. The flash fire generated in
Pyroman chamber is investigated by measuring the flame temperature over each sensor
and its average heat flux. An estimated method is used to calculate the overall heat
transfer coefficient at each sensor locations for a 4 second exposure to an average heat
flux of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec (84 kW/m
2
). The thermal conductivity (k) and volumetric heat
capacity (ρC
p
) of the protective fabrics under high heating rate and high temperature are
found not constant. A parameter estimation method is used to estimate heat induced
changes in fabric thermophysical properties. The air gaps distributions (between garment
and the manikin) of different garment (Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA ) and size (coverall
size 40, 42 and 44) including a Nomex
®
ШA

garment size 42 that has undergone a 4
second exposure has been assessed using a three-dimensional body scanning technology.
Nomex
®
ШA coverall air gap sizes between the garment and manikin are considered as
temperature dependent for a 4 second exposure as a result of thermal induced shrinkage.
The multi-layer skin model and a burn evaluation method were used to predict second
and third degree skin burn damage.

The established numerical model was validated by Pyroman
®
tests using
thermally protective Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA coveralls. The manikin tests covered
exposure time from 3 seconds without underwear, 4 seconds with and without underwear,
and 5 seconds with underwear.

A parametric study conducted using the developed numerical model indicates the
influencing parameters on garment thermal protective performance in terms of skin burn
damage for a 4 second flash fire exposure. The importance of these parameters was
analyzed and distinguished. These parameters includes fabric thermophysical properties,
the flash fire characteristics in Pyroman
®
chamber, garment shrinkage and fit factors,
as well as garment temperature and test environment. Different skin models and their
influence on garment thermal protective performance prediction were also investigated
using the numerical model.































MODELING THERMAL PROTECTION OUTFITS FOR
FIRE EXPOSURES

by

GUOWEN SONG



A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy


FIBER AND POLYMER SCIENCE





Raleigh,
2002

APPROVED BY:






Co-Chair of Advisory Committee Co-Chair of Advisory Committee
ii













"We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we
really stop to look fear in the face ... we must do that which we think we cannot."
~ Eleanor Roosevelt


























iii



BIOGRAPHY



The author, Guowen Song, born December 14, 1965, received a Bachelor of
Science degree in Textile Chemistry in Tian Jin Polytechnic University in 1986. He
worked for a Chang Chun Textile Company for three years before returning to Tian Jin
Polytechnic University and got a Master of Science degree in Textile Engineering and
Chemistry in 1992. Following his graduation, he joined the faculty in Tian Jin
Polytechnic University. In August, 1998, after one year work in T-PACC, he enrolled in
the Ph.D. program in Fiber and Polymer Science at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh, North Carolina.

He is married to Tu Luan.























iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to Dr. Roger L. Barker for his
invaluable support, trust and guidance through the entire research. Dr. Barker’s
instruction and encouragement, which leads to author’s graduation, will also benefit
author in his future work.

The author acknowledges with thanks Hechimi Hamouda, co-chairmen of his
Advisory Committee, for providing support and advice, and also to other members of this
committee: Andrey Kuzentsov, Peter J. Hauser and Robert C. Smart.

Appreciation is given to Shawn Deaton and Jim Fowler, who help to manipulate
Pyroman
®
tests and some experimental work. Also thanks to Dr. Donald Thompson, Jon
Porter and Dr. B. Scruggs for their support.

The author is also appreciative to his fellow student Patirop Chitrphiromsri in
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering for help in programming.

The author wishes to thank to David Bruner and Mike King of Textile/Clothing
Technology Corporation (TC
2
) for help in conducting the three dimensional body
scanning and James Beck and R. McMaster in Michigan State University who helped in
parameter estimation method and codes.

Finally, the author would like to express his sincere thanks to his wife for coming
with him enduring all the hardships; his parents and his wife’s parents for their patience
and support during the pursuit of his education.





v

TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ IX
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................X
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1
1.1 RESEARCH MOTIVATION................................................................................................ 1
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................ 2
1.3 APPROACH...................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 A LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................. 5
2.1 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND TEST METHODS ............................................................... 5
2.1.1. Protective Clothing.................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Flame-resistant Fibers Suitable for Protective Clothing........................................... 5
2.1.3. Test Methods.............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.4. Measuring the Thermal Protective Performance of Fabric ...................................... 8
2.1.5. Assessment of Protective Performance Using TPP Methods .................................. 10
2.2 MANIKIN TESTING AND NCSU PYROMAN
®
................................................................. 13
2.2.1. NCSU’s “Pyroman” System.................................................................................... 13
2.2.2. Manikin Research on Garment Thermal Protective Performance .......................... 18
2.3 FABRIC PROPERTIES AND FIRE CHARACTERISTICS...................................................... 21
2.3.1. Fabric Optical Properties in a Flash Fire Environment ......................................... 21
2.3.2. Fabric Thermal Properties in Flash Fire Condition............................................... 24
2.3.2.1. Thermal Conductivity ..................................................................................... 24
2.3.2.2. Heat Capacity and Thermal Decomposition Temperature.............................. 27
2.3.3. Effects of High Heat Exposure on Fabric Dimensions............................................ 30
2.3.4. Characterization of the Fire Environment............................................................... 31
2.4 MODLES FOR PREDICTING SKIN BURN INJURY............................................................ 33
2.4.1. Skin Burn Models..................................................................................................... 33
2.4.2. Bioheat Transfer Models ......................................................................................... 34
2.4.3. The Chen and Holmes Model .................................................................................. 35
2.4.4. The Weinbaum, Jiji and Lemos Model..................................................................... 36
2.4.5. Skin Burn Models..................................................................................................... 37
vi
2.5 MODELING HEAT TRANSFER IN PROTECTIVE FABRICS ............................................... 39
2.5.1. Heat Transfer Models .............................................................................................. 40
2.5.1.1. Torvi Model-- Fabric-Air Gap-Test Sensor Model......................................... 40
2.5.1.2. Gibson Model -- Multiphase Heat and Mass Transfer Model ........................ 42
2.5.1.3. Mell and Lawson Model ................................................................................. 44
2.5.2. Modeling Thermal Degradation in Fabrics............................................................. 45
CHAPTER 3 MODEL THE PYROMAN
®
SYSTEM.............................................................. 48
3.1 A NUMERICAL HEAT TRANSFER MODEL..................................................................... 48
3.2 HEAT TRANSFER IN FABRIC, AIR GAP AND SKIN......................................................... 51
3.3 HEAT TRANSFER IN SKIN MODEL AND BURN EVALUATION........................................ 57
3.4 FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD ...................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES............................................................................. 62
4.1 CHARACTERIZING THE PYROMAN
®
THERMAL ENVIRONMENT.................................... 62
4.1.1 Heat Flux Distribution............................................................................................. 64
4.1.2 Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination................................................................ 68
4.2 CHARACTERIZING HEAT INDUCED CHANGE IN FABRIC PROPERTIES .......................... 75
4.2.1 Parameter Estimation Method................................................................................. 76
4.2.2 Estimation of Protective Fabrics Thermal Properties............................................. 78
4.3 PROTECTIVE GARMENTS AIR GAP DISTRIBUTION IN PYROMAN
®
BODY..................... 80
4.3.1 Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology...................................................... 80
4.3.2 Air Gaps Determination of Protective Garments in Pyroman
®
............................... 80
4.3.3 Ease Measurement Method...................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER 5 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND MODEL EVALUATION............................... 89
5.1. GARMENTS USED IN THIS STUDY ................................................................................ 89
5.1.1 Garments Preparation............................................................................................. 89
5.1.2. Garments Fabric Thickness..................................................................................... 89
5.1.3. Garment Fabric Thermal Properties....................................................................... 91
5.1.4. Summary of Garments and Fabric Properties Used in the Model .......................... 91
5.2. FIRE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS..................................................................................... 93
5.3. GARMENTS AIR GAP SIZE DETERMINATION................................................................ 94
5.4. MODEL RESULTS AND PREDICTIONS............................................................................ 94
5.5. MODEL EVALUATION................................................................................................. 100
vii
5.5.1. One Layer Garments without Underwear ............................................................. 101
5.5.2. One Layer Garments with Underwear................................................................... 107
5.5.3. Model Evaluation Summary .................................................................................. 108
CHAPTER 6 PARAMETRIC STUDY................................................................................... 110
6.1 INFLUENCE OF FABRIC THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES............................................ 110
6.1.1. Fabric Thickness.................................................................................................... 111
6.1.2. Thermal Conductivity ............................................................................................ 113
6.1.3. Volumetric Heat Capacity ..................................................................................... 114
6.1.4. Emissivity............................................................................................................... 116
6.1.5. Transmissivity........................................................................................................ 118
6.2. INITIAL, AMBIENT AND FIRE DISTRIBUTION INFLUENCE........................................... 119
6.2.1. Fabric Initial Temperature.................................................................................... 120
6.2.2. Ambient Temperature ............................................................................................ 121
6.2.3. Same Garment and Ambient Temperature............................................................. 121
6.2.4. Fire Distribution influence .................................................................................... 122
6.3. GARMENT DESIGN AND FIT FACTORS ........................................................................ 124
6.3.1. Garment Components ............................................................................................ 125
6.3.2. Shrinkage and Its Temperature Effect on Protective Performance ....................... 127
6.3.3. Garment Size.......................................................................................................... 129
6.4. SKIN MODEL INFLUENCE ........................................................................................... 131
6.4.1. Blood Perfusion ..................................................................................................... 131
6.4.2. Temperature Distribution in the skin..................................................................... 132
6.4.3. Single Layer and Multi Layers Skin Model Comparison....................................... 134
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ 137
7.1. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 137
7.3. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 141
7.3. AUTHOR’S NOTE ........................................................................................................ 142
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 144
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 159
APPENDIX 1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS USED IN THIS RESEARCH...................................... 160
TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT DEVICE................................................................................. 160
DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM................................................................................................... 162
viii
HEAT FLUX SENSORS .............................................................................................................. 163
SENSOR CALIBRATION ............................................................................................................ 166
HEAT SOURCE ......................................................................................................................... 167
APPENDIX 2 AVERAGE HEAT FLUX VALUES AS MODEL INPUT (HEAT FLUX: CAL/CM
2
SEC). 169
APPENDIX 4. NORMAL DISTRIBUTION.................................................................................... 171
APPENDIX 5. GARMENT FABRIC COMPRESSION TEST........................................................... 172
APPENDIX 6. 3D BODY SCANNING TECHNOLOGY................................................................. 173
APPENDIX 8. GARMENT EASE MEASUREMENTS................................................................ 179
APPENDIX 11 ESTIMATED HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT....................................................... 199
APPENDIX 12 MODEL RESULTS OF KEVLAR/PBI
®
COVERALL FOR 4 SECOND EXPOSURE ..... 203
APPENDIX 13 MODEL RESULTS OF NOMEX
®
ШA COVERALL FOR 4 SECOND EXPOSURE206
APPENDIX 14 MODEL PREDICTIONS AND MANIKIN TESTS .................................................... 209












ix

List of Tables



Table 2-1. Fabric properties [31] ................................................................................................ 22
Table 2-2. Fabric optical properties [32].................................................................................... 22
Table 2-3. Thermal Decomposition Temperature..................................................................... 28
Table 2-4. Values for use in Equations for Nomex®IIIA and Kevlar®/PBI Fabrics ............ 29
Table 2-5. Values of P and ∆E Used in Burn Integral Calculations ........................................ 39
Table 3-1. Human Skin Properties in Skin Model [91]............................................................. 58
Table 5-1. Test Garments Style and Fabric Property............................................................... 92
Table 5-2. Thermal Properties of Cotton Underwear............................................................... 92
Table 5-3. Calibrated Heat Flux Values for Pyroman Before and After Burns..................... 93
Table 5-4. Parameters Used in Model Predictions .................................................................... 95
Table 6-1. Range of Values of Thermophysical Properties of Garment Fabric ................... 110
Table 6-2. Model Parameters for Garment Thickness Study ............................................... 111
Table 6-3. Model Parameters for Fabric Conductivity Study................................................ 113
Table 6-4. Model Parameters for Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity Study......................... 115
Table 6-5. Numerical Model Setup........................................................................................... 117
Table 6-6. Model Parameters for Fabric Transmissivity Study ............................................ 118
Table 6-7. Fabric Transmissivity Influence on Time to Body Burn Predicted by Model.... 119
Table 6-8. Numerical Model Setup........................................................................................... 119
Table 6-9. Model Parameters for Heat Flux Distribution Study ........................................... 123
Table 6-10. Numerical Model Setup......................................................................................... 128
Table 6-11. Numerical Model Setup......................................................................................... 130
Table 6-12. Model Parameters for Blood Perfusion Study..................................................... 132
Table 6-13. Blood Perfusion Influence on Time to 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn ..................................... 132
Table 6-14. Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study ......................................... 133
Table 6-15. Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study ......................................... 135
Table 6-16. Thermal Properties of Skin Models...................................................................... 135

x

List of Figures



Figure 2-1. Schematic Diagram of TPP Tester............................................................................ 8
Figure 2-2. Close up View of TPP Tester in NCSU..................................................................... 9
Figure 2-3. Temperature rise (°C ) in Skin Stimulant .............................................................. 11
Figure 2-4. TPP Traces of the Test Fabrics [21]........................................................................ 12
Figure 2-5. Pyroman Fire Chamber and Gas Delivery System................................................ 14
Figure 2-6. Pyroman Manikin..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-7. Nude Pyroman
®
and Its Burning ............................................................................ 16
Figure 2-8. Pyroman Burn Prediction in terms of 2
nd
Burn and 3
rd
Burn.............................. 17
Figure 2-9. Predicted Body Burn vs. Heat Exposure Intensity [25]......................................... 18
Figure 2-10. Predicted % Burn Injury after 5 s Exposure....................................................... 20
Figure 2-11. Fabric Thermal Conductivity vs. Temperature.................................................. 26
Figure 2-12. Three Phases Present in Hygroscopic Porous Media .......................................... 43
Figure 3-1. Elements of Heat Transfer and Burn Evaluation.................................................. 49
Figure 3-2. Elements of Fabric Air-Gap Skin Model ................................................................ 50
Figure 3-3. Schematic for one-dimensional Heat Transfer Model........................................... 51
Figure 3-4. Fabric-air gap-fabric-skin Model............................................................................ 55
Figure 4-1. Specially Designed Sensor Used to Measure Flame Temperature and Heat Flux
................................................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 4-2. LabVIEW Data Acquisition System and Software................................................ 64
Figure 4-3. Sensor Numbers and Distribution over Manikin Body........................................ 64
Figure 4-4. Histogram and Cumulative Curve of Heat Fluxes of 122 Sensors ....................... 65
Figure 4-5. The Scatterplot of Heat Fluxes vs. Normal Scores From a Calibration ............. 66
Figure 4-6. Heat Flux Distribution with Different Standard Deviation................................. 66
Figure 4-7. Heat Flux Distribution in a Manikin for a 4 second Exposure............................. 67
Figure 4-8. Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimation from Temperature.................................... 68
Figure 4-9. Pyrocal Sensor Flame Temperatures and Copper Temperatures....................... 72
Figure 4-10. Estimated Heat Transfer Coefficient Using Pyrocal Sensor............................... 73
Figure 4-11. Flame Temperature and Heat Transfer Coefficient........................................... 74
Figure 4-12. Sensor Location Factor and Its Heat Transfer Coefficient................................ 74
xi
Figure 4-13. Schematic Diagram of the Transient Experiment for Parameter Estimation . 77
Figure 4-14. Temperatures and Heat Flux Profiles during Exposure Experiment................ 78
Figure 4-15. Estimated Transient Thermal Properties of Kevlar/PBI during 4 Second
Exposure ............................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 4-16. Air Gap Determinations by Superimposing Dressed and Nude......................... 81
Figure 4-17. Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Scanning Image....................................................... 82
Figure 4-18. Superimposed 3D Body Scanning Data Showing the Sensor Positions ............. 82
Figure 4-19. Slicing the ‘Body’ at Specific Sensor Position, Measuring Air Gap................... 83
Figure 4-20. Nude and Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Measurements Image ............................. 83
Figure 4-21. Air Gap Distribution between Garment and Manikin at the Typical Positions 84
Figure 4-22. Different Garment Sizes and Their Different Air Gap in Pyroman Body ........ 85
Figure 4-23. Different Garments with Same Size and Pattern Shows Different Air Gap ..... 86
Figure 4-24. Comparisons of Air Gaps Before and After 4sec Exposure................................ 86
Figure 4-25. Air Gap Distribution of Different Size Garments Dressed in Pyroman............ 87
Figure 5-1. Kevlar/PBI Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load ............. 90
Figure 5-2. Nomex
®
ШA Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load............ 91
Figure 5-3. Sensor Flux Values on Different Calibration Days................................................ 94
Figure 5-4. Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second........ 96
Figure 5-5. Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second........ 96
Figure 5-6. Temperature Profiles in Skin Model for a 4 Second Exposure ............................ 97
Figure 5-7. Omega Integral Value ( Sensor #60) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure........ 98
Figure 5-8. Omega Integral Value after (Sensor #56) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure 98
Figure 5-9. Temperature History in Skin with Underwear in 4 second Exposure................. 99
Figure 5-10. Omega Value with and without Underwear in 4 second Exposure.................. 100
Figure 5-11. Comparison between Kevlar/PBI
®
Garment Manikin Test and...................... 101
Figure 5-12. Second and Third Degree Burn Location of Pyroman Test for ...................... 102
Figure 5-13. Second and Third Degree Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for 102
Figure 5-14. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for .................................... 103
Figure 5-15. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for ............ 103
Figure 5-16 . Comparison between Nomex
®
ШA Garment Manikin Test and ..................... 104
Figure 5-17. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Nomex
®
ШA Coverall
.............................................................................................................................................. 105
Figure 5-18. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for ............ 105
Figure 5-19. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for .................................... 106
xii
Figure 5-20. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for ............ 106
Figure 5-21. Comparison between Kevlar/PBI
®
Garment Manikin Test and..................... 107
Figure 5-22. Comparison between Nomex
®
ШA Garment Manikin Test and ..................... 108
Figure 5-23. Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Kevlar/PBI
®
........................ 109
Figure 5-24. Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Nomex
®
ШA........................ 109
Figure 6-1. Relationship between Burn Damage Predicted by ............................................. 112
Figure 6-2. Garment Fabric Thermal Conductivity and Predicted....................................... 114
Figure 6-3. Effect of Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity and Predicted Thermal Protection116
Figure 6-4. Effect of Fabric Emissivity on Garment Protective Predictions......................... 117
Figure 6-5. Effect of Garment Initial Temperature on Body Burn Predictions ................... 120
Figure 6-6. Ambient Temperature Effect on Garment Thermal Protective Prediction...... 121
Figure 6-7. Garments and Ambient Temperature Influence on Body Burn Prediction...... 122
Figure 6-8. Pyroman Heat Flux Standard Deviation Effect on Burn Prediction ................. 124
Figure 6-9. Nomex Deluxe Protective Coverall........................................................................ 126
Figure 6-10. Effects of Garments Components and Body Burn Prediction.......................... 127
Figure 6-11. Influence of Shrinkage during Exposure on Burn Prediction.......................... 128
Figure 6-12. Fabric Shrinkage Temperatures and Protective Prediction............................. 129
Figure 6-13. Effect of Garment Size and Thermal Protective Prediction............................. 130
Figure 6-14. Effects of Skin Model Initial Temperature Distribution and ........................... 134
Figure 6-15. Single Layer and Multi-layer Skin Model and Burn Prediction...................... 136
1


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION


1.1 Research Motivation

There is inadequate fundamental understanding of the thermal mechanisms
associated with the thermal protective performance of materials and garments in flash fire
environments. Furthermore, no generally applicable model exists to explain heat transfer
and thermal degradation processes and the influence of flash fire conditions. Nor is there
a basic understanding of the effects of garment design and fit on thermal protection,
especially in configurations that realistically simulate the shape of the human body.
Therefore, a reliable model is needed to account for these factors in predicting the
thermal protective performance of garments in realistic conditions.

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on modeling heat transfer
and predicting skin burn injury as a result of heat transfer through fabric layers. Intense
heat exposures induce fundamental changes in fabric thermal, optical and spatial
properties through pyrolysis, char formation, and shrinkage. These exposures produce
nonlinear transient thermal physical properties and fabric optical characteristics [1, 2].
Consequently, heat transfer models cannot accurately predict protective clothing
performance without considering the complex dynamics that significantly alter the
properties of clothing materials exposed to high thermal exposures. No generalized model
for heat transfer through protective garment layers, exposed in a realistic fire
configuration, can yield meaningful results without including these data.

This research developed numerical model capable of predicting heat transfer
through clothing materials and garments exposed to intense heat environments. The
primary objective is to construct a model to simulate heat transfer through single layer
2
protective garments worn by manikin exposed to flash fire. This approach is intended to
provide foundation for a model that will consider the effects of heat exposure on the
transient thermophysical properties of protective materials, as well as the air gap
distribution between the fabric and skin, and characteristics of the heat source. The
integrated generalized model developed was validated using the “Pyroman” Thermal
Protective Clothing Analysis System [3].

1.2 Goals and Objectives

The goal of this research is to develop an understanding of heat transfer in
protective garments exposed to intense fire environment, and to establish systematic basis
for engineering materials and garments for optimum thermal protective performance.
Specific objectives are to characterize the flash fire environment produced in the
Pyroman
®
test; to generate a database of protective fabric transient thermophysical
properties exposed in intense heat as well as flash fire; to develop a model to predict
performance of protective garments under intense thermal environments in terms of burn
injury; to develop a fundamental understanding of mechanisms of transient heat transfer
through protective garments exposed extreme thermal environments.

The research advances the science of thermal modeling and contributes to the
development of improved thermal protective materials and clothing. The generalized
model can be applied to improvement the safety and comfort performance of protective
materials, fabrics and ensembles.

1.3 Approach

This research developed a heretofore unavailable database of protective fabric
thermophysical properties and high temperature heat source characteristics. Effects of
fabric moisture content and shrinkage will be considered by this model. This model will
be used to predict burn injury in human body by calculating of heat transfer in protective
garments.
3

The characteristics flash fire generated in the Pyroman
®
test chamber will be
examined by measuring the flame temperature above each of 122 manikin sensors and
corresponding heat flux history. The heat transfer coefficient for each of 122 sensors will
be determined by these measurements. The heat flux distribution of 122 sensors during 4
second exposure is statistically investigated. All the heat flux histories of 122 sensors of
calibration nude burn before the garment test are used as one of the input of the numerical
model.

This research will measure the thermophysical properties of commonly used
protective fabrics including their thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity; these
unique data will be used in the heat transfer model to improve the accuracy of skin burn
prediction. A parameter estimation approach will be used to estimate fabric
thermophysical properties from dynamic thermal exposure experiments. This parameter
estimation method used will treat measurement and model errors in a statistical context in
order to provide means for estimating the temperature dependent thermophysical
properties of fabrics. An important consideration will be the effect of heat induced
shrinkage. This is important because shrinkage reduces the air space between the fabric
and skin, and increases layer-to-layer contact, therefore producing changes in heat
transfer efficiency.

Since the air gap between the fabric and skin is important to garment protective
performance. This research will use three-dimensional (3D) body scanning technology to
measure the actual air gap distribution between garments and the “Pyroman
®

instrumented manikin body. The air gap distributions of different size garments including
one after exposed to 4 second burning will be analyzed using three-dimensional body
scanning technology.

A one dimensional finite difference formulation will be developed and used to
provide a numerical solution for the coupled system of differential equations that control
heat transfer by radiation, convection, and conduction and the thermal response of skin.
4
An iteration technique will be utilized to accommodate nonlinearities in the governing
equations that occur as a result of the dependence of fabric thermal conductivity and
volumetric heat capacity on temperature and moisture content. The convergence of
iterative relative to controlling equations will be insured by purposely linearizing source
terms and by using an appropriate overrelaxation or underrelaxation parameters.


























5

CHAPTER 2 A LITERATURE REVIEW


2.1 Protective Clothing and Test Methods

2.1.1. Protective Clothing

The purpose of thermal protective clothing is to reduce the rate of heat build up in
human skin in order to provide time for the wearer to react, and avoid or minimize skin
burn injury [4]. This is accomplished by using a garment which is both flame resistant
and thermally insulating. The protective garment must also meet other requirements: it
must maintain integrity during the heat exposure, and be liquid-repellent. Fibers used in
the fabric or composite should be non-melting and flame resistant. Toxic gases should not
be emitted at high temperature. The fibers should resist shrinkage and maintain strength
and flexibility at high temperatures. Low thermal conductivity is needed to reduce heat
transfer to underlying skin. Fabrics should not break or split open when exposed to
flames. They should have low air permeability to minimize convective heat transfer. The
protective garments themselves should be designed with closures and waistbands to
reduce chimney effects possible during exposures. Ease of maintenance and proper fit
must be considered. One of the most important functions for protective garments is to
limit the amount of heat stress to the wearer, and not hinder normal work. This is can be
challenging since severe changes meant to increase protection often come at the expense
of garment comfort.

2.1.2. Flame-resistant Fibers Suitable for Protective Clothing

Flame-resistant fibers can be divided into two classes: inherently flame-retardant
fibers and chemically modified fibers and fabrics. Inherently flame resistant fibers are
those in which the flame resistant properties are built into the polymer or fiber structure,
such as aramid, modacrylic, polybenzimidazole (PBI), semi-carbon, and phenolic fibers.
6
The molecule chains of heat resistant fibers have a “stiff backbone” due to the aromatic
groups which limit bond rotation, thus resulting in high decomposition and melting
temperatures and low thermal shrinkage [8].

Nomex
®
is the best-known meta-aramid fiber, developed for protective clothing
used by military personnel, astronauts, and others working in specialized industrial
applications [6]. The Nomex
®
was introduced by DuPont in 1962. A similar meta-aramid
fiber was introduced by Teijin in 1972 as Conex
®
. While aramid fibers contain no FR
chemical elements such as phosphorus or halogen, their chemical structure is such that
they do not easily break down into combustible molecular fragments. They produce
relatively little smoke when heated. However Nomex
®
may shrink and break open under
intense heat. For this reason, para-aramid fibers, Kevlar, are often blended with Nomex
®

to reduce high heat shrinkage. An example of Nomex
®
III, a blend of 95% regular
Nomex
®
with 5% Kevlar
®
, is widely used commercial available protective fabric that
uses this percentage.

Polybenzimidazole (PBI) fiber, produced by Hoechst-Celanese, resists high
temperatures and chemicals and is reported to have excellent textile characteristics [7].
These fabrics generally provide better fire protection than aramid fibers while remaining
flexible, integrity, with no afterglow and shrinkage [8].

Normally flammable fibers, such as cotton and wool, can be treated to make them
to suitable for use in thermal protective garments. Proban 210, which is phosphorus- and
nitrogen-containing flame-retardant, is one of the most successful cellulose fire retardant
finishes [9]. It self-polymerizes to form a three-dimensional-network polymer within the
microvoids found in cotton fibers. Curing is followed by a post-oxidative treatment,
which raises the phosphorus to the more stable oxidation state. Wool has a relatively high
LOI (Limiting Oxygen Index) and high combustion temperature. Titanium and zirconium
complexes are effective flame-retardants for wool.


7

2.1.3. Test Methods

Fabric flammability is often characterized by ease of ignition, rate and extent of
flame spread, and by the amount of heat evolved in burning. Other factors often
considered are the duration of flaming, temperature of the burning fabric, and ease of
flame extinction. Quantification of these properties depends on the nature of the ignition
source, orientation of the test fabric, location of the ignition (top, bottom, edge, or face),
and environmental conditions. Moisture and ambient temperature are important, as well
as the air movement in the test sample [10].

The 45
0
test method (ASTM D 1230-94 [11]): This test uses a 50 mm by 165 mm
specimen held in place at 45
0
to the horizontal. A standard burner flame is applied to the
upper surface near the lower end for 1 sec. The time for the flame to travel 127 mm is
then recorded. This test can only eliminate dangerously flammable fabrics as it fails to
ignite most fabrics. However, it is very reliable in its ability to eliminate these dangerous
flammable textiles.

Vertical tests (ASTM D 3659 [12]): This test method is a more stringent measure
of fabric flammability than the 45
0
test method. In this test a sample is exposed to a
vertical flame for a given length of time. Then the char length, afterflame, and afterglow
times are measured. The reliability of individual tests varies considerably.

The Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) (ASTM D 2863 [13]): The Limiting Oxygen
Index is the lowest concentration of oxygen necessary to support combustion in fabric
samples. This test is conducted by igniting the top of a vertically oriented sample with a
hydrogen flame. In this test, the flame itself does not assist in burning the test fabric;
therefore, repeatable results are easily obtained. Following fabric igniting, the ratio of
oxygen and nitrogen are adjusted until the sample is completely consumed at a slow and
steady rate. The LOI entrusted as the minimum fraction of oxygen in the chamber
respond to maintain slow and steady combustion.
8

2.1.4. Measuring the Thermal Protective Performance of Fabric

Several methods have been developed to measure the insulative properties of
fabrics against high-intensity thermal energy. Heat sources range from radiant panels to
gas burners or a combination of two, depending on the type of fire simulated. Heat
sensors range from copper disk to skin simulant sensors which the thermal inertia of the
sensor material is almost the same of human skin.

Two thermal protective performance (TPP) test methods have received wide
application by different associations and standards organizations. One method is ASTM
D4108-87, which uses a single laboratory gas burner as the heat source. The other
procedure is a more versatile method that combines two gas burners and quartzs heaters
to provide different mixtures of radiant and convective heat. Typical TPP experimental
arrangements use a methane gas flame in combination with a bank of quartz tubes to
provide a convective and radiant heat source.

Sens or
Spacer
Fabric s pecimen
Sens or block
Water cooled shutter
Meker burner
Quartz Tube Bank
To data acquisition system

Figure 2-1. Schematic Diagram of TPP Tester

9



Figure 2-2. Close up View of TPP Tester in NCSU


The fabric specimen is mounted 50 mm above the burner top (Figure 2-1 and
Figure 2-2). A pneumatic and water cooled shutter controls the duration of exposure and
comes front to end the exposure. The heat transferred through the fabric is measured by a
copper calorimeter sensor painted with flat black. The distance between the fabric and
the calorimeter heat sensor can be varied using spacer plates of different thickness.

The TPP test is a convenient, precise and a relatively inexpensive means for
comparative the thermal protective performance of fabrics. However, TPP tests are
limited to a certain heat exposures, and to the configuration of test fabric. They provide
no information about the spatial effects which may be important in predicting the
protective performance of clothing worn on the human body. They also provide no
information on the effects of garment design and construction, and the role of seams,
closures, pockets, or vents to thermal protective performance by clothing in actual wear.

10
2.1.5. Assessment of Protective Performance Using TPP Methods

Barker and Shalev [14, 15] have reported extensively on the use of TPP test to
understand the thermal response of fabrics in high heat exposures. In these studies, the
fiber type is shown to have a significant effect on heat transfer, contrary to the behavior
observed in low heat flux condition where fabric structure dominates. They point out that
thermal physical properties change greatly during a TPP exposure. Therefore, retention of
thermal properties, not the initial values of these properties, is the key to heat transfer in
TPP tests. They found that the air/fiber ratio of the fabric and the maintenance of air
volume in fabric structure are important to thermal protective performance. Air and fiber
conduction dominate in intense exposures; direct radiation transmission, as the fabrics
were relatively opaque, is not as important. Barker and Shalev show fabric air
permeability does not correlate with TPP test results; hot gases do not appear to blow
through the fabric. Their work indicates that the ability of a fabric to maintain a profusion
of surface fiber is important in convective exposures, as fibrils on the surface of the fabric
function as baffles, holding still air and extending the boundary layer on the fabric, hence
increasing heat transfer resistance. Their research also shows that moisture plays an
important role in determining thermal transfer in TPP tests. Moisture in fibers can
increase the volumetric heat capacity of and provide an ablative effect, thus increasing
thermal protective performance.

Barker and Shalev’s experiments used a 50% convection and 50 % radiation heat
source. Barker and Lee [16, 17] analyzed the TPP of single layer fabrics using different
heat source combinations and intensity levels. They show that, for all the fabrics, the
times to exceed the Stoll criterion are lowest in 100% radiation exposures. Except for the
0.48kW/m2 exposures, fabrics insulate best against a 50% radiation and 50% convection.
This finding is attributed to the effect of protruding fibers on thermal insulation. They
assume that stagnant air layers entrapped by surface fibers play an important part in heat
transfer especially in convective heat exposure. On the other hand surface fibers are
expected to play a less important role in purely radiant exposures [18]. Thermal
properties change of different fabrics was presented with time for different exposures.
11
The effects of different test conditions and fabric properties on fabric properties on test
results were also discussed.

Stoll et al [19] studied the effect of heat exposure duration and the thickness of
the air space between the thermal sensor and the test fabric. She found that, for a given
exposure and duration, the air gap increases the insulation offered by the fabric air
assembly. The increased insulation of the fabric air gap assembly slows heat transfer
through it. For a fabric with weight of 3oz/yd
2
, the optimum air gap thickness for 1 to 3
seconds exposures is approximated 4 mm. Further increase in air thickness results in
rapid heat transfer to the sensor by heat convection through the entrapped air layer.

0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
0 mm 1 mm 2 mm
C o t t o n
N o me x
P B I
T e mp e r a t u r e
r is e ( d e g C )
Air sp a c e t hic k ne s s ( mm)

Figure 2-3. Temperature rise (°C ) in Skin Stimulant
of Naval Materials Laboratory after 3- second Flame Exposure [19]


Freeston [20] used a skin simulant heat sensor in his investigation of the effect an
air gap between the two layers of fabrics. His results show that heat transfer declined as
the air gap between two fabric layers increased from 0 to 2 mm for each of three fabric
specimens viz. cotton, Nomex and PBI (Figure 2-3).
12
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (s)
Temperature
Rise (deg. C)
FR COTTON # 34
FR COTTON # 68
NOMEX
KEVLAR
PBI
P/K

Figure 2-4. TPP Traces of the Test Fabrics [21]


The heat transfer response of different types of fabrics exposed 2.0 cal/cm
2
sec is
shown in Figure 2-4 [21]. Most fabrics exhibit an exponential response as the rate of heat
transfer increases with fabric pyrolyzes in intense heat. Cotton fabrics, treated with
different FR finishes show fundamentally calorimetric curves. In the case of cottons
treated with a phosphonium FR finish, a relatively rapid deposition of non combustible
condensate on the calorimeter occurs when the critical volatilization temperature for the
applied flame retardant is reached. For cottons treated with halogenated FR finish, flame
regression due to radical scavenging reaction steadily interferes with burning as antimony
halide species evolve. Catastrophic break down is observed in cotton materials treated
with halogenated finish. FR wool produces heat transfer response characterized by
constant slope, similar to that observed in inorganic fibers.


13
2.2 Manikin Testing and NCSU Pyroman
®


Garments burning behavior and thermal protective performance cannot be fully
predicted from bench-scale fabric testing. Manikin tests provide more realistic evaluation
of protective performance evaluation since they measure the influence, not only of the
thermal physical properties of fiber and fabrics, but also of design and fit of garments
themselves. The development of full scale manikin tests was a significant step toward the
realistic evaluation of garment protective performance since they provide a realistic
simulation of real fire exposures.

In 1940’s Baker and Smith used the first manikin to compare the burning rate of
shirts. Colebrook used non-instrumented manikins to test garment in a wire body form.
Non-instrumented manikins continued to be used extensively in assessing garment
flammability [22]. One of the first instrumented manikins was used in 1962, when Stoll
conducted tests for the United States Navy that analyzed a leather-covered manikin
quipped with temperature detector paper and melting point indicators [23]. By 1972,
these efforts had involved into a full-scale instrumented manikin tests that used burning
aircraft jet fuel as a heat source. DuPont developed this technology and built an
instrumented manikin called Thermo-man
®.


2.2.1. NCSU’s “Pyroman” System

Pyroman®, located in College of Textile, North Carolina State University, is one
of few manikins in the world actively involved in garment protective performance
research testing. This system was recently upgraded to include a new sensor technology
and data acquisition system, as well as a new software package.

The Pyroman
®
Thermal Protective Clothing Analysis System [24] consists of a
number of integrated components, designed to work together to measure the performance
of protective clothing under full scale, flash fire exposure conditions. Figure 5 shows a
diagram of the system.
14
Gas Supply System: Propane gas is supplied to the burner system from a buried
tank through a series of valves and reducers. Pressure sensitive switches monitor the
system to maintain safe operating conditions. Electrically controlled valves prevent
supply of high-pressure gas for the test exposure unless all of the safety devices are
satisfied and the test is ready to be run. The gas supply line is insulated and electrically
heated to provide for a constant supply of fuel throughout changes in the weather. The
gas supply line is also vented through solenoid valves, which are open, when the system
is not in use.


Figure 2-5. Pyroman Fire Chamber and Gas Delivery System


Fire Chamber: The instrumented manikin and the exposure system are housed in
a flame resistant room (Figure 2-5) with large viewing windows on one wall and double
entrance doors on the opposite wall. The fire chamber is provided with supply and
exhaust ducts and fans, which are automatically controlled to provide safe startup of the
15
system and rapid removal of the products of combustion and degradation after a test
exposure. The speed of these fans is controlled to permit testing under wind conditions
with velocities up to about 5 miles per hour.

Flash Fire Exposure System - Burners and Control Panel: The most important
requirements of the flash fire system are safe operation and reproducibility. Eight
industrial burners, which have been modified, produce the flash fire and are carefully
positioned to create a large volume of fire, which fully engulfs the manikin. Each burner
has a pilot flame which is lighted and proven before the gas is supplied to the torch. The
gas control panel monitors the state of each pilot flame and prevents opening of the
exposure torch valve if there is no pilot flame present. This feature provides both safety
and control over the position and number of torches used in each test. The gas control
panel also monitors the condition of the gas supply line and safety devices and will shut
the system down and vent the gas in the supply line in case of a malfunction.

Figure 2-6. Pyroman Manikin


16
Manikin: The test manikin is a size 40 regular male, made from a flame resistant
polyester resin reinforced with fiber glass (Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7). There are sockets
for 122 heat sensors, which are uniformly distributed on the surface. Leads from each
sensor are taken to the data acquisition unit through a guarded, heat shielded cable. The
manikin is suspended from the ceiling of the burn chamber on an adjustable fixture.

Computer System: A sophisticated computer system is used to control the
National Instruments data acquisition system, acquire data from the sensor system and to
calculate and display the results of the numerical model used to estimate skin damage.
The output from the 122 sensors is fed into conditioned analog amplifier multiplexer.
This amplified output is then fed to a 12 bit resolution DAQ board, which transfers the
analog signal to digital signal with sampling rate of 1.25MS/s. At this speed, each of the
122 sensors can be read more 10 times per second. The code width for the range 0-10V
input is 2.4 mV.



Figure 2-7. Nude Pyroman
®
and Its Burning

The garment testing protocol sequence includes dressing the manikin with the
garment, interacting with the computer to assure safe conditions, lighting the pilot flames,
17
exposing the garment to the flash fire, acquiring data, and running the fans to vent the
chamber. The data acquired by the system is used to calculate the incident heat flux and
to predict burn injury for each sensor.

The computer control system will compute the received temperature profiles of
each sensor, translated into heat flux history of total data acquisition time. These heat
fluxes apply to skin model to calculate temperature change at the certain depths in skin
model.


Figure 2-8. Pyroman Burn Prediction in terms of 2
nd
Burn and 3
rd
Burn


The calculated incident heat flux is used to calculate the temperature of human
tissue at two depths below the surface of the skin, one representing second degree and the
other representing third degree burn injury. The prediction results can be obtained using
burn evaluation model which programmed in the computer. Figure 2-8 shows a burn
prediction in terms of second and third degree burn.



18
2.2.2. Manikin Research on Garment Thermal Protective Performance

Dale [25] compares protective garments at different heat exposure levels. The
results of his experiments, shown in Figure 2-9, indicates that intrinsically heat resistant
materials like Nomex
®
IIIA and blend of Kevlar
®
and PBI show a steady rise in
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
4 5 6 7 8
T her mal E ner g y Level ( cal/ sq . cm)
% Bo d y Bu r n
Nom ex I I I ( 4 2 R- 2 1 0 g / m 2 )
Kevl a r / PBI ( 4 4 R- 1 8 7 g / m 2 )
Pr oba n FR7 - A ( 4 2 R- 3 0 7 g / m 2 )
Pr oba n I n d u r a ( 4 2 R- 3 3 4 g / m 2 )

Figure 2-9. Predicted Body Burn vs. Heat Exposure Intensity [25]


predicted body burn injuries with increasing level of input thermal energy, while FR
cotton materials show a sudden rise in predicted body burn injuries at an exposure level
of thermal energy in between 5.97 - 8.36 cal/cm
2
(250 - 350 kJ/m
2
), depending upon
fabric mass per unit area. The performance of FR cotton results from lower thermal
degradation temperature, and thermal chemical reactions that occur when heat exposure
energies produce this degradation in these materials.

Behnke et al [26] investigated the protective performance of garments made of
fabrics with different thermophysical properties. They selected Kevlar®, Nomex® IIIA,
Proban cotton and Zirpro wool for testing on "Thermo-man". These materials represent
the range of anticipated fabric reactions to intense thermal exposures. Proban® Cotton
19
and Kevlar
®
were selected for their dimensional stability while Nomex
®
IIIA and Zirpro
®

wool were selected due to their relatively higher shrinkage with high temperature
exposure. All of these test specimens were woven fabrics with densities in the range of
260-280 g/m2 (7.6-8.1 oz/yd
2
). These fabrics were tested as size 42 regular single
coveralls. In these studies the data from unprotected heat sensors, located in the head of
the manikin were not included since the coverall did not cover the manikin head. Figure
2-10 shows the predicted burn injury after 5 sec. exposures on "Thermo-Man".

Crown [27] studied different garment systems with different underwear and
compared with the TPP test. These tests show that much less burn occurred with FR
Aramid underwear comparing with non FR cotton.

Barker et al, using the Pyroman
®
Burning Evaluation System, investigated the
effects of protective garment size fitted in the manikin. They tested three different size
coverall made of Nomex and Kevlar/PBI [28]. These sizes are 40, 42R and 44 (about 3%
size differences). For Nomex III, where the thermal average shrinkage is 10 to 15%, size
42R offers maximum protections in term of burn injure percentage. Data on burn injury
percentage in case of coveralls made of Kevlar/PBI show that the garment size does not
affect the level of protection. Pawar and Barker [1] related manikin-burning prediction
with TPP tests in both contact and spaced configurations. They notes that some sensor
positions in manikin test are similar to TPP contact configuration, which is comparable to
TPP results, and other sensor positions show the results that are comparable to TPP
results with spaced configuration.
20
Figure 2-10. Predicted % Burn Injury after 5 s Exposure
and heat flux of 2.0 cal/cm
2
sec on "Thermo-Man®"

Behnke and Barker compared stationary manikin tests results with a dynamic
Thermal-Leg evaluation system [26]. The “Thermal-leg” evaluation system assess the
ability of clothing materials to protect the wearer in realistic simulations of running
motions similar to a victim escaping a flash fire accident. These novel experiments show
that, in a dynamic configuration, the ability to retain strength and structural integrity of
the protective in prolonged exposure to flames is much more important in terms of
protection. In this research, Nomex III and Kevlar 100 fabrics appear to be superior to FR
cotton and FR wool samples.








0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Nomex III 100% Kevlar Proban cotton Zirpro wool
2nd degree burn (%)
3rd degree burn (%)
Total (%)
21
2.3 Fabric Properties and Fire Characteristics

2.3.1. Fabric Optical Properties in a Flash Fire Environment

Fabric optical properties play an important role in determining garment protective
performance, especially when exposed to intense fire environments. The flash fire
generated in Pyroman
®
that is created by burning liquid propane through eight burners,
thus providing turbulent jet flame. The impinging fire is usually considered a convective
heat source, but at high flame temperatures, a significant amount of the thermal energy is
transferred by thermal radiation. Since a substantial part of the thermal energy is radiant
heat, the optical properties of the fabric can affect the heat absorption characteristics of
the protective garment. Proper treatment of the optical properties during the burning
process is, therefore, crucial to developing a model capable of accurately predicting
protective performance of clothing.

Polymeric materials are highly absorbing at wavelengths greater than 3um.
Spectral absorbance is lower at wavelength range shorter than 3um. Dark color fabrics
are 60%--70% reflective at wavelength in the near infra-red [21]. Almost all fabrics,
regardless of their color, reflect poorly in the far infra-red and the ultraviolet. Light
colored fabrics reflect well in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum. On the
other hand, optical transmittance is largely related to fabric porosity [48]. Hence, in order
to calculate how much energy is transmitted and absorbed by any given fabric system, it
is necessary to know the spectral distribution of the energy source and the spectral
reflectance and transmittance of the fabric [29].

Morse et al. [31] measured spectral reflectance and transmittance using a Gier-
Dunkle integrating sphere reflectometer with a Beckman DK-2A spectrophotometer
between 0.5 um and 2.5 um. This method enabled measurement of energy in all
directions and yields integrated values for each wavelength. Morse also used high and
low reflectance backing to the fabric and a reflectometer to determine the directional
22
reflectance and transmittance. Reflectance beyond 2.5 um was found to be low for all
samples. Table 2-1 shows that fabrics optical properties change after exposure to heat.

Table 2-1. Fabric properties [31]

Property Nomex S-PBI 121
Weight (gm/cm
2
) 0.0139 0.0146 0.0146
Thickness (cm) 0.0323 0.0364 0.0323
Moisture regain 5.0 12.0 13.2
Specific Heat (cal/gm.
0
C)
(5
0
C to 283
0
C)
0.3 – 0.48 0.38 – 0.45 0.38 – 0.45
ρ 0.26 0.23 0.21
α 0.57 0.62 0.73

row
τ 0.17 0.15 0.06
ρ 0.17 0.18 0.18
α 0.72 0.76 0.78



Optical Properties
(1010
0
C B.B.)

Charred
τ 0.11 0.06 0.01

Linear Shrinkage
32% max from
300 to 400
0
C
40% max from
400 to 450
0
C
2% at 500
0
C
to 19% at 840
0
C

ρ - Reflectivity, α - Absorptivity, τ - Transmissivity


Table 2-2. Fabric optical properties [32]

Fabric Transmittance % Reflectance % Absorptance %
NomexШ 8.0 43.0 39.0
PBI 15.6 42.9 41.5
S-PBI 22.3 29.3 38.4

Ross [32] measured the optical properties of several fabrics using the Beckman
DK-2A reflectometer with a xenon source (Table 2-2).
23


Backer et al. [33] also measured the optical properties of fabrics, both before
exposure to heat and in charred states using the integrating sphere and opaque fabric
backing.

Other treatments of radiant transmission through fabric consider the absorption of
incident radiation [37]. These models use Beer’s law with an extinction coefficient and
measure using transmissivity measurements in the infrared region. An extinction
coefficient for fabrics of interest can be calculated as:

fab
L
) ln(τ
γ − =

Torvi uses a Nicolet Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer to measure
transmissivity in Nomex® IIIA and Kevlar®/PBI fabrics samples before and after 10 sec
exposure to a heat flux of approximately 80 KW/m
2
using. Torvi shows no significant
changes to the transmissivities of these fabrics before and after burning.

Aluminization is a common method used to change fabric optical properties.
Aluminization can increase the reflectance of protective fabric up to 90 percent, a benefit
in purely radiant thermal exposures [34]. Aluminization, however, is detrimental in a
flame environment due to improved conductive transfer and ignition of the laminate [35,
36]. Furthermore, Aluminized fabrics are otherwise impervious to moisture and air, stiff,
costly and sensitive to soiling and soot.





24
2.3.2. Fabric Thermal Properties in Flash Fire Condition

2.3.2.1. Thermal Conductivity

The literature describes a variety of methods to measure fabric thermal
conductivity [38]. In comfort conditions, a guarded hot plate can be used. Other methods
include a thin heater apparatus or a heat flow meter.

The Thermal Properties Test Fixture (TPTF), developed by the Ktech
Corporation, uses a skin simulant sensor to estimate the thermal properties of fire fighting
clothing materials at low heat flux exposure levels [39]. This apparatus evaluates clothing
materials with relatively little compression loads, while allowing for evaluation of wet
materials. A computer program is used to determine thermal properties based on the heat
flux and measured temperature rise measured in different layers in the test fixture. The
Ktech method is similar to the method used by Stoll and Chianta [40] and Baker, et al.
[41]. They fitted experimental data to results using analytical models to determine the
thermal conductivity of protective fabrics and charring ablators, under high heat flux
conditions. Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) techniques can also be used to
determine thermal conductivity values for protective fabrics, as described by Shalev [42].
Other than DSC method, all these methods assume either constant thermal properties or
operate in a temperature range far below the intense heat flux condition expected in
protective clothing. These techniques are dependent on the choice of the analytical or
numerical model used to fit the data. It is known that the initial thermal properties and
physical dimension of protective fabrics change during high heat exposures due to the
shrinkage and degradation [36].

Morse et al. [43] calculate fabric thermal conductivity using the flowing equation:

, ) (
a f f a
a f
a a f f
k V k V
k k
y k V k V x K
+
+ + =

where
a f
V V , = volume fraction of fiber and air, and
25

a f
k k , = conductivity of fiber and air.
In this equation, x +y = 1
And 1 = +
f a
V V ,

Torvi used a simplified model to weight contributions from the solid fibers and
the air, as well as the contribution of radiation heat transfer between fibers [44]. Such that

rad solid gas eff
k k k k + + = ) ( .

Since heat transfer in fibrous materials is a combination of conduction/convection in the
air between fibers, conduction in solid fibers, and radiation heat transfer between fibers,
effective conduction can be represented as:

) ( )) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ( ) ( T k T k T k T k
rad fiber air air air eff
+ − + = ν ν ,

where
air
ν is the volume fraction of air in the fibrous material.

For Nomex
®
fiber [45, 46],

) 300 ) ( ( 0018 . 0 13 . 0 ) ( k K T T k
fiber
− + = k T 700 ≤
0 . 1 = k T 700 > .

The thermal conductivity of air has been represented by a linear relationship [47],

) 300 ) ( ( 000068 . 0 026 . 0 ) ( K K T T k
air
− + = K T 700 ≤
) 700 ) ( ( 000054 . 0 053 . 0 K K T − + = K T 700 > .

26
In these models, the fibers in the fabric are assumed to function as infinite plates acting as
radiation shields. Hence, the portion of the thermal conductivity due to thermal radiation
between the fibers is assumed to equal

fiber
fiber
rad
T T T T x
k
ε
σε

+ + ∆
=
2
) )( (
2 1
2
2
2
1
,
where
fiber
ε = emissivity of the fibers, and
x ∆ = width of the particular finite element.

The radiation portion of thermal conductivity is known to be very small. For a 100K
temperature difference across on finite fabric element in the fabric, the contribution due
to thermal radiation is about 5% of the total thermal conductivity [44].

This model can be used to calculate the thermal conductivity in a wide range of
temperature of interest. Figure 2-11 shows the relationship between thermal conductivity
and temperature predicted for Nomex
®
IIIA.

Thermal Conductivity v.s. Temperature
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Temperature (K)
T
h
e
r
a
m
a
l

C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
W
/
m

C
)
K Fibre
K Air
K Fabric

Figure 2-11. Fabric Thermal Conductivity vs. Temperature

27
The difference between the thermal conductivities of the Nomex® IIIA and Kevlar/PBI
are expected to be very small. Consequently, these relationships can be used to represent
the effective thermal conductivity of both Nomex® IIIA and Kevlar®/PBI protective
clothing materials.

2.3.2.2. Heat Capacity and Thermal Decomposition Temperature

The specific heat of polymeric materials ranges from 0.29-0.39 cal/g/K at 20
0
C [20].
The heat capacity of most fabrics changes about 50% when temperature rises from 500 K
to 1000K. Schoppee [48] et al. advance an empirical formula to calculate change in C
P

with temperature for “average” polymeric materials:
629 22 . 2 + = T C
p
,
where T is in Kelvin and
C
p
is given in J/kg.K.

Backer et al. [49] introduced an exacting method of measuring fabric heat
capacity by dropping a tightly rolled fabric into a water-containing calorimeter. For many
different fabrics he found heat capacities in the range of 0.22-0.64 cal/g/K, measured over
temperatures range of 50-250
0
C.

Two thermal analysis methods can be used to calculate fabric heat capacity at
high temperatures: Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) and the Differential Scanning
Calorimeter (DSC). Detailed information of the application of these methods can be
found in Torvi [50]. From TGA curves found in the literature [51, 52], the mass of
Nomex® and Kevlar®/PBI fabrics remains fairly constant until the onset of thermal
decomposition. The approximate temperature ranges over which the majority of the
thermal decomposition occurs for these materials in helium and oxygen environment is
noted as [51].




28
Table 2-3. Thermal Decomposition Temperature

Material Helium Oxygen
Nomex®IIIA 430-620
0
C 420-640
0
C
Kevlar®/PBI 575-620
0
C 530-660
0
C


During burning, the heating rates can be at the order of about 10
4

0
C per minute.
The heating rate in TGA is 20
0
C per minute. Some investigators have found that heating
rate affects TGA results, shifting the TGA graph to higher temperature as the heating rate
increases. Efforts have been made to develop equipment to measure at higher heating
rates, including Herderson and O’Brien [53], Bingham and Hill [54], and Shlensky, et al.
[55]. These experiments show that, while TGA curves do not shift indefinitely as the
heating rate increases, the ultimate thermogravimetric curve no longer tends to depend on
heating rate.

The advantage of using DSC to measure the specific heat of fabrics includes
accuracy, rapid data acquisition, and relatively small sample sizes [56]. The only problem
associated with the use of DSC for this purpose relates to the temperature limitation.
Torvi attempted to use differential thermal analysis (DTA) to obtain high temperatures,
but encountered difficulty due to the accuracy of DTA. Torvi expressed the apparent
specific heat equation for Nomex
®
and Kevlar
®
/PBI fabrics using information obtained
from TGA and DSC as follows:

) 300 ( 1300 ) ( K T slope T c
A
− + =
1 wt
T T <

2
1300
) ( slope T
T
moist h
wtr
wtr
wtr

+ +


=
2 1 wtr wt
T T T ≤ ≤
) 300 ( 1300 K T slope − + =
rxl wtr
T T T < <
2


2
) 300 ( 1300
slope T
T slope
T
h
rx
rxl
rx
rx

+ − + +


=
2 1 rx rx
T T T ≤ ≤
) 300 ( 1300
1
K T slope
rx
− + =
2 rx
T T > ,
29
where:
wtr
h ∆ is the latent heat of vaporization of water,

rx
h ∆ is the energy associated with thermal decomposition,
moist is the initial mass fraction of moisture in the fabric, and
slope is the slope of specific heat-temperature curve for each fabric.

Values used in above equations for Nomex
®
IIIA and Kevlar/PBI
®
are shown in
Table 2-4 below:


Table 2-4. Values for use in Equations for Nomex®IIIA and Kevlar®/PBI Fabrics

Constant Nomex®IIIA Kevlar®/PBI
) / (
0
C Kg KJ h
wtr
⋅ ∆
500 2500
moist 0.05 0.08
1 wtr
T (
0
C) 75 75
2 wtr
T (
0
C) 125 125
slope (J/kg⋅
0
C
2
) 1.8 1.6
rx
h ∆ (kJ/Kg⋅
0
C) 130 130
1 rx
T (
0
C) 425 425
2 rx
T (
0
C) 650 650



These calculations are for a heating rate of 20
0
C per minute, slower than heating
rate in actual burns. It has also been assumed that the thermal decomposition reactions of
the fabrics are endothermic. Schoppee, et al. [48] have stated that, in tests which use a
radiant heat source rather than a flame, exothermic reactions may be possible due to the
significantly higher amount of oxygen available to the fabric.

30
2.3.3. Effects of High Heat Exposure on Fabric Dimensions

Fabric mass per unit area, thickness and bulk are important to thermal protective
performance, especially in intense heat flux flame conditions. Manikin tests show that a
Nomex
®
III 6.2 oz/yd
2
coverall protects 59.5% of the body from burn, while Nomex
®

IIIA 7.4 oz/yard
2
protects 72.3% in 3 sec. duration with exposure of 84kW/m
2
[57]. This
is because the increased mass per unit area changes fabric density, emissivity, heat
capacity and thickness. In transient heat transfer processes, these changes increase time to
the second and third degree burn. Therefore, the ability of a fabric to maintain its original
weight will directly affect its performance. Since thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is
often used to determine mass loss as a function of temperature and time, we need to
compare the heating rate in TGA tests with the actual conditions of high intensity
exposures.

The initial thickness of protective fabrics correlates well with thermal protective
performance [58]. This is due to the overwhelming importance of the thickness of the still
air maintained by the fabric in a conduction dominated heat transfer process. Fabric
thickness is less important if air gaps are introduced in the protective system. Fabric
thickness can change in intense heat exposures due to melting, charring and ablation.
This process has been modeled for space vehicle reentry heat shields [59].

Change in fabric density during thermal exposures may arise from shrinkage, or
from charring. This can be modeled by considering the fabric to be composed of varying
proportions of pure char and pure plastic. Shrinkage may dramatically reduce the air gap
between the fabric and skin or fabric to fabric, hence, considered to be the potential burn
injury.

Fabric thickness can vary considerably depending on the pressure at which they are
measured. Some investigators, therefore, treat thickness by including it in the thermal
conductance, which is thermal conductivity divided by the thickness, rather than by
measuring it separately [60].
31

While the density of the protective fabrics (Nomex
®
and Kevlar
®
/PBI) is expected
to change during the exposure, these changes have been shown to be relative small when
the fabric temperature does not exceed 400
0
C. This can be further justified by NASA
database of properties of thermal protective materials [61]. However, when the
temperature produced by the thermal exposure exceeds this range, fabric densities may
not remain constant, especially for fabrics that shrunk, such as Nomex
®
.

2.3.4. Characterization of the Fire Environment

Real fires produce a thermal environment characterized by turbulent buoyant
diffusion flames [62]. The radiation characteristics of the fire depend on the degradation
products of the combustion process. For this reason, fires have different characteristics
depending on type of fuel that is burned. Common combustible degradation products
from polymers are methane, ethane, ethylene, formaldehyde, acetone and carbon
monoxide [63]. Noncombustible products can include carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride
and water, or in the case of FR cotton, laevoglucose [64]. Water has strong absorption
bands at 2.7 and 6.3 um, CO
2
at 2.7 and 4.3 um.

Radiant intensity, which is wavelength dependent, determines the potential hazard
of the fire exposure. Heat flux from a fire is similar to a black body at the fire
temperature, usually in the range of 1500-1800
0
C [65]. Wavelengths range 1-6 microns
at heat flux levels above 84kW/m
2
, with a peak at about 2 microns. Holcombe an
Hoschke[66] measured heat fluxes of 130-330 kW/m
2
from simulated mine explosions,
and 167-226 kW/m
2
for JP-4 fuel fires. Krasiy, et al. [67] reported estimates of
180kW/m
2
in seven room fires from just below flashover to flashover and severe
postflashover fires.

Thermal Protection Performance (TPP) test methods combine the effects of flame
impingement and spectral and transfer modes simulate exposure conditions. Schoppee et
32
al [68] compare the behavior of quartz panels to a blackbody that, at maximum output,
wavelengths coincide with temperatures above 1023K. At lower temperatures, the
emissive power of a quartz panel falls within the waveband containing 75 percent of the
total emissive power of a blackbody at the same temperature.

David [69] compares quartz lamps and a cone heater having different spectral
distribution of radiant energy. He heated fire fighter jacked materials, whose reflectivity
and absorbtivity curve depend on the wavelength of the incident radiant energy, with the
same thermal flux. These experiments show that the different temperature history
occurred on the fabric and the different prediction time to get 2
nd
degree burn was found.
For these reason, he concluded that a cone heater may be more representative of actual
fires than quartz lamps.

Fire is generated in the Pyroman
®
chamber with liquid propane gas burned in
eight gas burners. If propane is assumed to react with stoichiometric air, then the
chemical reaction for complete combustion can be written as [71]

Adiabatic flame temperatures of about 2400K and 2270K were calculated using
STANJAN with and without dissociation, respectively. Adiabatic flame temperature is
the maximum possible temperature for this flame. Actual flames are cooler due to heat
transfer from the flame and incomplete combustion. Siegel and Howell [70] report values
of about 2200K for flame temperature in their experiments. Maximum experimental
values for laboratory burners using methane show flame temperature the order of 2000K
to 2100K [65]. Holcombe and Hoschke [66] report that approximately 25% of the heat
energy released by a Meker burner is thermal radiation. Shalev [42] found that a propane
burning Meker burner produced a heat flux which was approximately 70% convective
and 30% radiative in nature.



2 2 2 2 2 8 3
8 . 18 4 3 76 . 3 5 5 N O H CO N O H C + + × → × + +
33
2.4 Modles for Predicting Skin Burn Injury

2.4.1. Skin Burn Models

Burns, the result of thermal attack to human skin, are some of the worst injuries
that can happen to human beings. Burn injuries require a long time to heal and are
sometimes difficult to treat clinically. Burn injuries, which are time and temperature
dependent, have been classified as first, second, third, or fourth degree burns [72].

In a first degree burn, the major tissue response of first degree burns is
vasodilation of the subpapillary vessels which results in redness to the burned region of
the skin. No systemic effects occur and discomfort is temporary. Healing is normally
quick with no permanent scarring or discoloration. Second degree burns involve damage
to epidermis and dermis layers of skin. Second degree burns are characterized by
capillary damage which produces tissue edema and blisters. In these burns cell structure
can be damaged, and blood vessels may be distorted and partially blocked. There is an
associated loss of fluids and which leads to systemic effects. Plasma volume may also be
lost, a major factor causing shock in untreated burn patients. Second degree burns may be
further divided into superficial or deep, depending on the penetration depth in the injured
zone. Superficial second degree burns are those in which a significant fraction of the cells
at the base of the dermis are not destroyed. In this case, healing is normally prompt and
without scarring since the majority of the cells at the dermal base are not injured. Deep
second degree burns result in loss of much of the dermal base. Certain elements, such as
hair follicles and glands, may remain and there is widespread stasis and destruction of
cells in the subpapillary plexus.

Third degree burns involve destruction of all epidermal elements and supporting
dermal structure, including damage of blood vessels in the burn region. With no blood
flow, the cells in the region of full thickness burn eventually die. Large volumes of
extravascular fluid are lost die to injury to underlying tissue and surrounding the area of
full thickness injury.
34

Fourth degree burns involve incineration of the skin tissue. Muscle, bone, and
other structures beneath subcutaneous tissue may be damaged. Healing is not
significantly different from the with third degree burns; although greater complications
due to the injuries to underlying tissue may occur.

In addition to burn injury, systemic heat trauma due to the thermal stress and the
inflammatory mediators occur within the body and are released to the circulatory system.
Most of these traumas result from the altered condition of skin due to intense heat
exposure. Traumatic effects include the shock of fluid loss, decrease in cardial output,
and injuries to the respiratory system. An increase in body metabolic rate can occur to
compensate for the large losses from outer evaporation from injured areas, as well as
complications related to nutritional defects and altered immune function.

2.4.2. Bioheat Transfer Models

Pennes [73] proposed a transfer equation to describe heat transfer in human
tissues:
) ( ) (
2
c b
T T c G T k
t
T
c − − ∇ =


ρ ρ

Pennes’ model assumes that skin tissue above an isothermal core is maintained at a
constant body temperature. The resulting simplified bioheat equation is based on
following specific assumptions [74, 75]: heat is linearly conducted within tissues; tissue
thermal properties are constant in each layer, but may vary from layer to layer; blood
temperature is constant and equal to body core temperature; negligible between the large
blood vessels (arteries and veins) and the tissue; the local blood flow rate is constant. In
long duration, low intensity heat exposure, the rate of metabolic energy production is
included in the above equation. In a case of high intensity exposures (84 kW/m
2
from
flash fires), metabolic energy production can be assumed to be negligible.

35
Several investigators have questioned the validity of the assumptions underlying
Pennes model. Wulff [76] claim that the blood flow contribution to heat transfer in tissue
must be modeled as a directional term of the form( ) T u c
b
∇ ⋅ ρ , rather than the scalar
perfusion term suggested by Pennes. Klinger [77] points out that Pennes’ equation does
not include heat transfer in the vicinity of large blood vessels. Deficiencies in Pennes’
model result from the fact that thermal equilibrium process occur, not in blood
capillaries, as he assumes, but rather in pre- and post-capillary vessels. Nor does Pennes'
model account for convective heat transfer due to the blood flow, or for heat exchange
between the small and closely-spaced vessels [77].

2.4.3. The Chen and Holmes Model

Chen and Holmes’ model [78] group blood vessels into two categories: large
vessels, each treated separately, and small vessels, treated as part of the continuum that
includes the skin tissue. In their model, heat transfer between small blood vessels and
tissue is separated into three modes. The first, perfusion mode, considers equilibration of
blood and tissue temperature. The thermal contribution is described by a term,
p
q ,
similar to the perfusion term in Pennes' equation:

( ) ( ) T T c q
a b p
− =
∗ ∗
ρ ω ,

where ρ , c , and T are defined as in Pennes' equation,

ω is the perfusion parameter
that reflects blood flow within vessels in the control volume, and

a
T represents the
temperature of the blood within the largest vessel in the control volume.

The second, convective mode, deals with blood vessels that are already thermally
equilibrated. This model represents the part of heat transfer that occurs when the flowing
blood convects heat against a tissue temperature gradient. For this mode of heat transfer,
36
blood is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with the tissue at a temperature T; the heat
transfer contribution can be estimated as:
( ) T u c q
b c
∇ ⋅ − = ρ ,

where u is the net volume flux vector permeating a unit area of the control surface.

A third mode describes thermal conduction due to small temperature fluctuations
that occurs in the blood along the tissue temperature gradient:

T k q
p pc
∇ ∇ = ,

where
p
k is a perfusion conductivity tensor that depends on local blood flow velocity
within the vessel, the relative angle between the directions of the blood vessel, the local
tissue temperature gradient and the number of vessels in the control volume.

The Chen and Holmes model accounts for all three modes of heat transfer
between the blood and the tissue, so that

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
m p b a b
q T k T u c T T c T k
t
T
c + ∇ ⋅ ∇ + ∇ ⋅ − − + ∇ ⋅ ∇ =


∗ ∗
ρ ω ρ ρ .

The Chen and Holmes model has been applied to different biothermal situations in Xu
[79] and in Xu et al. [80].

2.4.4. The Weinbaum, Jiji and Lemos Model

Based on anatomical observations in peripheral tissue, Weinbaum et al. [81] and
Jiji et al. [82] conclude that the main contribution of local blood perfusion to heat transfer
in tissue is associated with incomplete countercurrent heat exchange between pairs of
arteries and veins, not with heat exchange at the capillary level. They propose a model
37
that consists of three coupled thermal energy equations to describe heat transfer involving
arterial and venous blood and skin tissue. Their models are stated as:

( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
,
2
2
2
m
v a
b b v a b
v
v
b b
a
a
b b
q
ds
T T d
V c r n T T c g n T k
t
T
c
q
ds
dT
V r c
q
ds
dT
V r c
+

⋅ − − ⋅ + ∇ ⋅ ∇ =


− = ⋅
− = ⋅
ρ π ρ ρ
π ρ
π ρ


where g is the volumetric rate of the bleed-off blood flow (the flow out of or into the
blood vessel via the connecting capillaries), n is the vessel number density,
b
r is the
vessel radius, and V is the blood velocity within the vessel. Applications of this model to
a variety of biothermal situations are presented in Dagan et al. [83], and in Song et al.
[84, 85].

2.4.5. Skin Burn Models

Heriques and Moritz [86], working at the Harvard Medical School, were among
the first to publish a skin burn model. They claim that skin burn damage can be
represented as a chemical rate process, so that a first order Arrhenius rate equation can be
used to estimate the rate of tissue damage as:
) exp(
RT
E
p
dt
d ∆
− =

,
where Ω - a quantitative measure of burn damage at the basal layer or at any
depth in the dermis,
P – frequency factor, S
-1
,
E – the activation energy for skin, J/mol,
R – the universal gas constant, 8.315 J/kmol.K
T – the absolute temperature at the basal layer or at any depth in the
dermis, K, and
T – total time for which T is above 440C (317.15K).
38

Integrate this equation yields:
dt
RT
E
p
t
) exp(
0


− = Ω .
Integration is performed for a time when the temperature of basal layer of the skin, T,
exceeds or equals to 44
0
C.

Bench scale tests of protective fabrics typically use data from the work of Stoll
and Chianta [90] to estimate of the time for second degree burn. Simplicity is the main
advantage of this method. Stoll criteria assume a “rectangular” heat pulse exposure. Any
variation from rectangular heat pulse invalidates the use of Stoll criteria to predict skin
burn injury.

Butter [87] also uses the Henriques’s burn integral. However, much of his work
involves determining the threshold of unbearable pain when non-penetrating infrared
radiation was used to heat the skin of human volunteers. Stoll [18] published extensively
on determining the skin pain threshold temperatures, and a constants used in the
Henriques burn integral and the thermal protection of fabrics. Mehta and Wong [74] used
the Henriques burn integral to predict skin burns. However, they conclude that the
Henriques’ equation is valid only for superficial (epidermal) burns. They point out that
the temperature used to calculate the pre-exponential factor and activation energy had not
been accurately measured. They express doubt as to whether data from low intensity,
long duration tests can be used in high intensity, short duration tests.

Mehta and Wong model skin as a finite solid with different layers, each with
different properties. They alter the upper time limit in the Henriques’ integral to include
cooling time. Takata [89] used a large number of anaesthetized pigs exposed JP-4 liquid
fuel fires to analyze the skin data. Data observed by these researchers are summarized in
table 2-5.


39
Table 2-5. Values of P and ∆E Used in Burn Integral Calculations

Source

P (Hz) for epidermis at
temperature
∆E (J/kmole) for dermis at
temperature
≥ 50 °C < 50 °C ≥ 50 °C < 50 °C
Weaver & Stoll [1969] 2.18 x 10124 1.82 x 1051 7.784 x 108 3.222 x 108
Takata [1974] 4.32 x.1064 9.39 x 10104 4.143x 108 6.654 x 108
Mehta & Wong [1973] 1.43 x 1072 2.86 x 1069 4.604 x 108 4.604x 108


2.5 Modeling Heat Transfer in Protective Fabrics

Predicting thermal protective performance requires an ability to model heat
transfer through protective clothing materials, through interfacial air gaps between the
skin and clothing, and, finally, through the skin itself. Protective garments exposed to a
fire hazards undergo three heating phases. During an initial warm up phase, the
temperature of the fibers in the fabric and the moisture retained within the fabric
increases at a rate dictated by the system’s thermal properties and by the intensity of the
incident heat. Consequently, the amount of retained moisture and its thermal properties
varies. For most fabric systems, the fiber content and their thermal properties remain
constant during the initial heating phase.

The second heating phase is marked by the onset of changes in the thermal
properties of fabric. Changes in the amount of retained moisture and its thermal
properties continue to occur during this phase. Initially, most of these changes are due to
the react of surface chemical treatments and finishes to heating, or to slight degradation
of fiber surfaces. Most of these changes initiate focusing the exposed side of the fabric
system and propagate toward the skin side of the protective material. If the fiber does not
melt or transition temperature is not exceeded, the structural integrity of fabric system is
maintained during this phase of heating. The end of the second heating phase is the
temperature criteria below which thermally protective fabrics are designed to function.
40
Protective fabrics exposed beyond the second phase loose its protective properties and, in
some instances, become a source of harm to the wearer. In practice, the occurrence of the
subsequent third phase occurs only when the protective clothing system is used beyond
its intended limits of application.

A third and final phase of the exposure is marked by chemical and structural
degradation of the protective fabric. At this point, no moisture is retained by the fabric.
This phase is followed by rapid fabric decomposition or combustion. At this point, the
fabric itself becomes a source of off-gassing heat and flame.

2.5.1. Heat Transfer Models

Heat transfer models have been developed to characterize the behavior of
protective fabrics in short duration high heat flux exposures. Some models focus on
specific mechanisms of heat transfer, while others provide a predictive model for a
particular thermal test. Three models offer the most promising foundation for
development into a complete generalized model. These models are Torvi Model [91], the
Gibson Model [92], and the Mell and Lawson Model [93].

2.5.1.1. Torvi Model-- Fabric-Air Gap-Test Sensor Model

Torvi [91] introduced a model to describe an experimental apparatus consisting of
a fabric held horizontally over a Meker burner, with a copper calorimeter held over the
fabric. The model treats heat transfer in the vertical dimension only. It accounts for
convection and radiation in the air gap between the burner and the fabric; conduction,
absorbed radiation, and thermochemical reaction within the fabric, and conduction,
convection, and radiation in the air gap between the fabric and the sensor.

Torvi’s model accounts for the most significant contributions to heat transfer from
the burner, through the fabric to the skin. It can be extended to treat heat transfer in
41
multiple dimensions, and through multiple layers of fabric. Extensions of this model treat
convective heat transfer in the fabric and heat conveyed by moisture within the fabric or
in air gaps.

Torvi accounts for convection and radiation on the outside of the material,
exposed to the burner, and conduction/convection and radiation in the air gaps between
fabric and skin. Radiation heat flux is exposed as the sum of blackbody components from
hot gases, from the fabric to ambient air, and from the burner head to the fabric.
Therefore,

|
|
.
|

\
|

+

− +
− −
+ − − − =
b
b
b
f
f
f
g b
f b g b
a f g a f g g rad
A
A
F
T T F
T T F T q
ε
ε
ε
ε
ε
ε σ
ε σε σε
1
1
) 1 ( 1
) )( 1 (
) )( 1 (
4 4
4 4 4
,

where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, ε
g
, ε
f
, and ε
b
are emissivities of the hot gases,
the fabric, and the burner head, respectively, T
g
, T
f
, T
a
, and T
b
are the temperatures of the
hot gases, the outside of the fabric, the ambient air, and the burner head, respectively, F
a

and F
b
are view factors accounting for the geometry of the fabric with respect to the
ambient air and to the burner, respectively, and A
f
and A
b
are the surface areas of the
fabric and the burner head, respectively. Radiation heat flux on the inside is

|
|
.
|

\
| −
+ +


=
f
f
s f
s
s
s
s f
rad
F A
A
T T
q
ε
ε
ε
ε
σ
1
1 1
) (
4 4
,

where T
s
, ε
s
, and A
s
are the temperature, emissivity, and surface area, respectively, of a
test sensor taking the place of skin, and F
s
accounts for the geometry of the fabric with
respect to the sensor.

42
Torvi accounts for conduction, thermochemical reaction, and absorption of
incident radiation that occurs with the fabric. The resulting energy balance equation is
written as

x A
e q
x
T
T k
x t
T
T C
γ
γ

+ |
.
|

\
|




=


rad
) ( ) ( ,

where T is the temperature, C
A
is a temperature-dependent "apparent" specific heat,
which incorporates latent heat associated with thermochemical reaction, k is a
temperature-dependent thermal conductivity, γ is the extinction coefficient of the fabric,
and q
rad
is the incident radiation heat flux.

2.5.1.2. Gibson Model -- Multiphase Heat and Mass Transfer Model


Gibson [92] built on Whitaker’s theory of coupled heat and mass transfer through
porous media [94] to derive a set of equations modeling heat and mass transfer through
textile materials as hygroscopic porous media. Gibson applies continuity, linear
momentum conservation, and energy conservation equations to the fabric as a three-phase
system consisting of a solid phase with a concentration of bound water, a free liquid
water phase, and a gas phase of water vapor in air. This model treats heat transfer in three
dimensions, accounting for conduction by all phases, convection by the gas and liquid
phases, and transformations among the phases.

Gibson’s model thoroughly treats convection heat transfer in the fabric. Gibson
and Charmchi [95] extended the model to include heat transfer to skin in contact with the
fabric. Further extensions can be made to include air and moisture mass transfer in
multiple layers and air gaps, as well as radiative transfer.

Gibson has applied Whitaker’s theory, coupling heat and mass transfer through
porous media [94], to derive a set of equations that model heat and mass transfer through
43
textile materials as hygroscopic porous media [92]. The material modeled a mixture of a
solid phase, consisting of solid (e.g., polymer) material plus water absorbed into the
polymer matrix, a liquid phase consisting of free liquid water solid, and a gaseous phase
consisting of water vapor and inert air (Figure 2-12).

Gibson applies continuity, linear momentum conservation, and energy
conservation equations to the fabric as a three-phase system consisting of a solid phase
with a concentration of bound water, a free liquid water phase, and a gas phase of water
vapor in air. The model treats heat transfer in three dimensions. It accounts for
conduction by all phases, convection by the gas and liquid phases, and all transformations
among the phases. Gibson writes the thermal energy balance equation as:

). ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
T K m h Q m Q m h
T c c c
t
T
c
T
eff sv vap l sl l lv vap
i
i i i p p
j
j j j p p
∇ ⋅ ⋅ ∇ = ∆ + + + ∆ +
∇ ⋅
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + +


∑ ∑
& & &
v v v ρ ρ ρ ρ
β β β




Figure 2-12. Three Phases Present in Hygroscopic Porous Media

Gibson applies continuity, linear momentum and energy conservation equations to
the fabric, treating heat transfer in three dimensions. The model accounts for conduction
44
by all phases, convection by the gas and liquid phases, and transformations among the
phases.

If we number each distinct species, (1) for water, (2) for dry solid, and (3) for
inert air, the thermal energy balance equation can be written as:


( )
), ( ) (
) ( ) (
) (
3 3 3 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
T m h Q m Q m h
T
c c
c
t
T
C
T
eff sv vap l sl l lv vap
p p
p
p
∇ ⋅ ⋅ ∇ = ∆ + + + ∆ +
∇ ⋅
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
+ +
+


K & & &
γ
γ
σ
σ
γ
γ
σ
σ β β
ρ ε ρ ε
ρ ε ρ ε ρ
ρ
v v
v v v

where


3 3 2 2 1 1
) ( ) ( ) (
p p p p
c c c C ρ ρ ρ ρ + + = .

The bracketed terms 〈〉 denote a volume averages over all phases, or over the single phase
as indicated by a superscript. The term ε denotes the volume fraction of a single phase, v
denotes velocity, K
eff
is the effective thermal conductivity tensor, ∆h
vap
is the heat of
vaporization of the liquid phase, Q
l
is the heat of desorption from the solid phase, and
lv
m& ,
sl
m& , and
sv
m& denote the mass flux desorbing from the solid to the liquid, desorbing
from the solid to the gas, and evaporating from the liquid, respectively. Gibson and
Charmchi extended the model to include heat transfer to skin in contact with the fabric
[5]. Their model thoroughly treats convection heat transfer in fabrics, provided the heat
flux is not too high. It further treats heat transfer in three dimensions and can be extended
to treat high heat fluxes, the absorption of radiation, and to model thermochemical
processes in fabrics.

2.5.1.3. Mell and Lawson Model

Mell and Lawson [93] use a model similar to Torvi's to treat heat transfer in a fire
fighter's turnout coat, or a multi-layer composite consisting of a shell layer, including
trim material, moisture barrier, and thermal liner. Like Torvi, Mell and Lawson account
45
for conduction and absorption of incident radiation in the material layers. In addition,
Mell and Lawson advance a forward-reverse radiation model, defining incident fluxes on
both sides of each layer of material to account for interlayer flux due to reflected
radiation between fabric layers. Their model is an example of extending the Torvi model
to treat a multi-layer fabric assembles. It could be extended to treat heat transfer in three
dimensions, to model convective heat transfer and heat conveyed by moisture within the
air gaps.

2.5.2. Modeling Thermal Degradation in Fabrics

The combustion and thermal degradation of polymeric fabrics are complicated
processes involving physical and chemical phenomena that are only partially understood.
A number of different approaches for modeling this problem have been suggested in the
literature. Ricci [96], Whiting et al. [97], Delichatsios and Chen [98], and Staggs [99]
suggest modeling thermal degradation of polymers as a Stefan problem, where the
degradation of the solid is assumed to occur infinitely rapidly once a critical temperature
reached. Other researchers model solid-phase degradation using limited global in-depth
reactions [100][101][102]. Kashiwagi [103] reviews physical and chemical phenomena
involved in polymer combustion and highlights the complexity of this process. Staggs
[104] suggest a heat transfer model that incorporated a general single-step solid-phase
reaction for thermal degradation of polymer material. Staggs model does not account for
heat transport by gaseous products escaping from the solid.

The critical-temperature approach has been utilized by some researchers to derive
simplified models of thermal degradation. This approach is overly simplified, because it
is assume that the polymer can volatilize only at surface exposed to heat.

Staggs [99] model’s thermal degradation utilizing the following kinetic rate law:

( ) T f
Dt
D
, u
u
− = ,
46

where u is a scalar quantity representing the progress of the reaction (the ratio of the
mass of the material element to its initial mass), t is the time, and f is a function
determined by the rate of degradation. Different forms for the f function can be used to
model specific decomposition mechanisms characteristic of different types of polymers
or other chemicals used in thermally protective clothing. For the most polymeric fabrics,
the use of an n
th
order Arrenius reaction provides sufficient agreement with experimental
data; so that:

( ) T T A f
A
n
/ exp − = u ,

where
A
T is the activation temperature, A is the empirically derived pre-exponential
factor, and n is the order of the degradation reaction.

Accounting for degradation in the solid material produces an additional term in
the energy conservation equation. If
0
m is the initial mass of the material element, then
its mass at time t is ( )
0
m t u . The rate of heat consumption for the vaporization of
polymer material in this element during its degradation can be expressed as
Dt
D
m H
u
0
∆ ,
where H ∆ is the heat of vaporization. Recasting this relation for a unit volume results
in the following term for the energy equation for the fabric layer:

( ) T T A
H
Dt
D H
q
A
n
/ exp −

− =

= ′ ′ ′ u
u
ρ u
u
ρ
.

Staggs shows that the n
th
order Arrenius reaction is used to model thermal
degradation, the predicted surface temperature increases slowly during the mass loss
period. Surface temperature is not determined solely by the properties of the polymer
material, such as the specific chemical reaction that describes its degradation, but by
interaction between reaction kinetics and the rate of heat loss [99]. This finding explains
47
why the critical-temperature ablation models of polymer degradation do not provide
sufficiently accurate to predict heat transfer through fabrics exposed to intense heat.

As previously noted, Staggs’ model does not consider transport of gaseous
products from the degrading polymer material. This model can be supplemented with a
model that describes transport of these products through the fabric layer, modeled as a
thermally degrading porous medium. One of the issues to be addressed is the change of
permeability of the porous medium as a result of its thermal degradation. It is expected
that degradation will produce a decrease of permeability in the fabric and thus worsening
its mass transport characteristics. This will hinder not only transport of the gaseous
products of polymer degradation but also moisture transport through the degrading
fabric. This, in turn, can lead to accumulation of heat moisture in the fabric because the
moisture that results from sweating will not be removed. Moisture accumulation in
fabrics has been proven to have a profound influence on heat transfer and thermal
protective performance.

48

CHAPTER 3 MODEL THE PYROMAN
®
SYSTEM


The NCSU Pyroman
®
is an instrumented, six-foot, one-inch tall, high-temperature
manikin embedded with 122 heat sensors. It is used to test and measure the protective
performance of a variety of garments and clothing systems under realistic flash fire
conditions. The Pyroman
®
dressed with protective garments and engulfed in flames so
that factors like garment construction, fabric weight, material type, style, fit and the
impact of outerwear and undergarments can be taken into account. Results of these tests
are then analyzed to determine the skin damage in terms of second and third degree burn.
It is the most advanced life-size thermal burn injury evaluation system in the world today.

In this chapter, two configurations are modeled to represent heat transfer in one
layer protective garment dressed in a manikin with and without underwear. The
developed two models are fabric-air gap-skin model and fabric-air gap-fabric-skin model
used to calculate heat transfer at one hundred-twenty two sensors locations in Pyroman
®

body. The heat transfer in fabric, air gap and human skin as well as corresponding
boundary conditions are described in this chapter. Fabric shrinkage, and the effect of this
on air gap size, is also included. The skin model and burn evaluation model used in
present model are outlined.

3.1 A Numerical Heat Transfer Model

Fundamental elements of the Pyroman
®
fire test and burn evaluation processes are
illustrated in Figure 3-1. Flash fire is generated in the Pyroman
®
burn chamber by eight
propane burning torches. The intense heat from the flash fire transfers through the fabric
and air gaps between the garment and manikin body. One hundred twenty-two sensors
embedded in Pyroman
®
body record the temperature change and feed this information to
computer. The temperature profiles recorded by these sensors are translated into
49
corresponding heat flux profiles and then applied to a skin burn model. The skin model
calculates the temperature profile at basal layer and dermal layer according to the thermal
properties of the skin. Second and third degree burn skin damages are made using
temperature histories by computing the Omega (Ω) value in the Pyroman
®
burn
evaluation model.

Figure 3-1. Elements of Heat Transfer and Burn Evaluation
in the “Pyroman” System


The numerical model developed in this research model the entire burning process.
It first calculates heat generated by the flash fire generated in Pyroman
®
chamber from
the estimated general heat transfer coefficients and measured heat fluxes in calibration
burns. The heat transfer in the fabric and air gaps is calculated in conduction, radiation
and convection modes. A bioheat transfer equation is subsequently applied in conjunction
with a multi-layer skin model to estimate temperature profile in basal and dermal skin
layer. Skin damage is predicted using burn evaluation model. The model is illustrated in
Figure 3-2.

In order to perform the analysis of heat transfer in the model, several assumptions
are made. A one-dimensional heat transfer process is assumed in the model; no mass



) exp(
0
RT
E
P
t

− = Ω

F Fl la as sh h f fi ir re e: :
P Pr ro ot te ec ct ti iv ve e g ga ar rm me en nt ts s
s sy ys st te em m
P Py yr ro om ma an n B Bo od dy y
S Se en ns so or r S Sk ki in n M Mo od de el l
B Bu ur rn n E Ev va al lu ua at ti io on n M Mo od de el l
B Ba as sa al l l la ay ye er r T T- -t t
h hi is st to or ry y, , 2 2
n nd d
d de eg gr re ee e
b bu ur rn n d da at ta a
D De er rm ma al l l la ay ye er r T T- -t t
h hi is st to or ry y, , 3 3
r rd d
d de eg gr re ee e
b bu ur rn n d da at ta a
H He ea at t F Fl lu ux x P Pr ro of fi il le e
A Ai ir r g ga ap p
50
transfer occurs in fabric and air gap; the fabric is considered as grey body for radiation.
As the special protective garment is chosen here, the thermal-chemical reaction and
degradation of fabric are neglected for short time exposure in this research. The thermal
properties of skin are assumed to be constant.

For the present model, the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of
fabrics under intense exposure are not assumed constant; these properties are estimated
using parameter estimation method. The heat flux at each sensor location is assumed
uniform due to one-dimensional heat transfer. An in-depth radiation in fabric is involved
in the heat transfer in fabric as introduced in Torvi’s model [91].


Figure 3-2. Elements of Fabric Air-Gap Skin Model













) exp(
0
RT
E
P
t

− = Ω

F Fl la as sh h f fi ir re e
P Pr ro ot te ec ct ti iv ve e g ga ar rm me en nt t
s sy ys st te em m
S Sk ki in n M Mo od de el l
B Bu ur rn n E Ev va al lu ua at ti io on n M Mo od de el l
B Ba as sa al l l la ay ye er r T T- -t t
h hi is st to or ry y, , 2 2
n nd d
d de eg gr re ee e
b bu ur rn n d da at ta a
D De er rm ma al l l la ay ye er r T T- -t t h hi is st to or ry y, , 3 3
r rd d

d de eg gr re ee e b bu ur rn n d da at ta a
A Ai ir r g ga ap p
51

3.2 Heat Transfer in Fabric, Air gap and Skin


The schematic of this model is illustrated in Figure 3-3. The model is assumed
that convective heat transfer occurs only as far as the surface of fabric. Radiative heat
flux is assumed to penetrate the fabric to a certain depth. Based these assumptions, the
energy balance in the infinitesimal element of fabric can be described by the following
equation:

x
rad fab fab fab
e q
x
T
T k
x t
T
T Cp T
γ
γ ρ

⋅ −
|
.
|

\
|




=


) ( ) ( ) ( (3-1)



Figure 3-3. Schematic for one-dimensional Heat Transfer Model


where ρ
fab
is the density of the fabric; Cp
fab
is the specific heat of the fabric; k
fab
is the
thermal conductivity of the fabric; γ is the extinction coefficient of the fabric which can
be determined from the transmissivity τ and the thickness L
fab
,

52
fab
L / ) ln(τ γ − = , (3-2)

q
rad
is the incident radiation heat flux on which can be expressed as follows:

) )( 1 ( ) (
4 4 4 4
amb fab g amb fab fab fab g g rad
T T F T T q − − − − =

ε σε σε , (3-3)

where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, ε
g
, and ε
fab
are the emissivity of the hot gases
and the fabric, respectively, T
g
, T
fab
, and T
amb
are the temperatures of the hot gases, the
outside surface of the fabric, and the ambient air, respectively, F
fab-amb
is the view factor
accounting for the geometry of the fabric in relative to the ambient air.

The boundary conditions for the outside surface of the fabric are (x = 0), for t > 0,

( )
0
0
) (
=
=
+ =



x rad conv
x
fab
q q
x
T
T k , (3-4)

where q
rad
is the incident radiation heat flux, and q
conv
is the convective heat flux between
the fabric and hot gas given as follows:

) (
fab g fl conv
T T h q − = , (3-5)

The subscript fl, g, and fab refer to the burner flame, the hot gases from the burner, and
the outside surface of fabric.

At the inside surface of the fabric (x = L
fab
), for t > 0:

( )
fab
fab
L x
conv cond air rad air
L x
fab
q q
x
T
T k
=
=
+ =



/ , ,
) ( , (3-6)

53
where q
air, cond/conv
is the thermal energy transfer by conduction/convection from fabric to
the human skin across the air gap given as:

) (
, / , skin fab gap air
L x
conv cond air
T T h q
fab
− =
=
. (3-7)

In the equation 3-7, h
air, gap
is the heat transfer coefficient of air due to conduction
and natural convection in air gap given by:

gap air
air
gap air
L
T k
Nu h
,
,
) (
=
, (3-8)

where Nu is the Nusselt number, k
air
(T) is the thermal conductivity of the air and L
air,gap

is the thickness of the air gap. In some specific fabric, the air gap is a function of fabric
temperature. This is because the heat induced shrinkage of garment during exposure
reduces air gap size.

In the equation 3-6, q
air, rad
is the energy transfer by radiation from fabric to the
human skin across the air gap given as:

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+


=
− skin
skin
skin fab fab
fab
fab
skin
skin fab
rad air
F A
A
T T
q
ε
ε
ε
ε
σ
1 1
1
4 4
,
, (3-9)

where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, ε
fab
, and ε
skin
are the fabric and human skin
emissivities, T
fab
, and T
skin
are the temperatures of the inside surface of the fabric, and the
human skin, F
fab-skin
is the view factor accounting for the geometry of the fabric relative
to the human skin, A
fab
and A
skin
are the surface areas of the fabric and the human skin,
respectively.

In order to consider the heat transfer by natural convection occurred in between
the air gap of fabric and skin when the air gap size and temperature difference are large
54
enough, a corrected Nusselt number was selected used in equation 3-8 which represents
natural convection in a vertical enclosure heated from one side.

Catton [107] using a relationship based on Denny and Clever’s work [108],
expresses the Nusselt number correlation for air in a long vertical enclosure as:

294 . 0
112 . 0 Ra Nu = , (3-10)
αν δ β /
3
T g Ra ∆ = , (3-11)

where Nu = the Nusselt number (hδ/k)
Ra = Rayleigh number (gβ∆Τδ
3
/αν)
g = the gravity acceleration (9.81 m/s
2
)
β = the thermal expansion coefficient of the air (k
-1
)
∆Τ = the temperature difference across the air gap
α = the thermal diffusivity of the air (m
2
/s)
ν = the kinematic viscosity of air (m
2
/s)

Similarly, Hollands, et al. [109] gives the correlation for any chosen reference tiled
enclosure as

, 1
5830
cos
cos
) 8 . 1 (sin 1708
1
cos
1708
1 446 . 1 1
3 / 1
6 . 1


|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

− + =
τ
τ
τ
τ
Ra
Ra Ra
Nu
(3-12)

where τ = angle of inclination.
The notation | |

in above equation indicates that if the argument in the square
brackets is negative, the quantity should be taken as zero. The correlation for vertical
enclosure can be calculated by combining with the scaling suggested by Ayyaswamy and
Catton [110] as:
55

4 / 1
) )(sin 90 ( ) ( τ τ τ
o
= = Nu Nu . (3-13)

Another configuration modeled in this research is one layer protective garment
with underwear. In this configuration an extra cotton fabric layer is added with
assumption that no air gaps exist between skin and underwear cotton fabric. The elements
in this configuration are illustrated in Figure 4-10.


Figure 3-4. Fabric-air gap-fabric-skin Model


The underwear fabric under short time exposure is experiencing relatively low
temperatures; therefore, the thermal properties of underwear fabric assume constant. The
heat transfer in underwear fabric can be described as:
2
2
x
T
k
t
T
Cp
underwear underwear underwear


=


ρ , (3-14)

where ρ
underwear
= density of underwear fabric
Cp
underwear
= specific heat of underwear fabric
k
underwear
= thermal conductivity of underwear fabric



) exp(
0
RT
E
P
t

− = Ω

F Fl la as sh h f fi ir re e
P Pr ro ot te ec ct ti iv ve e
g ga ar rm me en nt t
s sy ys st te em m
S Sk ki in n M Mo od de el l
B Bu ur rn n E Ev va al lu ua at ti io on n M Mo od de el l
B Ba as sa al l l la ay ye er r T T- -t t
h hi is st to or ry y, , 2 2
n nd d
d de eg gr re ee e
b bu ur rn n d da at ta a
D De er rm ma al l l la ay ye er r T T- -t t h hi is st to or ry y, , 3 3
r rd d

d de eg gr re ee e b bu ur rn n d da at ta a
A Ai ir r g ga ap p
U Un nd de er rw we ea ar r f fa ab br ri ic c
56

The boundary conditions at the outside surface of the underwear fabric are (x = L
fab
+
L
gap
), for t > 0,

( )
gap fab
gap fab
L L x
conv cond air rad air
L L x
underwear
q q
x
T
k
+ =
+ =
+ =



/ , ,
, (3-15)

where q
air,rad
= the energy transfer by radiation from the protective fabric to the
underwear fabric across the air gap given as:

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+


=

+ =
underwear
underwear
underwear fab fab
fab
fab
underwear
underwear fab
L L x
rad air
F A
A
T T
q
gap fab
ε
ε
ε
ε
σ
1 1
1
4 4
,
, (3-16)

where σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.669 × 10
-8
W/m
2
·K
-4
)
ε
fab
= the emissivity of the protective fabric
ε
underwear
= the emissivity of the underwear fabric
T
fab
= the temperature of the inside surface of the protective fabric
T
underwear
= the temperature of the inside surface of the underwear fabric
F
fab-underwear
= the view factor accounting for the geometry of the protective
fabric with respect to the underwear fabric
A
fab
= the surface areas of the protective fabric
A
underwear
= the surface areas of the underwear fabric
q
air,cond/conv
= the energy transfer by conduction/convection from the
protective fabric to the underwear fabric across the air gap given as follows:

) (
, / , underwer fab gap air
L L x
conv cond air
T T h q
gap fab
− =
+ =
, (3-17)

h
air, gap
= the heat transfer coefficient of air due to conduction and natural
convection in air gap given by:
57

gap air
air
gap air
L
T k
Nu h
,
,
) (
=
, (3-18)

where Nu = the Nusselt number
k
air
(T) = the thermal conductivity of the air
L
air,gap
= the thickness of the air gap.

At the inside surface of the fabric (x = L
fab
+ L
gap
+ L
underwear
), the underwear
fabric is assumed to contact directly to the human skin. There is no air gap between the
underwear fabric and the human skin. The conductive heat transfer only occurs at the
interface of fabric and epidermis skin layer. L
underwear
, is the thickness of underwear
fabric, for t > 0

underwear gap fab underwear gap fab
L L L x
skin
L L L x
underwear
x
T
k
x
T
k
+ + = + + =


− =



. (3-19)

The initial condition is a given temperature distribution at t = 0. In addition, the
underwear fabric temperature is assumed as initially uniform.
T(x, t = 0) = T
i
(x)

3.3 Heat Transfer in Skin Model and Burn Evaluation

The present model incorporates Pennes Model to describe the heat transfer in
skin. Pennes’ model assumes the energy exchange between the blood vessels in the skin
and the surrounding tissue. According to this Model, the total energy exchanged by the
flowing blood is proportional to volumetric heat flow and the temperature difference
between the blood and skin tissue. The bio-heat transfer equation is written as:

m a b blood skin skin skin
q T T Cp T k
t
T
Cp + − + ∇ ⋅ ∇ =


) ( ) ( ) ( ω ρ ρ , (3-14)
58

where ρ
skin
and Cp
skin
are the density and the specific heat of human skin. k
skin
is the
thermal conductivity of the human skin; ρ
blood
and Cp
blood
is the density and the specific
heat of the blood; ω
b
is blood perfusion; T
a
is the arterial temperature; and q
m
is the
metabolic volumetric heat.

Table 3-1. Human Skin Properties in Skin Model [91]

Human Skin Symbol Value
Thermal conductivity (W/m
.
°C) k
s
0.255
Density (kg/m
3
) ρ
s
1200
Specific heat (J/kg.°C) C
p,s
3600
Thickness (m) Thk
s
8.0X10
-5

Emissivity of human skin ε
s
0.94


Epidermis
Initial surface temperature (K) T
s
310.15
Thermal conductivity (W/m
.
°C) k
s
0.523
Density (kg/m
3
) ρ
s
1200
Specific heat (J/kg.°C) C
p,s
3400
Thickness (m) Thk
s
2.0X10
-3



Dermis
Initial surface temperature (K) T
s
310.15
Thermal conductivity (W/m
.
°C) k
s
0.167
Density (kg/m
3
) ρ
s
1000
Specific heat (J/kg.°C) C
p,s
3060
Thickness (m) Thk
s
1.0X10
-2



Sub-cutaneous
Initial surface temperature (K) T
s
310.15



The boundary conditions for the model at the surface of the skin are (x = L
fab
+
L
gap
), for t > 0,

( )
gap fab
gap fab
L L x
conv cond air rad air
L L x
skin
q q
x
T
T k
+ =
+ =
+ =



/ , ,
) ( . (3-15)
59

The boundary condition at the blood vessel is (x = L
fab
+ L
gap
+ L
tissue
), for t > 0,

T = T
a
.


The initial condition is a given temperature distribution at t = 0. In addition, fabric
temperature is assumed to be initially uniform.

T(x, t = 0) = T
i
(x)

Multi-layer skin model is used in present model. These layers are epidermis,
dermis and subcutaneous with different thickness and thermal properties [91] which is
shown in Table 3-1. The numerical approach utilizes the finite difference method to
predict the temperature and heat flux occurred under simulated flash fire conditions. The
thermal properties of fabric are assumed to change while skin layers’ properties are
assumed constant. The blood perfusion is included only in the latter two regions.

The tissue burn injury model is based on work by Henriques and Moritz [86].
Thermal damage begins when the temperature at the basal layer (the interface between
the epidermis and dermis in human skin) rises above 44 ºC. The destruction rate of the
growing layer can be modeled by a first order chemical reaction. Arrhenius rate equation
can be used for the rate of tissue damage as:

|
.
|

\
|

− =

RT
E
P
dt
d
exp , (3-16)

where Ω = a quantitative measure of burn damage at the basal layer or at any
depth in the dermis
P = the frequency factor or pre-exponential factor, s
-1

E = the activation energy for skin, J/mol
R = the universal gas constant, 8.315 J/kmol·K
60
T = the absolute temperature at the basal or at any depth in the dermis, K
t = total time for which T is above 44 ºC (317.15 K)

The above equation can be integrated over the time interval that the temperature at the
basal layer is above 44 ºC.

dt
RT
E
P
t

|
.
|

\
|

− = Ω
0
exp , (3-17)

For predicting first and second degree burns, T is the temperature of the basal
layer. First degree burn occurs when the value of the burn integral, represented by Ω,
reaches 0.53 at the basal layer, while second degree burn happens when Ω = 1.0 at the
same location. For predicting third degree burns, T is the temperature of the dermal base
(the interface between the dermis and the sub-cutaneous layer). Third degree burn occurs
when Ω = 1.0 at this location. These tissue burn damage criteria can be applied with
providing the appropriate values of P and ∆E. These values were suggested by Weaver
and Stoll [11] for the basal layer and by Takata and et al. [12] for the dermal base. The
values of P and ∆E are:

Epidermis
for T < 50ºC P = 2.185 × 10
124
s
-1

∆E/R = 93,534.9 K
for T ≥ 50ºC P = 1.823 × 10
51
s
-1

∆E/R = 39,109.8 K
Dermis
for T < 50ºC P = 4.32 × 10
64
s
-1

∆E/R = 50,000 K
for T ≥ 50ºC P = 9.39 × 10
104
s
-1

∆E/R = 80,000 K

61


3.4 Finite Difference Method

For the present model, a finite difference method was used to solve the
differential equations that describe heat transfer through the fabric, air gap, and skin
layers [111, 112]. Due to nonlinear term of absorption of incident radiation, the Gauss-
Seidel point-by-point iterative scheme was used to solve these equations. In order to
avoid divergence that is usually found in the iterative scheme, the underrelaxation
process was added to the Gauss-Seidel method. In addition, the Crank-Nicholson implicit
scheme was used to solve the resulting ordinary differential equations in time. The
program was written in Microsoft FORTRAN PowerStation.
62

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES


The numerical model developed by this research models each of the one hundred
twenty-two thermal sensors embedded in the Pyroman
®
body (Figure 4-3). Application
and validation of the model required several experimental studies. The first study
involved characterizing the flash fire generated the Pyroman
®
chamber. The second study
required measurement of the changes in the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat
capacity of the selected protective fabrics as result of the intense heat exposure. Third
analysis examined the existing air gap distribution and sizes between protective garment
and the manikin body, and the effect of heat shrinkage on the distribution of the air gaps
on manikin body.


4.1 Characterizing the Pyroman
®
Thermal Environment

The Pyroman
®
flash fire simulation is produced by eight propane burning
industrial torches. If propane is assumed to react with stoichiometric air, then the
chemical reaction can be written as [71]

If complete combustion of the propane fuel is consumed, adiabatic flame
temperatures varying between 2270K and 2400K are presented [71]. Adiabatic flame
temperature is the maximum possible temperature for this flame. In actual conditions, the
flame temperatures are expected to be cooler due to heat losses to environment and
incomplete combustion.

The Pyroman
®
flash fire exposure was characterized by measuring the flame
temperature and corresponding heat flux alone each of the one hundred twenty-two
2 2 2 2 2 8 3
8 . 18 4 3 76 . 3 5 5 N O H CO N O H C + + × → × + +
63
sensors distributed over the manikin body. These measured temperature and
corresponding heat flux history are used to determine overall heat transfer coefficient.
Specially designed thermal sensors were used to measure flame temperature alone the
manikin surface (Figure 4-1). A Pyrocal sensor was adopted to include type B or type R
thermocouple with diameter 0.005 inch, a type T thermocouple was used to measure
copper disc temperature of Pyrocal sensor (Details of these devices can found in
Appendix 1). Data from these thermocouples were recorded using a LabVIEW Data
Acquisition System (Figure 4-2)


Figure 4-1. Specially Designed Sensor Used to Measure Flame Temperature and Heat Flux


Using these flame measurements methods, the temperature of the flame incident
on the manikin was determined to range between 1100K and 1800K in a 4 second
exposure. The flash fire generated in the manikin chamber was adjusted to produce an
average heat flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec all over the manikin body. Figure 4-4 shows the
distribution of heat flux values of the one hundred twenty-two sensors in Pyroman
®
.
Variations in heat fluxes are expected due to the three dimensional shape of the manikin
surface, and because of the complex and dynamic nature of the flame column surrounded
the manikin. Therefore, depending on the location on the manikin body (e.g. arms, legs,
shoulders), sensors located in different positions on manikin body will have different heat
flux values with respect to the flash fire.

64

Figure 4-2. LabVIEW Data Acquisition System and Software



Figure 4-3. Sensor Numbers and Distribution over Manikin Body


4.1.1 Heat Flux Distribution

An example of calibration burn values before garment test in manikin is given in
Appendix 3 shows the heat flux of 122 sensors and their normal scores. Figure 4-4 shows
a heat flux distribution observed in the manikin flash fire is a normal or bell shaped
65
distribution. In order to further access this distribution normality [113], a normal scores
plot is made as shown in Figure 4-5 which demonstrated that the heat flux distribution of
122 sensors with an average of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec during 4 second exposure exhibits a
approximate normal distribution. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to conform
distribution normality. Details of this statistical analysis can be found in Appendix 5.

0
5
10
15
20
25
1.37 1.482 1.594 1.706 1.818 1.93 2.042 2.154 2.266 2.378 More
Heat Flux (cal/cm
2
sec)
S
e
n
s
o
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Frequency
Cumulative %

Figure 4-4. Histogram and Cumulative Curve of Heat Fluxes of 122 Sensors
around Pyroman in 4 second Exposure


In the manikin test, an average heat flux of 2.00 cal/cm
2
.sec measured from 122
sensors of the manikin is used to simulate flash fire conditions, and the standard deviation
of these heat fluxes distribution is between 0.25 and 0.5. Figure 4-6 shows the heat flux
distributions with different standard deviation for a 4 second exposures. The larger
standard deviation indicates more extreme high and low flux values occurred during the
exposure. A heat flux distribution in a manikin with average of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec is
illustrated in Figure 4-7. Red color represents extremely high values and blue represents
extremely low. A different standard deviation of heat flux distribution will impact the
burn predictions. A parametric study in Chapter 6 will discuss this in detail.
66

The Scatterplot of Heat Flux vs. Normal Scores for Pyroman 122
Sensors
1.35
1.55
1.75
1.95
2.15
2.35
2.55
2.75
1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35 2.55

Figure 4-5. The Scatterplot of Heat Fluxes vs. Normal Scores From a Calibration
4 Second Exposure


Normal Distribution with Different Standard Deviation, Average Heat
Flux 2.00 cal/cm2 sec
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Heat Flux
N
o
m
a
l

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
f
(
x
)
)
SD=0.25
SD=0.38
SD=0.5

Figure 4-6. Heat Flux Distribution with Different Standard Deviation


67





ARM 199
BACK 196
FRONT 202
HEAD 233
LEG 195
160
170
Avg 200
S.D. 28 180
%CV 14.1
190
210
220
230
240
No In.
N010626H
Front Rear
Legend
Flux Levels:


Figure 4-7. Heat Flux Distribution in a Manikin for a 4 second Exposure
with Average 2.00 cal/cm
2
.sec








68
4.1.2 Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination

In order to calculate the heat transfer from the generated flash fire to the manikin
or dressed manikin in the burn chamber, an overall heat transfer coefficient is needed for
each of 122 sensors. The estimation of the heat transfer coefficient, h, from transient
temperature measurements and heat flux calculation has aspects of both the inverse heat
conduction problem and parameter estimation [114].



Figure 4-8. Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimation from Temperature
Measurement and Heat Flux Calculation


In this section, two kinds of sensors are used in Pyroman
®
to examine the heat
transfer coefficient. One is Pyrocal sensor and the other is skin simulant sensor. The heat
transfer coefficient is estimated by sensor surface temperature measurement T
om
and its
flame temperature T
f
. (Figure 4-8). For these experiments, Pyroman
®
was equipped with
specially designed sensor to measure the flame temperature above the sensor in a flash
fire exposure (2.00 cal/cm
2.
sec). Type B and R thermocouples with 0.002" diameter were
used to measure the flame temperature. A type T thermocouple was used to measure the
sensor surface temperature (Figure 4-8).

For the Pyrocal sensor it is treated as a lumped body – that is, one in which the
temperature is a function of time only. A function specification procedure with constant h
Sensor
Flame
Thermocouple measures
flame temp. T
f
(t)
Thermocouple measures
surface temperature T
OM
q
M
surface heat flux
Calculated from temp.
profile
69
is chosen to estimate the heat transfer coefficient [114, 115]. The estimation equation is
as following.

)
ˆ ˆ
( 5 . 0 ) (
ˆ
ˆ
1 −
+ −
=
OM OM f
M
M
T T t T
q
h
(4-1)

where h
M
estimated heat transfer coefficient
q
M
calculated heat flux
T
f
Flame temperature
T
OM
estimated surface temperature at time t
M


The Pyrocal sensor is basically made of thin copper disc. This sensor can be
treated as a lumped body, which the temperature is uniform but varies with time only.
The differential energy equation for a copper disc sensor can be written as:

) ( ) (
0 ∞
− = − + T T h T T K
dt
dT
L c
L s p
ρ (4-2)

where ρ = the density of a copper disc sensor (8682.63 kg/m
3
)
c
p
= the specific heat of a copper disc sensor (389.34 J/kg·ºC)
L
s
= thickness of a copper disc sensor (1.524 mm)
T = the temperature of a copper disc sensor (ºC)
K
L
= the total heat loss coefficient of a copper disc sensor (200 W/m
2
·ºC)
T
0
= the initial temperature of a copper disc (ºC)
h = the heat transfer coefficient between flame and sensor (W/m
2
)
T

= the flame temperature (ºC)

The method is based on the function specification procedure with the h = constant
assumption. The temporary constant, h
M
, is assumed for direct sequential estimation
procedure for h. The sum of squares, S, that is defined as follows is minimized with
respect to h
M
.
70


=
− + − +
− =
r
i
i M i M
T Y S
1
2
1 1
) (
(4-3)

where Y = the measured temperature from experiment
T = the calculated temperature from theoretical analysis
r = the number of future times over which h
M
is temporarily constant.

By taking partial derivative of S with respect to h
M
, and setting the equation equal to zero,
the equation can be rewritten as:

0 ) (
1
1
1 1
=



− +
=
− + − + ∑
M
i M
r
i
i M i M
h
T
T Y (4-4)

The analytical expression for temperature is approximately given by:


+

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
− +
+
+
=
− − +
− ∞

− ∞
− +
) (
) (
exp
1 1
1
1
1
1
M i M
s p
L M
L M
M L M M
M
L M
M L M M
i M
t t
L c
K h
K h
T K T h
T
K h
T K T h
T
ρ
(4-5)

The sensitivity coefficient, Z, is defined as:

M
i M
i M
h
T
Z


=
− +
− +
1
1


From the temperature expression, the sensitivity is rewritten as:

71


+

¦
)
¦
`
¹

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+

¹
´
¦
+
+


+

=
− − +
− − +
− ∞

− ∞ − ∞
− +
) (
) (
exp
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
1 1
1 1
1
1 2
1
2
1
1
M i M
s p
L M
s p
M i M
L M
M L M M
M
L M
M M L
L M
M M L
i M
t t
L c
K h
L c
t t
K h
T K T h
T
K h
T T K
K h
T T K
Z
ρ ρ

(4-6)

Due to nonlinearity of the problem, the Gauss iterative method is needed. First, we
assume that the estimation of h
M
(ν-1)
is known at the previous iteration. Then we search
for new h
M
(ν)
at the current iteration. By solving for h
M
(ν)
, the approximation of the heat
transfer coefficient is:



=

− +
=

− +

− + − +


+ =
r
i
i M
r
i
i M i M i M
M M
Z
Z T Y
h h
1
2 ) 1 (
1
1
) 1 (
1
) 1 (
1 1
) 1 ( ) (
) (
) (
ν
ν ν
ν ν
(4-7)

By using two-term Taylor series expansion and neglecting higher order terms, the
approximation of temperature is explicitly calculated by:

) (
) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 (
1
) 1 (
1
) (
1
− −
− +

− + − +
− + =
ν ν ν ν ν
M M i M i M i M
h h Z T T


The iteration keeps repeating until the changes in h
M
(ν)
are less than some small amount
or criterion, such as:
6
) (
) 1 ( ) (
10


<

ν
ν ν
M
M M
h
h h


After the value of h
M
(ν)
converges, M is increased by one, then the procedure is repeated
for the new h
M
(ν)
. Finally, the transient heat transfer coefficients between the flame and
sensor will be obtained.

72
An example of three Pyrocal sensors’ flame temperature profiles and their sensor
surface temperature responses is shown in Figure 4-9. The dynamic fire situation is
observed from these flame temperature profiles. These data are used to estimate heat
transfer coefficient of each sensor. Figure 4-10 shows an example of an estimated heat
transfer coefficient from the Pyrocal temperature measurements during 4 second
exposure.

Sensor Flame Temperature and Sensor Temperature
During 4 Second Pyroman Exposure
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
Time (Sec)
F
l
a
m
e

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
S
e
n
s
o
r

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Flame Temp. of Sensor 75
Flame Temp. of Sensor 70
Flame Temp. of Sensor 91
Sensor 75 Temp.
Sensor 70 Temp.
Sensor 91 Temp.


Figure 4-9. Pyrocal Sensor Flame Temperatures and Copper Temperatures
During 4 second Exposure


73
Pyroman Sensor Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination
( Pyrocal Sensor)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Time (sec)
H
e
a
t

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
2
.
0
C
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Estimated H. T. Coefficient
Sensor Temperature
Flame Temperature

Figure 4-10. Estimated Heat Transfer Coefficient Using Pyrocal Sensor



The flash fire generated in Pyroman
®
chamber is turbulent jet flames generated
using eight propane torches around manikin body. In a 4 second exposure, a dynamic
burning process is observed as shown in previous fire temperature measurements. From
the heat transfer coefficient determination, it was found that the heat transfer coefficient
is temperature and location dependent because of the dynamic fire and the complicated
manikin body geometry. The location factor was used to represent the influence of
human body, that the embedded sensor surface is not always parallel to flame direction.
Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12 demonstrated the relation of heat transfer coefficient with
temperature and location factor, respectively. The higher temperature tends to produce
large heat transfer coefficient. The location factor influence on heat transfer coefficient
mainly attribute to how well the sensor surface parallel to vertical direction, which is also
the flame direction.

74
Sensor Flame Temperature and H.T. Coefficient
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
Sen68 Sen77 Sen45
Sensor Number
F
l
a
m
e

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
H
e
a
t

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
w
/
m
2
.
0
C
)
Temp.
H.T.Coefficient

Figure 4-11. Flame Temperature and Heat Transfer Coefficient


Sensor Location and H.T. Coefficient
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sen1 Sen97 Sen115 Sen119 Sen6
Sensor Number
H
.
T
.
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
2
.
0
C
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
s
e
n
s
o
r

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
H.T. Coefficient
Location Factor

Figure 4-12. Sensor Location Factor and Its Heat Transfer Coefficient



75
4.2 Characterizing Heat Induced Change in Fabric Properties

Fabric optical properties play an important role in the garment protective
performance, especially in exposures to intense fire environments. The propane burning
torches used to produce a flash fire in the manikin chamber is turbulent jets of flame.
Although these flames usually constitute a convective heat, a significant amount of
thermal energy is transferred by radiation. Because of the significant radiant heat
capacity, the optical properties of the fabric can markedly affect heat absorption.
Treatment of fabric optical properties during the burning process is crucial to modeling
garment thermal protective performance in the Pyroman
®
system.

Fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity is the main factors
governing heat transfer in fabrics. Thermal Conductivity can be determined by using a
variety of methods. This can be divided into two regions. One is normal condition in
which the thermal conductivity is constant while temperature changes; the other is high
temperature range in which the thermal conductivity is a function of temperature.
Guarded hot plate and the Thermal Properties Test Fixture (TPTF) are the methods used
in normal conditions (comfort conditions). In high temperature conditions, the differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC) and model calculation are often used to determine these
fabric properties. Thermal conductivity in absolute dry conditions can be calculated by a
simplified model which uses a weighted sum of the contributions from the solid fibers
and the air, as well as the contribution of radiation heat transfer between fibers. The
calculation results of this model introduced in Chapter 2.

Advancing the accuracy of the model used to predict heat transfer in fabric
exposed to intense heat required a knowledge of heat induced change in fabric thermal
conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. This research used a parameter estimation
approach to quantify fabric thermal properties in dynamic heat exposure.


76
4.2.1 Parameter Estimation Method

Although fabric thermal properties can be measured using DSC and TGA [91],
parameter estimation theory is considered to be the best way to estimate thermophysical
properties from dynamic experiments [116]. The parameter estimation approach uses
experimental measurement and model errors in a statistical context and provides useful
information to optimize the experiment.

Dynamic methods present attractive choice because the experiments required to
generate needed data are reasonably short while producing a significant amount of
information on the thermal behavior of the material. However, dynamic techniques
require more complex modeling of physical phenomenon and a sophisticated capacity to
process signal. Since estimation process embodied by the technical typically use inverse
solution (analytical or numerical), the unavoidable presence of errors in the measured
data may have a detrimental effect in the final estimates, owing to the intrinsic ill-
posedness of any inverse problem. Therefore, in addition to precision measurements, the
key to a reliable estimation of fabric thermophysical properties is the choice of the
algorithm used. Measured data must be analyzed in a statistical context in order to
estimate not only the thermophysical properties, but also the related variances, which are
as important as the unknown properties. To optimize the estimation process, the design of
the dynamic experiment and of the estimation algorithm must be integrated, and
continuously adjusted to improve the accuracy of the estimates [116].

This study conducted experiments to estimate heat induced change in thermal
conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA fabrics in
short duration (4 second) and high flux exposures. In these experiments, the skin simulant
sensor was used to measure heat flux coming through the test fabric and fabric surface
temperature. Thermocouple is employed to measure fabric surface temperature change
during short exposure. These temperature and heat flux were an input to a parameter
estimation code [117] (Figure 4-13).
77

Figure 4-13. Schematic Diagram of the Transient Experiment for Parameter Estimation


The parameter estimation technique involves minimizing a weighted sum of
squares criterion, S, that involves the measured and the calculated from the model.
ji
T ) (β is a function of the estimated thermal parameters, the thermal conductivity and
volumetric heat capacity. The vector β contains the “true” parameter values, and the
estimated values of the parameters are found by minimizing S through the use of a
modified Gauss method.

T
J is the number of the thermocouples,
ji
Y represents the measured temperature at
location
j
X .




2
1 1
) ) ( (
ji
n
i
ji
jt
j
T Y S β − =
∑ ∑
=
78
4.2.2 Estimation of Protective Fabrics Thermal Properties

In the experiment, the heat intensity is set at the order of 70-85 kW/m
2
and the
duration is around 4-6 second. The transient heat flux behind the fabric is measured by
skin simulant sensor using Duhamel’s theorem. Starting from a uniform temperature,
normally at 25
0
C, 65% RH, the desired thermal exposure is imposed, and from the
measured response of the specimen in temperature and heat flux, the effective thermal
conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of the fabric are simultaneously reconstructed,
as a function of time, by solving the associated inverse non-linear heat conduction
problem. An example of this estimation of fabric transient thermal conductivity and
volumetric heat capacity is shown in Figure 4-15. The Fabric is Kevlar/PBI
®
with a
weight of 254g/m
2
. The experiments measured data are presented in Figure 4-14. The
results show a tendency of decrease for both thermal conductivity and volumetric heat
capacity during exposure. This agrees with the research work of Barker and Shalev [21]
about weight loss and density change during bench top exposures. The estimated
transient thermal properties of these two protective fabrics are used as one of the input of
the model.

Fabric Temperature and Skin Simulant Sensor Flux and Temperature
vs. Time
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p

(
0
C
)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
H
e
a
t

F
l
u
x

(
w
/
m
2
)
Fabric Surface Temp
Skin Simulant Sensor Temp
Heat Flux

Figure 4-14. Temperatures and Heat Flux Profiles during Exposure Experiment
79


Following considerations are suggested by practical experience in transient
measurements on fabric material. It is known that the fabrics contain moisture and large
amount of trapped air. During sudden exposure to intense heat, the residual moisture
causes sudden process of evaporation, migration and condensation. These changes along
with the weight loss contribute to change of thermal properties. The estimated values here
during high heating rate and temperature are not the real thermal conductivity and
volumetric heat capacity based on assumed pure conductive model. These effective
estimated values only represent the heat transfer process in this specific exposure
condition including all the phenomena occurred.

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Temperature (
0
C)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
W
/
m
.
K
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

H
e
a
t

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
J
/
m
3
.
K
*
1
0
6
)
Thermal Conductivity
Volumetric Heat Capacity
Power (Volumetric Heat Capacity)
Power (Thermal Conductivity)

Figure 4-15. Estimated Transient Thermal Properties of Kevlar/PBI during 4 Second Exposure


The difference between the thermal conductivities of the Nomex® IIIA and
Kevlar/PBI
®
are expected to be very small [37]. So the estimated properties can be used
to represent the effective thermal conductivity of both materials. Different weight fabrics
have different volumetric heat capacity due to their different densities. Different weight
80
of fabrics’ volumetric heat capacity can be obtained by applying density to the results
shown in Figure 4-17.


4.3 Protective Garments Air Gap Distribution in Pyroman
®
Body

Air gaps entrapped between protective garments and human body are considered
as one the major factors that slow down the heat transfer to skin when exposed to intense
heat conditions. Different air gaps between the fabric and skin will impact the burn
predictions as shown in section 4.2. The determination of air gap’s distribution and
quantification of air gap size at each sensor location of different garments is very crucial
to model Pyroman
®
. These air gap sizes are one of input of the model. To understand its
sizes and distribution is also very important to improve garment thermal protective
performance.


4.3.1 Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology

Three-dimensional body scanning technology [118] developed by [TC]² includes
a white light-based scanner and proprietary measurement extraction software. The
scanner captures hundreds of thousands of data points of an individual's image, and the
software automatically extracts dozens of measurements. Detailed information about this
scanning system is attached in Appendix 6.


4.3.2 Air Gaps Determination of Protective Garments in Pyroman
®


The principal of this air gap determination is superimposing the extracted data
from the nude and dressed Pyroman
®
(Figure 4-16). First data collected from the nude
Pyroman
®
which all the 122 sensors are highlighted by colored dots. The arms are
81
carefully positioned to make maximum surface exposure. This nude manikin scanning
data will used as a base data. Then the dressed Pyroman
®
scanning is performed with the
exactly same manikin position. The next step is superimposing the dressed manikin data
to the base data (nude scanning data) using Geomagic software. A data alignment and
color management are carried out for air gap measurement both local (specific sensor)
and global (contour along specific position horizontally or vertically). These whole
measuring processes are illustrated in Figure 4-17, Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19.

Figure 4-16. Air Gap Determinations by Superimposing Dressed and Nude
Body Scanning Data


A nude and dressed Pyroman
®
automatically extracted measurements are shown
in Figure 4-20. The differences between the nude and dressed at some typical
measurement points are given in Figure 4-21. The size of dressed garments is 42 (chest
measurement in inches) coverall in the VF Corporation “Deluxe” style. The “Deluxe”
style is a typical, high quality industrial coverall with standard pocketing.


82


Figure 4-17. Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Scanning Image




Figure 4-18. Superimposed 3D Body Scanning Data Showing the Sensor Positions


83


Figure 4-19. Slicing the ‘Body’ at Specific Sensor Position, Measuring Air Gap




Figure 4-20. Nude and Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Measurements Image


84
The data of Figure 4-20 show that the air gaps of the coveralls dressed in manikin
do not evenly distributed. Some areas like shoulder, knee and upper back do not hold
much air gap, while other areas such as waist, thigh show a lot of air gaps between. This
is also can be seen in Figure 4-22 which shows the average of arm, leg, front and back of
different sizes of Kevlar/PBI coverall.

3D Image Measurements of Pyroman Body v.s. Dressed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
N
e
c
k
C
i
r
c
C
h
e
s
t
C
i
r
c
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
W
a
i
s
C
i
r
H
i
p
s
C
i
r
T
h
i
g
h
M
a
x
m
a
x
b
i
c
e
p
m
a
x
w
r
i
s
t
B
a
c
k
n
e
c
k
1
0
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
1
4
A
c
r
o
s
s
C
h
e
s
t
A
c
r
o
s
s
B
a
c
k
F
t
w
a
i
s
t
1
8
B
k
w
a
i
s
t
1
9
A
b
d
o
m
e
n
F
T
F
t
N
e
c
k
t
o
W
a
i
s
t
F
t
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
S
l
o
p
e
B
a
c
k
o
f
N
e
c
k
t
o
W
a
i
s
t
B
k
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
S
l
o
p
e
w
a
i
s
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
h
i
p
h
e
i
g
h
t
K
n
e
e
H
e
i
g
h
t
O
u
t
s
e
a
m
L
t
b
k
w
a
i
s
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
3
9
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
R
i
s
e
R
i
g
h
t
I
n
s
e
a
m
L
t
K
n
e
e
M
a
x
C
r
o
t
c
h
L
e
n
g
t
h
F
u
l
l
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
L
e
n
g
t
h
R
t
s
h
i
r
t
s
l
e
e
v
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
c
o
l
l
a
r
Typical Positons
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Dressed
Nude

Figure 4-21. Air Gap Distribution between Garment and Manikin at the Typical Positions

In order to determine the air gap distributions of different garment and size, the
coverall Kevlar/PBI
®
with size 44, size 42, and size 40 are scanned in Pyroman
®
body.
The air gaps are not evenly distributed along the Pyroman
®
body. The Figure 4-22 shows
the average of air gaps in arm, legs front and back area of these different garment sizes. It
is as expected that among all these three sizes legs hold the largest air gaps and arms hold
the least. In garment size 44 large air gaps are observed in the back. It does not show
much difference in garment size 40 among arms, front and back. In garment size 42
which fits the Pyroman
®
body shows the front area holds more air gaps than back and
arm area. These different air gap sizes of different sized garment could change the skin
burn damage pattern in the exposures because of the role of air gap in heat transfer
process in protective system.
85

Figure 4-22. Different Sized Garments and Their Air Gaps in Pyroman Body


The different coverall (Nomex and Kevlar/PBI) with the same garment size 42 and
pattern are examined and their air gap distributions are illustrated in Figure 4-23. It is
shown that Kevlar/PBI
®
protective coverall holds larger average air gap than
Nomex
®
ШA protective coverall. This is mainly attributable to the different fabric
drapability and stiffness.

It is known that Nomex garment shrinks when fabric temperature reaches 400
0
C
degrees during 4 second exposure [48]. The shrinkage during exposure reduces the air
gap and increases heat transfer rate. In order to examine the air gap change, a 4 second
exposed Nomex
®
ШA coverall with size 42 is scanned using three-dimensional body
scanning system and the measurement results are given in Figure 4-24. A sharp decrease
in average air gap is observed, especially in legs, which more than 90% air gap is
reduced. The overall garment shrinkage for 4 second exposure is more than 50% on
average. The reduced air gap will increase the heat transfer and a worse skin damage is
anticipated.
86

Figure 4-23. Different Garments with Same Size and Pattern Shows Different Air Gap


Figure 4-24. Comparisons of Air Gaps Before and After 4sec Exposure

To summarize the air gap distribution of the different sized protective coveralls
between the manikin in this study using the three-dimensional body scanning technology,
87
a 3D chart is drawn shown in Figure 4-25. These air gap measurements include
Kevlar/PBI
®
coverall with three sizes (size 44, size 42, and size 40) and Nomex 42
coverall before and after 4 second heat exposure. The knowledge gained through these
results is very crucial in building this model. First, different garment size shows different
air gap size distribution over the Pyroman
®
body; second, in all the garments leg area
hold the largest average air gaps and arm area hold least; third, the garment fabric
drapability and stiffness change the air gap distribution between the coverall and
Pyroman
®
body; and finally Nomex
®
ШA (6.5oz/yd
2
) garment shrinkage after a 4 second
exposure reduces more than 50% air gaps on average and as much as 90% in the manikin
leg.


Nomex®42
Burned
Kevlar®/PBI®
40
Nomex®42
Kevlar®/PBI®
42
Kevlar®/PBI®
44
Arm
Front
Back
Leg
3.28
15.06
18.50
22.11
23.12
4.59
7.31
5.93
6.23
18.46
5.35
6.88
10.21
11.50
13.96
2.92
6.77
6.58
6.87
10.26
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
A
i
r

G
a
p

S
i
z
e

(
m
m
)
Arm
Front
Back
Leg

Figure 4-25. Air Gap Distribution of Different Sized Coveralls Dressed in Pyroman

The air gaps of these coveralls at the sensor locations are listed in Appendix 7.


88
4.3.3 Ease Measurement Method

In this research, ease measurements were performed before and after manikin
burning test to measure the changes before and after exposure as a supplement for air gap
determination. This method measures the excess fabric at specific points on garment from
dressed manikin. Detailed information can be found in Appendix 8.





































89


CHAPTER 5 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND MODEL
EVALUATION


In this section, numerical model predictions are given at several sensor locations
to show temperature distribution in the protective fabric, air gaps between the coverall
and the manikin, and also in human skins. Skin burn damages and integral value (Ω)
change during exposure and cooling period are illustrated at these specific sensor
locations on the manikin. In order to validate the established numerical model, more than
40 manikin burn tests ( including calibration burn) were performed to cover varying
exposure times (from 3 second to 5 second), configurations (with and without underwear)
and different kinds of coveralls (Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA).

5.1. Garments Used in This Study

Two protective garments are selected in this research: Kevlar/PBI
®
coverall and
Nomex
®
ШA coverall. These coveralls are typical, high quality industrial coverall with
standard pocketing made by VF cooperation in “Deluxe” style [Figure 6-9].

5.1.1 Garments Preparation

All garments used in this research are laundering 5 times by Cintas Laboratory
using their standard industrial laundering procedure before manikin test. This will be
similar to ASTM 1449-92 but temperature and detergents will be modified to AATCC
135. The garments are conditioned at 21 ± 3
0
C, 65 ± 5% relative humidity.
5.1.2. Garments Fabric Thickness

Fabric thickness is a complex textile property since it is known to depend on the
pressure on local applied in the measurement [18]. Pressure sensitive thermal effective
90
thickness must be carefully considered to assess the thermal protective performance of
fabric. Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show how the fabrics of Kevlar/PBI
®
garment (4.5
oz/yd
2
) and Nomex
®
ШA garment thickness varies as a function of the pressure of the
measurement. These data show that the thickness of these fabrics (laundering 5 times )
varies significantly as shown in the figures: from approximately 1.2 mm to 0.6 mm from
low to high pressure. Most of the thickness change occurs at relatively low applied loads
(< 10g/cm2). This is an important consideration since fabric thickness is known to be
clearly correlative with entrapped air. Therefore, fabric thickness, especially the effective
thermal thickness, are expected to be important determinants of thermal protective
performance


Garment Fabric Kevlar/PBI 4.5 oz/yd
2
KES-FB3 Compression Test
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Garment Fabric thickness (mm)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
g
f
/
c
m
2
)
Pressure EMC = 59.41%
LC = 0.3480
RC = 26.93%
WC = 0.5786

Figure 5-1. Kevlar/PBI Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load
(Measured on KES compression test)



91
Nomex 6.5 oz/yd
2
Garment Fabric KES-FB3 Compression Test
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Fabric Thickness (mm)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
g
f
/
c
m
2
)
Pressure
EMC = 53.33%
LC = 0.3509
RC = 28.82%
WC = 0.5754

Figure 5-2. Nomex
®
ШA Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load
(Measured on KES compression test)



5.1.3. Garment Fabric Thermal Properties

The two kinds of protective fabrics thermal conductivity and volumetric heat
capacity were estimated using parameter estimation method (see 4.2.2). The emissivity of
0.9 and transmissivity of 0.01 of these two fabrics were chosen for each of these two
fabrics [91].


5.1.4. Summary of Garments and Fabric Properties Used in the Model

The garments type and fabric thermal properties used in present model are
summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-2 shows the cotton underwear thermal properties used
in this research.
92


Table 5-1. Test Garments Style and Fabric Property


Garment

Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall

Nomex
®
ШA Coverall
Garment Fabric
60% para-aramid
and 40% PBI
93% meta-aramid,
5% para-aramid
and 2% anti-static fiber
Fabric thickness: 0.7 mm 0.8mm
Weight 4.5 oz/yd
2
(153g/m
2
) 6.0oz/yd
2
(203g/m
2
)
Fabric Thermal
Conductivity
Transient
From 0.15-0.06 (W/m.K)
Transient
From 0.15-0.06 (W/m.K)
Fabric Volumetric
Heat Capacity
Transient
See Figure 4-16
Range 1.53 - 0.76
(J/m
3
.K*10
6
)
Transient
See Figure 4-16
Range 1.89-0.81
(J/m
3
.K*10
6
)
Extinction Coefficient γ 0.8
Garment type and
size
“Deluxe” style coverall
size 42
(see Figure 6-12)
“Deluxe” style coverall
Size 42
(see Figure 6-12)
Manufacturer VF Corporation VF Corporation


Table 5-2. Thermal Properties of Cotton Underwear

Property Symbol Value
Weight W(g/m2) 146
Thermal conductivity k
underwear
0.07
Volumetric heat capacity ρ Cp
underwea
(J/ m
3
K) 2.73X10
5
Thickness L
underwear
(mm) 0.95
Emissivity ε
underwear
0.90
93
5.2. Fire Boundary Conditions

Usually several calibration burns are required to perform before and after manikin
garment tests to confirm the average heat flux of one hundred twenty-two sensors and
their standard deviation are within the range. Table 5-3 shows the average heat flux of the
11 days before and after garment manikin tests. An average heat flux values of each
individual sensor among these calibrations are used as the fire boundary conditions for
the model. The average values are listed in Appendix 2. Not only good consistency on the
average heat flux is observed among these calibration burns, but also the individual
sensors in Pyroman
®
show excellent consistency (Figure 5-3). Flame temperature profiles
at some selected sensor positions are listed in Appendix 10.


Table 5-3. Calibrated Heat Flux Values for Pyroman Before and After Burns

Day Before (cal/cm
2
sec) After (cal/cm
2
sec)
Day 1 2.01 *
Day 2 2.02 1.97
Day 3 2.03 2.02
Day 4 2.03 *
Day 5 2.03 2.02
Day 6 2.02 2.01
Day 7 2.00 *
Day 8 2.03 2.01
Day 9 2.00 *
Day 10 2.02 2.02
Day 11 2.03 1.99
* No calibration data collected after day of exposure


94
Sensor Heat Flux vs Different Days
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Day
H
e
a
t

F
l
u
x

(
c
a
l
/
c
m
2

s
e
c

*
1
0
-
2
)
Sensor (Arm)4
Sensor (Back)99
Sensor (Front) 89
Sensor (Leg) 53


Figure 5-3. Sensor Flux Values on Different Calibration Days



5.3. Garments Air Gap Size Determination

The air gap sizes between the garment and the manikin at each sensor location are
determined using 3D Body Scanning Technology. The values of Kevlar/PBI
®
coverall
size 42, Nomex
®
ШA coverall size 42, and burned Nomex
®
ШA coverall size 42 (exposed
in 4 sec exposure manikin test) are given in Appendix 7.

5.4. Model Results and Predictions

In this section, two sensor positions (sensor #60 and #sensor 56) in the Pyroman
®

body are selected with measured air gap and flame boundary conditions. The predictions
were made in 4 second exposure with average flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec. Some other
parameters used in model prediction are given in Table 5-4.

95



The temperature distributions in fabric, air gap, and skin in different time for a 4
second exposure for sensor #60 (air gap: 3.64mm) and sensor #56 (air gap 1.2mm) are
illustrated in Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5 respectively. Comparing the temperature of the front
and back of the fabric in 4 second exposure, it shows almost 300
0
C temperature
differences and the temperature distribution in the fabric is not linear because of the
fabric transient thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity, as well as the in-depth
radiation. About 250
0
C temperature drop in the air gap is also demonstrated in these two
cases.


Table 5-4. Parameters Used in Model Predictions

Conditions Symbol Value
Temp. of ambient air T
amb
300.0 K
Emissivity of hot gases ε
g
0.02
View factor between fabric and ambient F
fabric-ambient
0.89
View factor between fabric and human skin F
fabric-skin
1.0
Total time
4.0 sec
Time step
0.05 sec
Error 1.0x10
-6

Relaxation factor α 1.0
Maximum iteration
1000

96
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Distance (mm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Time 1 sec Time 1.5 sec
Time 2.0 sec Time 2.5 sec
Time 3.0 sec Time 3.5 Sec
Time 4.0 Sec
Air gap: 3.64mm
Fabric
0.7mm
Skin layers

Figure 5-4. Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second
Exposure with 3.64mm Air-gap (Sensor #60 location)



0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Distance (mm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Time 1 sec Time 1.5 sec
Time 2.0 sec Time 2.5 sec
Time 3.0 sec Time 3.5 Sec
Time 4.0 Sec
Air Gap 1.2mm
Fabric
0.7mm
Skin Layers

Figure 5-5. Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second
Exposure with 1.2mm Air-gap (Sensor #56 location)

97
The temperature histories in the skin model for these two sensor locations are
shown in Figure 5-6 and the corresponding integral values (Ω) are given in Figure 5-7
and Figure 5-8, respectively. The peaks of these temperature profiles for second and third
degree burn all appear behind 4 second. This indicates that the energy stored energy in
fabric goes on transferring to skin after exposure. For the case of sensor 60, the
temperatures for second degree burn rises above 50
0
C while the temperature for third
degree burn never reaches 50
0
C. In this case the second burn time occurs at 7.168 second
and no third degree burn which is shown by their Omega values in Figure 5-7. In the
case of sensor 56, however, the temperature for second degree burn rises above 65
0
C and
50
0
C for the third degree burn. Consequently, as shown by their Omega values (Figure 5-
8), the second degree burn occurs at 4.58 second and third degree burn occurred at
relatively longer time, 27.58 second.

30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Skin 2nd for Sensor 56
Skin 3rd for Sensor 56
Skin 2nd for Sensor 60
Skin 3rd for Sensor 60
4 second exposure

Figure 5-6. Temperature Profiles in Skin Model for a 4 Second Exposure
98
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Time (sec)
H
e
n
r
i
q
u
e
s
'

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

2
n
d

b
u
r
n

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
H
e
n
r
i
q
u
e
s
'

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

3
r
d

B
u
r
n
Integral value for 2nd burn
Integral value for 3rd burn
4 second
exposure
For second degree burn, Temperature = 44 C at time = 3.17 sec
Second degree burn occurs at time = 7.168 sec
For Third degree burn, Temperature = 44 C at time = 7.60 sec
No third degree burn occurs.

Figure 5-7. Omega Integral Value ( Sensor #60) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (sec)
H
e
n
r
i
q
u
e
s

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

2
n
d

D
e
g
r
e
e

B
u
r
n
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
H
e
n
r
i
q
u
e
s

I
n
t
e
g
r
a

V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

3
r
d

B
u
r
n
Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd Burn
Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd Burn
Third degree burn occurs at time 27.58 sec
Second degree burn occurs at time 4.58 sec
4 second exposure

Figure 5-8. Omega Integral Value after (Sensor #56) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure




99


The added one layer cotton underwear reduces the heat transfer to skin and lowers
the temperature rising in skin layers. In order to compare the temperature change in the
skin model, a comparison is made by adding one layer to previous sensor case, sensor 56.
The results are given in Figure 5-9. Without underwear the time to second degree burn is
4.58 second, while with underwear the time moves to 7.35 second and no third degree
burn occurs. Figure 5-10 shows the lowered Henriques’ integral value for third degree
burn which indicates no burn happened. This is mainly attributed to the extra insulation
layer slowing down heat transfer to skin and reduced temperature rising in skin.

35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Skin 2nd for Sensor 56 Skin 3rd for Sensor 56
Skin 2nd for Sensor 56 with underwear Skin 3rd for Sensor 56 with underwear
Without Underwear:
2nd degree burn occurs at 4.58 sec
3rd degree burn occurs at 27.58 sec
With Underwear:
2nd degree burn occurs at 7.35 sec
No 3rd degree burn


Figure 5-9. Temperature History in Skin with Underwear in 4 second Exposure
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (sec)
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

2
n
d

B
u
r
n
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

V
a
l
u
e

f
o
r

3
r
d

B
u
r
n
Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd Burn Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd Burn with underwear
Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd Burn Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd with underwear


Figure 5-10. Omega Value with and without Underwear in 4 second Exposure


5.5. Model Evaluation

The numerical model developed by this research was used to estimate the burn
injuries expected to the Pyroman
®
manikin clothed with one layer protective coveralls
made with Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA, with or without cotton underwear. The
garment type and fabric thermal properties are shown in Table 5-1. Cotton underwear
thermal properties are given in Table 5-2.

In order to validate the established numerical model, more than 40 manikin burn
tests ( including calibration burn) are performed to cover varying exposure time (from 3
second to 5 second), configuration (with and without underwear) and different kinds
garments (Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA). These garment manikin tests results are
compared with the numerical model in terms of predictions of second degree burn, third
degree burn and total burn percentage. Three replicates are conducted for each garment
test conditions.

101
These garments manikin tests covered 11 days. Table 5-2 shows the average heat
flux of the 11 days before and after tests. An average of each individual sensor of these
calibrations is used as input of the model for fire boundary conditions.

5.5.1. One Layer Garments without Underwear

Figure 5-11 shows the comparison of manikin test results and numerical model
predictions of Kevlar/PBI
®
coverall after three and four second exposure. The burn
location distribution of manikin test and model prediction are also compared in Figure 5-
12 and Figure 5-13 for three second and Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 for four second
exposure. From these data and location distributions it is clear that this numerical mode
did a good job in predicting burn injuries of protective coveralls exposed in three and
four second intense heat condition.

Mankikin
Three Second
Model
Three Second
Mankikin
Four Second
Model
Four Second
3
rd
%
2
n
d
%
T
o
ta
l %
24.33
21.31
58.77
60.66
17.73
12.29
50.83 48.36
6.60
9.02
7.93
12.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
3rd %
2nd %
Total %


Figure 5-11. Comparison between Kevlar/PBI
®
Garment Manikin Test and
Numerical Model Prediction without Underwear

102

Figure 5-12. Second and Third Degree Burn Location of Pyroman Test for
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall in 3 sec Exposure



Figure 5-13. Second and Third Degree Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall in 3sec Exposure
103


Figure 5-14. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall in 4 sec Exposure



Figure 5-15. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall in 4sec Exposure


104


For Nomex
®
ШA coverall, the comparison of manikin test results and model
predictions are shown in Figure 5-16. The test data and model predictions are very close
for four second exposure; for three second exposure, however, it shows a little difference
in both 2
nd
degree burn and 3
rd
degree burn. This is expected because the fire boundary
conditions used in this model are from four second calibration burns and the difference in
heat transfer coefficients for three second duration may be a factor to this deviation. The
burn location for three second is listed in Figure 5-17 (manikin) and Figure 5-18 (model).
For four second exposure it is given in Figure 5-19 (manikin) and Figure 5-20 (model).
These burn locations of manikin test and model prediction show a similar pattern.



Mankikin
Three Second
Model
Three Second
Mankikin
Four Second
Model
Four Second
3
r
d

%
2
n
d

%
T
o
t
a
l

%
30.6
25.41
60.67
63.11
24
14.75
48.37
44.26
6.6
10.66
12.30
18.85
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
3rd %
2nd %
Total %

Figure 5-16 . Comparison between Nomex
®
ШA Garment Manikin Test and
Numerical Model Prediction without Underwear



105



Figure 5-17. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Nomex
®
ШA Coverall
in 3 sec Exposure




Figure 5-18. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall in 3 sec Exposure

106

Figure 5-19. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall in 4 sec Exposure




Figure 5-20. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall in 4sec Exposure



107
5.5.2. One Layer Garments with Underwear

The comparison of manikin test and model prediction for Kevlar/PBI
®
and
Nomex
®
ШA coverall with cotton underwear are illustrated in Figure 5-21 and Figure 5-
22. These comparisons indicate that the numerical model is able to predict burn damage
under one layer protective garments with underwear. Recalling the assumptions we made
for this additional cotton underwear in chapter 3 that no air gap between the underwear
and skin, this may be the main factor cause the difference in five second exposure. The
burned sensor locations of these with underwear are listed in Appendix 9.


Mankikin
Four Second
Model
Four Second
Mankikin
Five Second
Model
Five Second 3
r
d

%
2
n
d

%
T
o
t
a
l

%
43.20
39.33
53.53
66.38
35.80
29.5
41.77 54.91
7.40
9.83
11.77
11.47
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
3rd %
2nd %
Total %

Figure 5-21. Comparison between Kevlar/PBI
®
Garment Manikin Test and
Numerical Model Prediction with Underwear






108
Mankikin
Four Second
Model
Four Second
Mankikin
Five Second
Model
Five Second 3
r
d

%
2
n
d

%
T
o
t
a
l

%
45.93
41.8
58.20
66.4
38.27
27.05
35.80
42.62
7.67
14.75
22.40 23.78
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
3rd %
2nd %
Total %

Figure 5-22. Comparison between Nomex
®
ШA Garment Manikin Test and
Numerical Model Prediction with Underwear


5.5.3. Model Evaluation Summary


Figure 5-23 and Figure 5-24 show the summary results of these manikin test
results and model predictions. These results lead us to believe that this numerical 1D
model successfully predict thermal protective performance in terms of burn injury of
Kevlar/PBI
®
and Nomex
®
ШA protective coveralls exposed to intense flash fire
conditions (2.00 cal/cm
2
sec ) at varying exposure time. This model can differentiate
varying exposure time and the clothing configuration of with and without cotton
underwear. Garment shrinkage during exposure can be taken into account by considering
the changes of air gap size between garment and manikin body. Other shrinkage
parameters such as shrinkage time and rate can also be involved into model. The success
of modeling these Nomex
®
ШA and Kevlar/PBI
®
protective garments at varying exposure
time provides us a very useful tool to understand and explore protective garment systems
and manikin thermal protective evaluation system.
109

Figure 5-23. Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Kevlar/PBI
®



Figure 5-24. Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Nomex
®
ШA


110

CHAPTER 6 PARAMETRIC STUDY


The primary motivation for developing the model is to engineer better protective
garments. This can be accomplished by using the model to perceive the effects of fabric
material and manikin test in predicting a potential burn injury. It can even be used to
understand complicated skin and burn evaluation models. These manikin test parameters
can be categorized into four groups: fabric thermophysical properties, garment factors,
factors associated with manikin test itself and skin model.

6.1 Influence of Fabric Thermophysical Properties

The thermophysical properties of the garment are of importance to thermal
protective performance. The main thermophysical properties govern heat transfer through
the fabrics are thickness, thermal conductivity (k) and volumetric heat capacity (ρC
p
).
Fabric optical properties including emissivity (є) and transmissivity (τ) also influence
heat transfer, especially exposed in intense flash fire environments. A serious of
parametric studies were performed to determine the effects of varying fabric thermal
properties on the thermal protective performance predicted by this model, a series of
parametric studies are performed. The range of values for each of the properties used in
the parametric studies is given in Table 6-1, while the results of the model numerical
results are discussed below.







Table 6-1. Range of Values of Thermophysical Properties of Garment Fabric
111

Fabric Thermophysical Properties
Property Range
Thickness (mm) 0.3-2.4
Thermal Conductivity (W/m
0
C) 0.02-0.2
Volumetric Heat Capacity (J/m
3
K * 10
6
) 0.2-2
Emissivity 0.2-1
Transmissivity 0.001-0.9
6.1.1. Fabric Thickness

As mentioned in 5.1.2, fabric thickness is simple nominal values and will change
after laundering and during exposure. In order to examine the effect of thickness on
garment protective performance, the thickness values varied from 0.3 to 2.4mm with the
input into numerical model. The commonly used protective fabric thickness is about 0.5 –
0.8mm. Figure 6-1 shows predicted relationship between the fabric thickness and
garment protective performance. The main parameters for this prediction are given in
Table 6-2. Skin model, burn evaluation model and others relate to this model are the
same as used in chapter 5.

Table 6-2. Model Parameters for Garment Thickness Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thermal Properties
Transient, see
Figure 4-16
And Table 5-1
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4

112
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fabric Thickness (mm)
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-1. Relationship between Burn Damage Predicted by
Model and Fabric Thickness

Figure 6-1 shows the expected decrease in total burn with fabric thickness. Three
regimes can be distinguished. When fabric thickness is below 0.6 mm and lager than 0.9,
the total burn does not show much change. In the range from 0.6 to 0.9mm, a sharp drop
is observed. Increasing the fabric thickness increases fabric thermal resistance, it can be
expected to increase the temperature difference of back side of garment material and the
side exposed to the flash fire, thus leads to lower fabric back side temperature and a
decrease in the rate of energy transfer across the layers of the fabric and the skin. This is
expected since the radiation heat transmission is the 4th power of absolute temperature at
the back of the fabric. This may explain the sharp drop in predicted burns between 0.6
and 0.9mm. Below 0.6 mm the second degree burn trades off with third degree burns. In
such a case some second degree burn gets worse and change to third degree burn
although total burn does not change significantly. Little addition burn injury protection is
gained with single layer fabrics greater than 0.9mm at this exposure condition.

Commercial available single layer protective fabric thickness typically varies
between 0.5mm-0.8mm. It is interesting to note that the analytical model permits the
113
greatest influence of changes with this thickness change. Therefore, Increases in fabric
thickness in this range can be expected to increase the thermal protective performance.
Additional garment components, such as pockets and bands that increase thickness, will
also change the protective performance.

6.1.2. Thermal Conductivity

Thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity are the main parameters
governing heat transfer in fabrics. Thermal conductivity is a heat transport property,
while volumetric heat capacity is considered as thermodynamic properties. Moisture
content in fabric changes both the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity.

For the parametric study, the thermal conductivity is allowed to vary between
0.02 and 0.24 W/m.
0
C. The predicted second, third and total body burn are shown in
Figure 6-2. The main model parameters are given in Table 6-3. Skin model, burn
evaluation model and others relate to this model are same as used in chapter 5.


Table 6-3. Model Parameters for Fabric Conductivity Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
Transient, see
Figure 4-16 and
Table 5-1
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4


114

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Thermal Conductivity (W/m
0
C)
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-2. Garment Fabric Thermal Conductivity and Predicted
Pyroman Burn Estimate

Fabric thermal conductivity, which is referred to as a transport property, provides
an indication of the rate at which energy is transferred by the diffusion process. The
larger thermal conductivity, the more chances to increase the rate of heat transfer. At
specific exposures, this will cause the temperature of the back of the garment rising
faster, hence increasing the energy transfer between the fabric and skin. The influence of
fabric thermal conductivity on manikin estimated burn injury is shown in Figure 6-2. The
model predicts a sharp increase in total burn as well as in second and third degree burn
when the fabric thermal conductivity ranges from 0.02-0.8 W/m
0
C. Beyond 0.8 W/m
0
C,
the model predicts the total burn relatively constant, although third degree burn is
predicted to increase as the fabric conductivity increase.

6.1.3. Volumetric Heat Capacity

Volumetric heat capacity is the product of fabric density (ρ) and specific heat (C
p
)
which it is a measure of the ability of a material to store thermal energy. For this
parametric study, the fabric volumetric heat capacity is allowed to vary between 0.2 x 10
6
115
- 2 x 10
6
J/m
3
K. The main parameters for this prediction are listed in Table 6-4. Skin
model, burn evaluation model and others relate to this model are the same as used in
chapter 5.

Table 6-4. Model Parameters for Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal conductivity
Transient, see
Figure 4-16
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4



The analytical model prediction indicates and inverse connection between fabric
volumetric heat capacity and the estimated body burn (Figure 6-3). Total burn prediction
is predicted to hold relatively constant below volumetric heat capacity of 0.7 x 10
6
J/m
3
K,
while second and third degree burn trade off each other. Between 0.8 x 10
6
and 1.4 x 10
6

J/m
3
K, a markedly decrease in estimated body burn is observed. As the capacity of the
fabric to store energy increases, backside temperature of fabric decrease as the result of
less energy transferred through the fabric. Moisture content in fabrics can significantly
change volumetric heat capacity; hence it can significantly influence thermal protective
performance.

116
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Volumetric Heat Capacity (J/m
3
K * 10
6
)
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-3. Effect of Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity and Predicted Thermal Protection

6.1.4. Emissivity

Emissivity is the ratio of the radiant energy emitted by a surface to the radiant
energy emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature. Fabric emissivity depends
strongly on the nature of surface, which is influence by the method of fabrication,
finishing, thermal cycling, and chemical reactions with the environment [120]. This
optical parameter is very important in heat transfer in air gaps between fabric surface and
skin, especially in intense thermal environments where the dominate mode of heat
transfer is by radiation in the air gap. In this model for fabric Kevlar/PBI and Nomex, an
emissivity of 0.9 is chosen. This agrees with Morse, et al. [31] who measured values
between 0.88 and 0.91 for virgin and charred Nomex and Kevlar/PBI fabrics. In figure 6-
4 an emissivity change from 0.2 to 1 is studied in term of burn prediction by this model.
The main parameters in the model are given in Table 6-5.




117
Table 6-5. Numerical Model Setup

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4


Fabric Emissivity vs. Garment Thermal Protective Performance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Emissivity
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-4. Effect of Fabric Emissivity on Garment Protective Predictions

Fabric emissivity plays an important role in garment protective performance in
flash fire environments. The reason for this is that the dominated heat transfer mode in
the air gap between the fabric and skin is radiation. The energy transferred through this
mode is proportional to the fabric emissivity. Lower emissivity value will decrease the
rate of heat transfer between fabric and skin. Fabric finishing, dyeing process may
118
dramatically change its emissivity, for example, coating with aluminized or some metal
material may reduce fabric emissivity from 0.9 to 0.5. As illustrated in Figure 6-4, the
fabric emissivity change mainly increase the second burn prediction.

6.1.5. Transmissivity

In this model, an extinction coefficient is introduced to represent in-depth
absorption of incident radiation as discussed in chapter 3. Transmissivity measured from
these two kinds of protective fabrics are used to calculate the extinction coefficient. The
fabric transmissivity here represents the ability of absorption of incident radiation. It is a
property of fabric structure dependent. For this model a transmissivity of 0.01 is chosen
for each of the two fabrics. A range from 0.001 to 0.5 is used to study its influence on
garment protective performance predicted using this model. The main parameters
associated with the model are given in Table 6-6. The results indicate that fabric
transmissivity does not obviously change the burn prediction. It does, however, influence
the time to second and third degree burn (Table 6-7)

Table 6-6. Model Parameters for Fabric Transmissivity Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4





119
Table 6-7. Fabric Transmissivity Influence on Time to Body Burn Predicted by Model

Fabric Transmissivity Influence on Time to 2nd and 3rd Degree Burn
Time to 2nd degree burn Time to 3rd degree burn
Fabric Tran. Transmissivity Transmissivity
Sensor Number 0.001 0.1 0.5 0.001 0.1 0.5
Sensor 75 10.08 10.01 9.99 no No no
Sensor 2 17.8 17.15 16.95 no No no
Sensor 119 39.8 27.61 25.36 no No no
Sensor 3 2.95 2.94 2.94 8.51 8.5 8.49
Sensor 62 4.65 4.64 4.64 20.49 20.37 20.33

6.2. Initial, Ambient and Fire Distribution Influence

Garment initial temperatures, ambient temperature of the chamber and generated
flash fire heat flux distribution along the manikin body have large effect on thermal
protective performance prediction. In ASTM F1930-00, The standard test method for
evaluation of flame resistant clothing for protective against flash fire simulations using an
instrumented manikin, the garment should be conditioned at least 24 hours in 20
0
C and
65% relative humidity and the calculated heat flux standard deviation is less or equal to
0.5 cal/cm
2
sec of average 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec. In this parametric study, all these parameters
are examined using this model. The main parameters for this model are in Table 6-8.

Table 6-8. Numerical Model Setup

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4

120

6.2.1. Fabric Initial Temperature

The garment temperature range is varied between 0
0
C and 45
0
C to simulate in
winter situation (temperature at 0
0
C) and warm-up conditions at which temperature is
about 35 - 45
0
C. The prediction results are shown in Figure 6-5.

The data from model prediction indicate that garment initial temperature shows a
significant influence on thermal protective performance predictions. Large fabric
volumetric heat capacity is considered to be the main factor for this influence. The
temperature of the back of the garment with a lower initial temperature is rising slower
than the higher one during the same exposure. This decreased temperature rising in the
back of the fabric slows down the heat transfer to skin. The fabric initial temperature
primary leads to second degree burn prediction changes while the third degree prediction
keeps relatively unchanged (Figure 6-5).

Garment Initial Temperature vs Burn Prediction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Temperature (
0
C)
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-5. Effect of Garment Initial Temperature on Body Burn Predictions

121
6.2.2. Ambient Temperature

A range of 0
0
C - 45
0
C ambient temperature is used in model parametric study.
Normally the ambient temperature of the test chamber is around 25
0
C for conditioned
chamber.

The results from model predictions show that the ambient temperature has a
relative small effect on protection prediction offered by the garments (Figure 6-6). It
should be noted that this effect is mainly on third degree burn prediction, especially when
ambient temperature exceeds 35
0
C. This is mainly because the higher ambient
temperature slows down the cooling rate after burn, and consequently, the slower cooling
process increase the heat transfer to skin.
Ambient Temperature vs Burn Prediction
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Ambient Temperature (
0
C)
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
3
r
d

%
)
2nd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%
3rd Burn %

Figure 6-6. Ambient Temperature Effect on Garment Thermal Protective Prediction


6.2.3. Same Garment and Ambient Temperature

This is a case that combines garment initial temperature and ambient temperature
effect. The low garment and ambient temperature is selected to simulate the severe winter
conditions, while the relative high temperature is to simulate the warmed up garment in
122
hot environments. The ranges of these temperatures are between -30
0
C – 45
0
C. The main
parameters used in numerical model are listed in Table 6-8.

The model predictions indicate that the effects of initial garment and ambient
temperature on burn prediction are significant (Figure 6-7). This influence is primary on
second degree burn prediction. Lower fabric and initial temperatures slow down the back
side temperature rise of the fabric, therefore, it decreases the heat transfer between the
fabric and skin.

Garment Fabric and Ambient Temperature vs. Burn Prediction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (
0
C)
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-7. Garments and Ambient Temperature Influence on Body Burn Prediction


6.2.4. Fire Distribution influence

In chapter 5, some graphical methods are used to demonstrate the heat flux of 122
sensors in 4 second exposure exhibits a bell-shaped distribution – normal distribution.
Only two factors involve in normal distribution: the mean and standard deviation. Before
the Pyroman
®
tests, a series of calibration burns are performed to examine its average
heat flux and heat flux standard deviation. The total average of 122 sensors should be
123
within 5% of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec and standard deviation is required to be lower than 0.5. In
this parametric study, a series of different standard deviation normal distribution data
with same mean are generated to simulate different fire distribution. The range of
standard deviation is between 0.14 and 0.65 and the average value is 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec. The
main parameters for numerical model are given in Table 6-9. The skin model and burn
evaluation model is given in chapter 5.


Table 6-9. Model Parameters for Heat Flux Distribution Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.14-0.65
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4


124
Pyroman Sensor Heat Flux Standard Deviation vs. Burn Prediction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Standard Deviation
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-8. Pyroman Heat Flux Standard Deviation Effect on Burn Prediction

The standard deviation of total 122 sensors’ heat flux of Pyroman
®
predicted by
this model does not show a significant influence on third degree burn prediction. The
second degree burn prediction, however, decrease as the standard deviation increasing as
illustrated in Figure 6-8.


6.3. Garment Design and fit Factors

Protective garment design involves a lot of consideration in many respects such as
maintenance, air ventilation, visibility and reinforcement in some parts. Some
components are added to the garment to fulfill these functions, and also these components
add extra thermal protection to the garments. The air gaps between garment and skin
plays an important role in protective performance. Different garment size changes the air
gap size distribution (relative to the same body size), and therefore changes the protective
125
performance in specific exposures. Garment shrinkage during the exposure changes the
air gap size distribution along the body, and damage the protective performance. In this
chapter, these parameters are examined using this analytical model.

6.3.1. Garment Components

The garment components include pockets, zipper, collar and waist inserts etc. The
coveralls used in this research are typical, high quality industrial coverall with standard
pocketing made by VF cooperation in “Deluxe” style. The components of these coveralls
are listed in following (Figure 6-9).

Concealed, two-way NOMEX® taped brass zipper, snap at top of zipper
One-piece, topstitched, lay flat collar
Two-piece cuff, sleeve vent, concealed snap closure
Two set-in front pockets, two breast pockets
Two patch hip pockets (left has concealed snap), double tool pocket
Elastic waist inserts
Bi-swing action back

The coveralls with and without these components are modeled. The results
predicted using this model are shown in Figure 6-12. As these components add extra
layer or layers to the local area and decrease the heat transfer, hence the odd of the local
area to get burn is reduced.








126



Figure 6-9. Nomex Deluxe Protective Coverall
Large spade-style breast
pockets, double –needle
lockstitch set, Left pocket
has pen/pencil slot
Generously cut
sleeve with forearm
pleat
Two set-in front pockets, two
breast pockets
Two patch hip pockets (left
has concealed snap), double
tool pocket
Elastic waist inserts

Front fly closure covers
zipper with hidden snap
closures at neck and waist
so no metal exposed inside
or outside
Double-needle
lockstitch set tool
pocket on right leg
Bi-swing action back
127
The garment with these components mainly reduced the second degree burn
prediction for both Nomex and Kevlar/PBI compared with garment without these
components as shown in Figure 6-12.

Garment Components Effect on Thermal Protective Performance
12.3 12.3
18.86 19.67
48.36
57.38 44.26
53.28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Different Garment
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn % 48.36 57.38 44.26 53.28
3rd Burn % 12.3 12.3 18.86 19.67
PBI with Components
PBI without
Components
Nomex with
Components
Nomex without
Components

Figure 6-10. Effects of Garments Components and Body Burn Prediction


6.3.2. Shrinkage and Its Temperature Effect on Protective
Performance

Fabrics made of Nomex fibers shrink about 50% when exposed to flash-fire
temperature [48]. Abbott’s data show that Nomex shrinks dramatically when heated to
temperature above 300
0
C. This can be improved by blending with amounts of Kevlar.
Garment shrinkage during exposure reduces the air gap and increases the heat transfer
rate, hence increase the burn prediction. In order to examine garment shrinkage influence,
a Nomex
®
ШA Coverall without and with shrinkage is modeled. The main parameters
associated with this numerical model are shown in Table 6-10.

128
Table 6-10. Numerical Model Setup

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Nomex
®
ШA
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall size
42 in Appendix 7
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4

The model prediction results about effects of garment shrinkage on burn
prediction during 4 second exposure are demonstrated in Figure 6-11.

Nomex with
Components
without shrinkage
Nomex with
Components with
shrinkage
Nomex without
Components
without shrinkage
Nomex without
Components with
shrinkage
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%
61.44 63.12
71.28
72.95
47.54
44.26
57.38
53.28
13.9
18.86
13.9
19.67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Garment Shrinkage Influence on Burn Prediction
3rd Burn % 2nd Burn % Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-11. Influence of Shrinkage during Exposure on Burn Prediction

The garment shrinkage during exposure decreases the air gaps which function as a
thermal insulation layer. The decreased air gap increases the heat transfer between the
fabric and skin. This air gap change mainly impact three degree burn prediction. In this
129
case some second degree burns are getting even worse while garment shrinks and
transformed to third degree burn.

If we can raise protective fabric shrinkage temperature, this can improve the
garment thermal protective performance. In figure 6-12, garment fabric shrinkage
temperatures are plotted against burn predictions using this model, which shows a
significant improvement in protective performance.

Fabric Shrinkage Temperature vs. Protective Prediction
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Shrinkage Temperature (
0
C)
T
o
t
a
l

a
n
d

S
e
c
o
n
d

B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T
h
i
r
d

D
e
g
r
e
e

B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%
3rd Burn %

Figure 6-12. Fabric Shrinkage Temperatures and Protective Prediction



6.3.3. Garment Size

Different garment size changes the air gap distribution. The air gap distributions
of different garment size (size 40, size 42 and size 44 of Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall) are
determined using 3D Body Scanning technology (see Appendix 7). In order to study
garment size effect on protective performance prediction, these air gap distributions of
130
different garment size are modeled in this research. The Table 6-11 shows main
parameters used in the model for prediction.

Table 6-11. Numerical Model Setup

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall size
40, 42, 44
Garment Size 40, 42, 44
Burning Time (sec) 4


Garment Size Effect on Protective Performance
14.75
12.3
6.56
45.9
48.36
46.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Garment Size
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
2nd Burn % 45.9 48.36 46.72
3rd Burn % 14.75 12.3 6.56
PBI Size 40 PBI Size 42 PBI Size 44


Figure 6-13. Effect of Garment Size and Thermal Protective Prediction

The numerical model results of different garment size effect demonstrate a
significant influence on third degree burn, especially between size 42 and 44 (Figure 6-
131
15). The differences in air gap size of different garment size, when exposed in intense
heat conditions, provide different insulation layer thickness and therefore, are expected to
change heat transfer mode which subsequently increases the heat transfer rate. The
increased heat transfer rate causes some 2
nd
body burn to 3
rd
body burn.

6.4. Skin Model Influence

From literature review, a lot of skin models proposed to model human skin
exposed to thermal hazard. They are different in layers, in layer thermal properties, initial
temperature distribution and blood perfusion. The primary goal of this skin model
parametric study is to investigate the influence of different skin models and its
parameters on predicted skin damage.

6.4.1. Blood Perfusion

The blood perfusion is important in longer thermal exposures of low heat fluxes
and it should be included in skin model because of the ability of the body to react. In
order to study its influence to burn prediction in flash fire conditions, a skin model with
and without blood perfusion is used to predict burn damage. The model parameters used
in prediction are shown in Table 6-12 and the model prediction results of some selected
sensor are listed in Table 6-13.

The model results lead us to believe that the effect of blood perfusion on burn
prediction is minor. It does not practically influence the burn prediction in terms of
second and third body burn. From shown in Table 6-13, it changes the time to second and
third degree burn, especially when this time is longer than 10 second. This is anticipated,
because the longer time allows the blood an opportunity to carry away some of the
energy before damage is sustained.



132
Table 6-12. Model Parameters for Blood Perfusion Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4


Table 6-13. Blood Perfusion Influence on Time to 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn

With Blood Perfusion Without Blood Perfusion
Sensor
No.
Time to 2nd
(Sec)
Time to 3rd
(Sec)
Time to 2nd
(Sec)
Time to 3rd
(Sec)
62 4.65 20.43 4.64 19.48
56 4.58 27.58 4.58 23.92
19 11.18 no 11.06 no
119 32.06 no 23.85 no



6.4.2. Temperature Distribution in the skin

One of the functions of human skin is to help regulate body’s core temperature.
The core temperature of the body must be maintained within a small range around 37
0
C
in order to keep biochemical reactions proceeding at required rates. Under normal
ambient conditions, the skin surface temperature is about 32.5
0
C to 34
0
C. Some skin
models proposed a constant initial skin temperatures of, 32.5
0
C [88], 34
0
C [119], or 37
0
C
[86]. Some other models suggest linear initial or higher order initial temperature
distribution. In this parametric study, three initial temperature distributions are used. The
first is constant at 37
0
C from surface to subcutaneous base, the other is linear distribution
133
from 32.5
0
C surface to 37
0
C subcutaneous and the third is quadratic distribution from
32.5
0
C surface to subcutaneous base.

The main parameters associated with these model predictions are shown in Table
6-14 and the 2
nd
, 3
rd
and the total burns predicted by the model are illustrated in Figure 6-
14.

Table 6-14. Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4


The linear and quadratic temperature distributions show little effect on burn
predictions, while constant temperature (37
0
C) distribution comparing to the linear and
quadratic indicates a large influence on second body burn prediction ( Figure 6-14). The
linear and quadratic distributions give a lower initial temperature than constant
distribution and therefore at the same exposure it needs more energy to get second degree
burn. The changes of these temperature distribution show little influence on third degree
burn. This is expected because the temperature difference of these three distributions is
very small at interface of dermis and subcutaneous.





134

Skin Model Initial Temperature Distribution Influence
48.36
14.75
17.21
12.3
9.83
10.66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Constant Linear Quadratic
Temperature Distribution
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
3rd Burn %
2nd Burn %

Figure 6-14. Effects of Skin Model Initial Temperature Distribution and
Body Burn Prediction


6.4.3. Single Layer and Multi Layers Skin Model Comparison

Skin models used to predict burn damage can be divided into single layer skin
model and three-layer skin model in which the thermal properties of each layer are
different. In this study, different skin models are used to compare the burn prediction.
The thermal properties of these models are outlined in Table 6-16 and the main
parameters used in this model are listed in Table 6-15.







135
Table 6-15. Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study

Model Parameters
Average Heat Flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec
S.D. 0.28
Fabric Weight 203g/m
2

Fabric Thickness 0.7mm
Fabric Thermal Properties
see
Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI
Garment Coverall “Deluxe” Style
Garment Air Gap Sizes
The same as Kevlar/PBI
®

Coverall size 42
Garment Size 42
Burning Time (sec) 4


Table 6-16. Thermal Properties of Skin Models

Single Layer
Models
Multi-layer Model
Properties
Tissue Epidermis Dermis Subcutaneous
Thermal
Conductivity
(W/m
0
C)
0.335 0.225 0.523 0.167
Volumetric
Heat Capacity
(J/m
3
.K *10
6
)
3.87 4.32 3.87 2.76

136
2nd Burn %
3rd Burn %
Total Burn Prediction%
Multi-layer
Single Layer
71.31
9.84
81.15
48.36
12.3
60.66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
B
u
r
n

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Skin Models vs Brun Prediction
Multi-layer 48.36 12.3 60.66
Single Layer 71.31 9.84 81.15
2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction%

Figure 6-15. Single Layer and Multi-layer Skin Model and Burn Predictions


The single layer skin model indicates a higher prediction in second degree burn
and lower third degree burn, while a higher total burn prediction (Figure 6-15). This is
expected because in multi-layer skin model the lower thermal conductivity and higher
volumetric heat capacity of epidermis than the one in single layer skin model. These
difference in thermal properties leads to a slower temperature rising in the base of
epidermis. Hence, multi-layer skin model is given a lower second degree burn prediction
under the same exposures. However, the dermis layer in multi-layer model has a higher
thermal conductivity than single layer model, this cause the heat transfer in dermis with a
relatively higher rate, which leads to a higher third degree burn in multi-layer model.





137

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS



This research developed a numerical model for the Pyroman
®
Instrumented
Manikin Protective Garment Evaluation System. The model has been demonstrated using
actual Pyroman
®
tests with different garment materials, clothing configuration and flash
fire exposure conditions. This model successfully predicted burn injures. A parametric
study was performed using this model to study the effects of garment fabric
thermophysical properties, garment design and fit, garment shrinkage, and initial
temperature of the test garment and ambient environment. The parametric study also
explored the effects of different skin models on burn injury predictions.

7.1. Summary

The simulated flash fires generated in Pyroman
®
chamber produce a dynamic,
turbulent flame exposure. The heat fluxes measured by 122 sensors embedded in
Pyroman
®
body during 4 second exposure were found to be normally distributed with
average heat intensity of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec. Flame temperatures measured in the Pyroman
®

chamber range between 800 and 1400
0
C. The estimated overall heat transfer coefficients
of 122 sensors for the manikin range of 80-110 W/m
2 0
C during 4 second exposure. The
values of the manikin heat transfer coefficient at 122 sensor locations depend on flame
temperature and sensor location. Higher flame temperature above each sensor is expected
to generate large heat transfer coefficient. The complex geometry of Pyroman
®
manikin
create different conditions over the manikin, depending also on the directions with which
the flame impingement. This is largely determined by the alignment of the eight fire
producing torches. Manikin body locations, such as chest, back, and middle of leg, are
expected to show a high heat transfer coefficients; while shoulder, thigh, and upper arm
locations always exhibit a lower heat transfer coefficients.
138

This research demonstrated that thermophysical properties of Kevlar/PBI
®
and
Nomex
®
ШA protective fabrics are not constant in these flash fire conditions. This
research shows the specific manner in which fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric
heat capacity change in these exposures decreases.

Three-dimensional Body Scanning Technology was used to determine the local
and overall air gap of the clothing-skin and variations on the manikin torso.

The clothing-manikin air gaps were found not evenly distributed in protective
coveralls dressed in Pyroman
®
manikin. Some positions including shoulder, knee and
upper back locations are close to the manikin body; other locations, such as the waist and
thigh indicate a large air gap area. Leg holds the largest air gap. Arms and back location
retain the least space between the manikin and coverall. Using different garment size
changes the size of air gap, but not the distribution. The garment drapability and stiffness
also affect the size of air gap.

Nomex
®
ШA Coverall (size 42, ‘deluxe’ style, 6.0oz/yd
2
) shrinks significantly in a
4 second exposure to an average heat flux of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec. This fabric shrinkage
lowers the air gap by more than 50% on average; while shrinkage in leg area was shown
to reduce the air layer as much as 90%.


Fabric thickness plays an important role in garment protective performance.
Because of the inherent compressibility of the protective fabrics, it is necessary to
measure the ‘effective’ thickness or the thickness measured at low applied pressure, in
order to predict thermal protective performance. Higher pressure thickness measurements
override the effect of fibers extruding form the surface of the fabric which can affect
thermal protective insulation. For a 4 second exposure to heat intensity of 2.00
cal/cm
2
sec. Garment protective performance was shown to be particularly affected by
fabric thickness variations in a range of 0.6-0.9mm. This can be partially attributed to the
139
dominating mode of radiant in air gaps existing between fabric and skin. Therefore
careful choose protective fabric thickness is an important considering in providing
thermal protection.

Fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity are the most important
factors governing heat transfer in protective garments. Changing these thermophysical
properties can dramatically alter protective performance: Lowering thermal conductivity
and increasing volumetric heat capacity improves protective performance of the garment.
The effects of change in these parameters are especially critical in the range of 0.03-0.8
W/m
0
C, for thermal conductivity and 0.8 x 10
6
– 1.4 x 10
6
J/m
3
K, for volumetric heat
capacity. Significantly, fabric moisture content has a large influence on both thermal
conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. Increasing the air volume fraction in fabric
while lowering moisture content reduces the fabric thermal conductivity and slows down
rate of heat transfer. At the same time, moisture in fabric also reduces volumetric heat
capacity, thus reducing the capability to store energy, improves the heat transfer rate.
Which thermophysical property dominates the heat transfer in the fabrics is shown to
depend on the specific conditions of thermal exposures.

Fabric emissivity is shown to have large influence on thermal protective
performance. Fabric emissivity is the factors solely relative to the radiation mode of heat
transfer. Lowering the fabric emissivity will obviously improve thermal protection
performance, especially in short time exposure with intense heat conditions. The
influence of fabric transmissivity on thermal prediction performance in this study are
minor, only change a fraction of second time to second degree burn and a few second to
third degree burn.

This research showed that, for single layer garments exposed to intense fire
conditions, fabric thickness is the major factor influencing thermal protective
performance. However, the fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity are
important parameters controlling heat transfer. Both of these properties are affected by
140
the moisture content in the fabric. Fabric emissivity can not be neglected since the radiant
heat transfer occurs across the air gap existing between the “skin” side of heated fabric.

The initial temperature of the test garment as well as test ambient temperature
shows influence on thermal protective predictions, especially on the effect of predicted
second burn. Lower the initial garment temperature and ambient temperature, a lower
predicted burn. The influences are more pronounced for the test conditions where
garment and ambient are at same temperature and exposure duration is short. This can be
attributed to large volumetric heat capacity of fabric.

A Bell-shape distribution is found in the 122 heat flux values measured by 122
sensors in Pyroman
®
in 4 second exposure. This has been statistically proved to be
normal distribution. With average heat flux 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec, increasing standard
deviation are expected to reduce the burn prediction. This effect mainly influences the
second degree burn.

The research shows that garment components originally designed for other
respects of considerations significantly enhances the garment thermal protective
performance.

For same size garments, garment made with more flexible fabrics show a small air
gap between the clothing fabric and the surface of manikin body.

Different sizes of the same style garment develop the same air gap distribution,
but with different sizes of air gap. Air gap between the garment and manikin body have a
significant effect on burn protection in flash fire exposure, especially on third body burns.
It should be noted that, however, too large air gap sizes may increase the possibility of
forming natural convection which will increase heat transfer rate between the fabric and
skin.

141
Garment shrinkage during exposure reduces air gap and thereby increases the heat
transfer rate. The garment shrinkage leads to high prediction level of third degree burn in
4 second flash fire exposures. Therefore, choosing of the garment proper size can
significantly improve garment protective performance. Maintain dimensional stable
during flash fire exposure and add functional components provide additional protection.

The assumption of blood perfusion in skin model has minimal effect on predicted
body burns in these exposures. With blood perfusion, it slightly reduces the time to 2
nd
or
3
rd
degree burn, especially the time to get 2
nd
or 3
rd
degree burn exceeds 20 second.

Different temperature distributions in skin model demonstrate a large effect on
burn predictions. The effect is pronounced in constant temperature distribution
comparing to linear and quadratic.

A large second degree burn prediction and low third degree burn prediction are
observed in one layer skin model relative to the multi-layer skin model.

This study suggests that the use of different skin models and their temperature can
greatly affect burn predictions of garment testing in instrumented manikin. Therefore, a
precise skin model selection and its standardization would be beneficial for manikin
testing for thermal protective performance.

7.3. Recommendations

A two or three dimensional model will be required to more precisely model
manikin fire testing, and for an even greater understanding of thermal protective
mechanisms. Such models can account the heat transfer in all directions. Hence powerful
computation facilities are required.

This research focused on short time intense flash fire conditions. Other research
may be extended to long time, medium or low level heat conditions.
142

The successful modeling of one layer protective garment system providing
evidence that extension to multi layer fire fighter suits is feasible. For multi layer
protective garments, the modeling will be even more complex since the air gaps existing
in between different layers which function differently. The thermal properties of multi
layer protective garments systems required to be determined. Varying exposure time at
different energy level can be modeled to understand heat transfer and moisture transfer in
multi-layer protective system.

Sensors used in manikin testing play an important role in precisely predicting
burn injury. An additional modeling study of different types of sensors and analysis of
the responses of different sensors exposed to a variety of heat levels are required on
manikin scale. The manner in which thermal sensor cools following heat exposure is
another area for further investigation.

The effect of moisture on thermal protective performance of one layer and multi
layer can be further explored using the model.

This research indicates that different skin models and their temperature
distributions can greatly affect predicted garments thermal protective performance.
Standardization is required of the burn translation algorithm and its parameters.

7.3. Author’s Note

Caution should be taken in drawing conclusions about the safety benefits from
these results. These data described in the thesis are from laboratory tests and controlled
exposures. It is only focused on two common protective fabrics. The numerical model
established in this research solely considers heat transfer in these materials based on the
assumptions that no mass transfer and thermal degradation between specific temperatures
range. The parametric study described in this thesis independently varied individual
parameters, while there will actually be some of interdependence of the individual
143
parameters. The test conditions may not represent actual field conditions, which can be
physically complicated and unqualified. Therefore, the results which are obtained by
using this numerical model should not be used as an estimation of the protection which
these or other material can provide in a real flash fire or other accident.

In addition, this model is only intended to gain an appreciation of manikin testing
and garment thermal protective mechanism. The intention of this work is not to
recommend either of the fabrics, or any other particular fabric, for use in thermal
protective garments. The conclusions drawn from this research are based on Pyroman
®

Thermal Evaluation System located in NCSU and the limited quantities of fabrics and
garments available to the author.




















144


References


1. Shalev, I., and Barker, R. L., “Predicting the Thermal Protective Performance of
Heat-Protective Fabrics from Basic Properties,” Special Technical Testing
Publication 900, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1986.

2. Barker, R. L. and Lee, Y. M., “Analyzing the Transient Thermophysical Properties of
Heat-Resistant Fabrics in TPP Exposures,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 57, No. 6,
June 1987.

3. Pawar, M., Barker, R. L., Shalev, I., Hamouda, H., Behnke, W.P. and Bender, M.,
“Analyzing the Performance of Protective Garments in Manikin Fire Tests,” College
of Textiles, Center for Research on Textile

4. Bajaj, P. and Sengupta, A.K., “Protective Clothing,” Textile Progress, Vol. ? Number
? 1992

5. Soroka, A. J., “Thermal Protective Clothing,” presented at DuPont Nomex Protective
Apparel Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, May, 1992

6. Behnke, W. P. and Miner, L. H., Industr. Fabr. Prod. Rev., Buyers’ Guide, 1986,
P.13.

7. McIntyre, J. E. in Proceedings of Industrial, Technical, and Engineering Textiles
Group conference, 23-24 May, 1988, The Textile Institute, Manchester, paper 7;
Textile Horizons, 1988, 8, No. 10, 43

145
8. Jackson, R. H., “PBI Fiber and Fabric – Properties and Performance,” Textile
Research Journal, Vol. 48, 1978, pp. 314-319

9. Tomasino, Charles, Chemistry & Technology of Fabric Preparation & Finishing,
North Carolina State University, 1992

10. Conn, J. J., and Grant, G. A., “Review of Test Methods for Material Flammability,”
Department of National Defense Research Establishment Ottawa Contractor Report,
March 1991

11. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 1230 – 94: Standard Test
Method for Flammability of Apparel Textiles, West Conshohocken, PA 1994

12. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 3659 Standard Test Method
for Flammability of Apparel Textiles by semi-Restraint Method, West
Conshohocken, PA

13. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 2863 Measuring the Minimum
Oxygen Concentration to Support Candle-like Combustion of Plastics (Oxygen
Index), West Conshohocken, PA

14. Shalev, I., Barker, R.L., "A Comparison of Laboratory Methods for Evaluating
Thermal Protective Performance in Convective/Radiant Exposures,” Textile Research
Journal, Vol. 54, Oct., 648-654,1984

15. Shalev, I., Barker, R.L., "Analysis of Heat Transfer Characteristics of Fabrics in an
Open Flame Exposure,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 53, Aug., 475-482,1983

16. Lee, Y. M., and Barker, R. L., “Thermal Protective Performance of Heat-Resistant
Fabrics in Various High Intensity Heat Exposures,” Textile Research Journal, Vol.
57, 1987, pp. 123-132
146

17. Lee, Y. M., and Barker, R. L., “Effect of Moisture on the Thermal Protective
Performance of Heat-Resistant Fabrics,” Journal of Fire Science, Vol. 4, 1986, pp.
315-331

18. Barker, R. L. and Lee, Y. M., "Evaluating the Thermal Protective Insulation
Properties of Advanced Heat Resistant Fabrics,” 32nd International SAMPE
Symposium, April 6-9, pp 1156- 1163, 1987

19. Stoll, A. M., Chianta M. A., and Munroe, L. R., "Flame contact studies,” Journal of
Heat Transfer, Transaction of the ASME, Vol. **, Aug., pp 449-456, 1964

20. Freeston, W.D., "Flammability and heat Transfer Characteristics of Cotton, Nomex
and PBI Fabric," J. Fire & Flammability, Vol. 2, Jan., 57-76, 1971

21. Shalev, I., "Transient Thermo-Physical Properties Thermally Degrading Fabrics and
Their Effect on Thermal Protection,” Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State
University, 1984

22. Norton, M. J. T., Kadolph, S. J., Johnson, R. F., and Jordan, K. A., “Design,
Construction, and Use of Minnesota Women, A Thermal Instrumented Mannequin,”
Textile Research Journal, Vol. 55, 1985, pp. 5-12

23. Stoll, A. M., and Chianta, M. A., “Heat Transfer Through Fabrics as Related to
Thermal Injury,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 33, 1971,
pp. 649-669

24. Barker, R.L., Hamouda, H. and Behnke, W. P. “Applying Instrumented Manikin
Technology for Testing the Fire Resistance of Protective Clothing,” College of
Textiles, Center for Research on Textile Protection & Comfort, North Carolina State
University.
147

25. Dale, J.D., Crown, E.M., Ackerman, M.Y., Leung, E. and Rigakis, K.B.
"Instrumented Manikin Evaluation of Thermal Protective Clothing," Performance of
Protective Clothing: 4th Volume, ASTM STP 1133, J. P. McBriarty and N.W. Henry,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 717-734, 1992

26. Behnke, W.P., Amotz, J. G. and Barker, R.L., "Thermo-Man® and Thermo-Leg:
Large Scale Test Methods for Evaluating Thermal Protective Performance,"
Performance of Protective Clothing: 4th Volume, ASTM STP 1133, J. P. McBriarty
and N.W. Henry, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1992

27. Crown, E.M., Ackerman, M.Y., Dale, J.D. and Rigakis, K.B., "Thermal Protective
Performance and Instrumented Mannequin Evaluation of Multi-Layer Garment
Systems," Performance of Protective Clothing: 5th Volume, 1993

28. Pawar, M. “Analyzing the Thermal Protective Performance of Single Layer Garment
Materials in Bench Scale and Manikin Tests,” PhD Thesis, College of Textiles, North
Carolina State University, 1995

29. Stoll, A. M. et al, “Heat Transfer Through Fabrics,” Naval Air development Center,
Johsville, Pennsylvania, 1970

30. Coskren, R. J., and Kaswell, E. R., “Development of PBI Fabric for Flight Suit Wear
Test,” Technical Report, AFML-TR-71-195, Air Force Materials Laboratory, 1971

31. Morse, H L., Thompson, J.G., Clark, K.J., Green, K.A., and Moyer, C.B., “Analysis
of the thermal Response of Protective Fabrics,” Technical report, AFML-RT-73-17,
Air Force Materials Information Service, Springfield, VA.

148
32. Ross, J. H., “Thermal Conductivity of Fabrics as Related to Skin Burn Damage,”
Journal of Applied Polymer Science: Applied Polymer Symposia, Vol. 31, 1977, pp.
293-312

33. Backer, S., Tesoro, G. C., and Toong, T.Y., Textile Fabric Flammability, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA 1976

34. Ordinanz, W., “Personal Adaptation and Protective Measures,” Work in Hot
Environments and Protection Against Heat, The Iron and Steel Institute, London,
England, 1970

35. Shalev, I., and Barker, R. L., “Protective Fabrics: A Comparison of Laboratory
Methods for Evaluating the Thermal Protective Performance in Convective/Radiant
Exposures,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 54, 1984

36. Shalev, I., and Barker, R. L., “Analysis of the Heat Transfer Characteristics of Fabrics
in an Open Flame Exposure,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 53, 1983, pp. 475-483

37. David A. Torvi, J. Douglas Dale, “Heat Transfer in Protective Fabrics Under Flash
Fire Conditions,” Second International Conference on Fire Research and Engineering,
1997

38. Bomberg, M., “Application of Three ASTM Test Methods to Measure Thermal
Resistance of Clothing,” Performance of Protective Clothing: Fourth Volume, ASTM
STP 1133, J.P. McBriarty and N. W. Henry, eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1992, pp. 399 – 417

39. Gagnon, B. D., “Evaluation of New Test Methods for Fire Fighting Clothing,” A
thesis of Master of Science of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2000

149
40. Stoll, A. M., Chianta, M. A., and Munroe, L.R., “Flame Contact Studies,”
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol 86, 1964, pp. 449-456

41. Baker, D.L., Wool, M.R., and Schaefer, J.W., “A Dynamic Technique for
Determining the Thermal Conductivity of Charring Materials,” Thermal
Conductivity-Proceedings of the Eighth Conference-1968, C.Y. Ho, and R.E. Taylor,
eds., Plenum Press, New York, 1969, pp. 832-836

42. Shalev, I. “Transient Thermophysical properties of Thermally Degrading Fabrics and
Their Effect on Thermal Protection,” Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, 1984

43. Morse, H L., Thompson, J.G., Clark, K.J., Green, K.A., and Moyer, C.B., “Analysis
of the thermal Response of Protective Fabrics,” Technical report, AFML-RT-73-17,
Air Force Materials Information Service, Springfield, VA

44. Torvi, David Andrew, “Heat Transfer in Thin Fibrous Materials under High Heat
Flux Conditions,” Doctor Thesis, University of Alberta. Canada, 1997

45. Willians, S. D., and Curry, D. M., Thermal Protection Materials: Thermophysical
Property Data, NASA Reference Publication 1289, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Program, 1992

46. Futschik, M. W., and Witte, L. C., “Effective Thermal Conductivity of fibrous
Materials,” General Papers in Heat and Mass Transfer, Insulation, and
Turbonmachinery, HTD-Vol. 271, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, 1994, pp. 123-134

47. Holman, J.P., Heat Transfer, Six Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
1986

150
48. Schoppee, M.M., Seklton, J., Abbott, N. J., and Donovan, J. G., “The Transient
thermomechanical response of Protective Fabrics to Radiant Heat,” Technical Report,
AFML TR-77-72, Air Force Materials Laboratory (1976)

49. Backer, S., Tesoro, G. C., and Toong, T. Y., Textile Fabric Flammability, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1976

50. David Andrew Torvi, “Heat Transfer in Thin Fibrous Materials under High Heat Flux
Conditions,” Doctor Thesis, University of Alberta. Canada, 1997

51. Brown, J. R., and Ennis, B. C., “Thermal Analysis of Nomex® and Kevlar® Fibers,”
Textile Research Journal, Vol. 47, 1977, pp. 62-66

52. Properties of Polybenzimidazole High-Performance Fiber, PBI Products Division
Technical Literature, Hoechst Celanese, Charlotte, 1989

53. Henderson, J. B. and O’Brien, E. F., “Measurement of the Decomposition Kinetics of
a Polymer Composite Using a High-Temperature, High-Heating-rate Simultaneous
Thermal Analyzer,” High Temperature-High Pressures, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 103-109

54. Bingham, M. A., and Hill, B. J., “Comparison of Thermal Characteristics of Materials
Examined by Thermogravimetry and Flammability Tests”. Journal of Thermal
Analysis, Vol. 9, 1976, pp. 71-81

55. Shlensky, O. f., Aksenov, L.N., and Shashkov, A. G., “Thermal Decomposition of
Materials: Effect of Highly Intensive Heating,” Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam, 1991

56. Mraw, S. C., “Differential Scanning Calorimetry,” Chapter 11 in Specific Heat of
Solids, CINDAS Data Series on Material Properties Vol. I-2, C. Y. Ho, Ed.,
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1988
151

57. Crown, E. M., Dale, J. D., “Evaluation of Flash Fire Protective Clothing Using an
Instrumented Mannequin,” Final Research Project Report for Alberta Occupational
Health and Safety Heritage Grant Program, March 30, 1992

58. Shalev, I., and Barker, R. L., “Analysis of the Heat Transfer Characteristics of fabrics
in an Open Flame Exposure,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 53, 1983, pp. 475-483

59. Castle, G. K., Alexander, J. G., Tempesta, F. L., and Belason, E. B., “Analytical
Predictions of the Thermal Response of Decomposing Materials in Fire
Environments,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 1, 1973, pp. 416-421

60. Chen, N. Y., “Transient Heat and Moisture Transfer Through Thermally Irradiated
Cloth,” Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1959

61. Williams, S. D., and Curry, D. M., Thermal Protection Materials: Thermophysical
Property Data, NASA Reference Publication 1289, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Program, 1992

62. Afgan, N. H., and Reer, J. M., Heat Transfer in Flames, Wiley and Sons, New York,
NY 1974

63. Hilado, C. J., Flammability Handbook for Plastics, Technomic, Westport, RI 1982

64. Remy, D. E., Sousa, J. A., Caldarella, G. J., and Levasseur, L. A., “Thermal
Degradation Products of THPOH-NH
3
Treated Cottons,” Technical Report,
Natick/TR-80/003, CEMEL-203 1979

65. Lewis, B., and von Elbe, G., Combustion, Flames, and Explosions of Gases, Third
Edition, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, 1987
152

66. Holcombe, B. V., and Hoschle, B. N., “Do Test Methods Yield Meaningful
Performance Specifications?,” Performance of Protective Clothing: First Volume
ASTM STP 900, R. L. Barker and G.C. Coletta, eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1986, pp. 327-339

67. Krasny, J., Rockett, J. A., and Huang, D., “Protecting Fire Fighters Exposed in Room
Fires: Comparison of Results of Bench Scale Test for Thermal Protection and
Conditions During Room Flashover,” Fire Technology, Vol. 24, 1998, pp. 5-19

68. Schoppee, M.M., Seklton, J., Abbott, N. J., and Donovan, J. G., “The Transient
thermomechanical response of Protective Fabrics to Radiant Heat,” Technical Report,
AFML TR-77-72, Air Force Materials Laboratory (1976)

69. Brian David Gagnon, “Evaluation of New Test Methods for Fire Fighting Clothing,”
A thesis of Master of Science of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2000

70. Stoll, A. M., Chianta, M. A., and Munroe, L. R., “Flame Contact Studies,”
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 86, 1964, pp. 449-456

71. Drysdale, D., “An Introduction to Fire Dynamics,” John Wiley and Sons, Chichester,
1985

72. Anthony, C.P., and Thibodeau, G. A., Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology, 10
th
ed.,
The C. V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1979, pp. 70-73, 290-294, 530-533

73. Pennes, H. H., “Analysis of Tissue and Arterial Blood Temperatures in Resting
Human Forearm,” Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 1, 1948, pp. 93-122

153
74. Mehta, A.K, and Wong, F., Measurement of Flammability and Burn Potential of
Fabrics, Full Report from Fuels Research Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973

75. Hodson, D. A., Eason, G., Barbennel, J.C., “Modeling Transient Heat Transfer
Through the Skin and Superficial Tissues – I: Surface Insulation,” Transaction of the
ASME, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, Vol. 108, 1986, pp. 183-188

76. Wulff, W., “The Energy Conservation Equation for Living Tissue,” IEEE
Transactions of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. BME-21, pp. 494-495, 1974.

77. Klinger, H.G., “Heat Transfer in Perfused Biological Tissue – I: General Theory,”
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, Vol. 36, pp. 403-415, 1974.

78. Chen, M.M., and Holmes, K.R., “Microvascular Contributions in Tissue Heat
Transfer,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 335, pp. 137-150,
1980.

79. Xu, L.X., “The Evaluation of Heat Transfer Equations in the Pig Renal Cortex,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, August, 1991.

80. Xu, L.X., Chen, M.M., Holmes, K.R, and Arkin, H., “The Evaluation of the Pennes,
the Chen-Holmes, the Weinbaum-Jiji Bioheat Transfer Models in the Pig Cortex,”
ASME WAM, HTD-Vol. 189, pp. 15-21, 1991.

81. Weinbaum, S., Jiji, L.M., and Lemos, D.E., “Theory and Experiment for the Effect of
Vascular Temperature on Surface Tissue Heat Transfer – Part I: Anatomical
Foundation and Model Conceptualization,” ASME Journal of Biomedical
Engineering, Vol. 106, pp. 321-330, 1984.

154
82. Jiji, L.M., Weinbaum, S., and Lemos, D.E., “Theory and Experiment for the Effect of
Vascular Temperature on Surface Tissue Heat Transfer – Part II: Model Formulation
and Solution,” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 106, pp. 331-341,
1984.

83. Dagan, Z., Weinbaum, S., and Jiji, “L.M., Parametric Study of the Three-Layer
Microcirculatory Model for Surface Tissue Energy Exchange,” ASME Journal of
Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 108, pp. 89-96, 1986.

84. Song, W.J., Weinbaum, S., and Jiji, L.M., "A Theoretical Model for Peripheral Heat
Transfer Using the Bioheat Equation of Weinbaum and Jiji,” ASME Journal of
Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 109, pp. 72-78, 1987.

85. Song, W.J., Weinbaum, S., and Jiji, L.M., “A Combined Macro and Microvascular
Model for Whole Limb Heat Transfer,” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering,
Vol. 110, pp. 259-267, 1988

86. Henriques, F. C., Jr., “Studies of Thermal Injuries V. The Predictability and the
Significance of Thermally Induced Rate Processes Leading to Irreversible Epidermal
Injury,” Archives of Pathology, Vol. 43, 1947, pp. 489-502

87. Buetter, K., “Effects of Extreme Heat and Cold on Human Skin II. Surface
Temperature, Pain and Heat Conductivity in Experiments with Radiant Heat,” Journal
of Applied Physiology, Vol. 3, 1951, pp. 703-713

88. Stoll, A. M., and Greene, L. C., “Relationship Between Pain and Tissue Damage Due
to Thermal Radiation,” Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 14, 1959, pp. 373-382

89. Takata, A. N., Rouse, J., and Stanley, T., Thermal Analysis Program, I.I.T. Research
Institute Report, IITRI-J6286, Chicago, 1973

155
90. Stoll, A, M., and Chianta, M. A., “Method and Rating System for Evaluation of
Thermal Protection,” Aerospace Medicine, Vol. 40 1969, pp.1232-1238

91. David A. Torvi, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, 1997

92. Gibson, P. “Governing Equations for Multiphase Heat and Mass Transfer in
Hygroscopic Porous Media with Applications to Clothing Materials,” Technical
Report Natick/TR-95/004, 1994

93. Mell, W. E. and Lawson, J. R., “A Heat Transfer Model for Fire Fighter's Protective
Clothing,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 6299, January
1999

94. Whitaker, S. “A Theory of Drying in Porous Media,” Advances in Heat Transfer 13,
Academic Press, New York, 1977

95. Gibson, P. W. and Charmchi, M., “Integration of a Human Thermal Physiology
Control model with a Numerical Model for Coupled Heat and Mass Transfer through
Hygroscopic Porous Textiles,” presented at the 1996 ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress & Exhibition, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 17-22, 1996

96. Ricci, R., “Traveling Wave Solutions of the Stefan and the Ablation Problems,”
SIAM J. Math. Anal., Vol. 21, pp. 1386-1393, 1990

97. Whiting, P., Dowden, J.M., Kapadia, P.D., and Davis, M.P., “A One-Dimensional
Mathematical Model of Laser Induced Thermal Ablation of Biological Tissue,”
Lasers in Med. Sci., Vol. 7, pp. 357-368, 1992

98. Delichatsios, M.A. and Chen, Y., “Asymptotic, Approximate and Numerical
Solutions for the Heatup and Pyrolisis of Materials Including Reradiation Losses,”
Comb. and Flame, Vol. 92, pp. 292-307, 1993
156

99. Staggs, J.E.J., “A Discussion of Modeling Idealized Ablative Materials with
Particular Reference to Fire Testing,” Fire Safety Journal, vol. 28, pp. 47-66, 1997a

100. Vovelle, C., Delfau, J., and Reuillon, M., “Experimental and Numerical Study of
Thermal Degradation of PMMA,” Comb. Sci. and Tech., Vol. 53, pp. 187-201,
1987

101. Wichman, I.S. and Atreya, A., “A Simplified Model for the Pyrolisis of Charring
Materials,” Comb. and Flame, Vol. 68, pp. 231-247, 1987

102. Di Blasi, C. and Wichman, I.S., “Effects of Solid-Phase Properties on Flames
Spreading over Composite Materials,” Comb. and Flame, Vol. 102, pp. 229-240,
1995

103. Kashiwagi, T., “Polymer Combustion and Flammability- Role of the Condensed
Phase,” Proc. 25th Int. Symp. on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, pp. 1423-
1431, 1994

104. Staggs, J.E.J., “A Theoretical Investigation into Modeling Thermal Degradation of
Solids Incorporating Finite-Rate Kinetics,” Combust. Sci. and Tech., Vol. 123, pp.
261-285, 1997b

105. Grimes, R., Mulligan, J.C., Hamouda, H., and Barker, R. “The Design of a Surface
Heat Flux Transducer for Use in Fabric Thermal Protection Testing;” Performance
of Protective Clothing: Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1237. James S.Johnson and S.Z
Mansdorf, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials.West Conshohocken,
PA. 1966, pp. 607 - 624.

157
106. Grimes, R., “The Design and Calibration of a Surface Heat Flux Transducer for Use
in Fabric Thermal Protection Testing;” MS Thesis. North Carolina State
University. Raleigh, NC. 1993.

107. Catton, I., “Natural Convection in Enclosures,” Proceedings of the 6
th
International
Heat Transfer Conference, Toronto, Vol. 6, 1978, pp. 13-31.

108. Denny, V. E., and Clever, R. M., Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 16, 1974,
pp. 271-284.

109. Hollands, K. G. T., Unny, T. E., Raithby, G. D., and Konicek, L., Journal of Heat
Transfer, Vol. 98, No. 2, 1976, pp. 189-193.

110. Ayyaswamy, P. S., and Catton, I., Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 95, 1973, pp. 543-
545.

111. Patankar, S. V., “Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow,” Taylor & Francis,
1980.

112. Tannehill J. C., Anderson D.A., and Pletcher R. H., “Computational Fluid
Mechanics and Heat Transfer,” 2
nd
Ed, Taylor & Francis, 1997.

113. Bailey, E. D., “Probability and Statistics Models for Research,” John Wiley & Sons
Inc., 1971

114. Beck, J. V., Blackwell, B., and St. Clair, C. R., Jr., “Inverse Heat Conduction: Ill-
Posed Problems,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1985.

115. Özisik, M. N., and Orlande, H. R. B., “Inverse Heat Transfer: Fundamentals and
Applications,” Taylor & Francis, 2000.

158
116. Beck, J. V. and Arnold, K. , “Parameter Estimation in Engineering and Science,”
published by Wiley, 1977

117. Beck, J. V., and McMasters, “Users Manual for Prop1D—Program for Estimating
Thermal Properties from Transient Temperature and Heat Flux Measurements,”
Version 7.0, Beck Engineering Consultants Company, Okemos, MI 48864.

118. Bruner, David, “Application of Body Scanning Technology,” Presentation in
College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, May 2000

119. Diller, K. R., and Hayes, l. J., “A finite Element Model of Burn Injury in Blood
Perfused Skin,” Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,
Vol. 105, 1983, pp. 300-307

120. Incropera, P. F. and Dewitt. P. D., “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,” John
Wiley & Sons, Fourth Edition, 1996















159













APPENDICES















160
Appendix 1 Experimental Apparatus Used in This Research



The main objective of these experimental apparatus is to get thermal response
data from fabric or heat source of the interest. In some setups the responses are crucial to
the quality of estimation and determination. In this chapter, the experimental work is
described. These are including the type of thermocouples and their gauge selection in
order to precisely measure flame temperature in both bench top test and Pyroman
®
test,
as well as fabric surface temperature exposed to intense heat conditions. The major two
kinds of sensors, the copper disk sensor and skin simulant sensor, used in protective
testing field and their heat flux calculation algorithm are introduced. The Medtherm
sensor is used in this research to calibrate all the bench top test heat sources and to
determine calibration factor of the sensors. The apparatus in heat transfer coefficient
determination as well as fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity
estimation are discussed. The data acquisition system and software used in all the
experimental apparatus are also discussed.

Temperature Measurement Device

Temperature is one of the most widely measured physical quantities. Its accurate
measurement is essential in calculate or estimate other parameters. The transient flame
and fabric surface temperature were measured using thermocouples and infrared
thermometer. Depending on the measured temperature range and the necessary
responding time, the thermocouple gauge and type need to be selected. In order to
measure the yarns temperature on the front and back surface of the fabric, fine gauge
thermocouples are used. Larger wires will be more rugged and is easy to handle, but this
would have a slower time response. However, finer gauge wires will be more difficult to
use.

In order to determine how fine a gauge of thermocouple wire should be used,
some specific tests are designed to compare the influence of thermocouple wire gauge,
161
including comparing with the infrared thermometer to measure fabric surface
temperature. The diameters of the yarns are of the order of 250 to 400 µm. As the
junction of the thermocouple where the temperature is measured will be at least twice the
diameter of the separate thermocouple wires, so thermocouples with 36 and 40 A.W.G.
are chosen to measure fabric surface temperature.

The maximum temperature of fabric surface in this research is among 25-1000
0
C.
Therefore, chromel-alume (type K) thermocouple is used, as this type K can be used to
measure temperature up to 1300
0
C for short duration (3-10 seconds).

The flame temperature is in a range of 1000 -1800
0
C. Therefore Type R and
Type B with diameter 0.005 inch are chosen to measure the flame temperature. The
temperature range of type R is 0-1450
0
C and type B is 0-1700
0
C. The thermocouple
response time is important in heat transfer coefficient estimation and fabric
thermophysical property estimation. The following figure 1 shows different response and
measurement of the same flame.
Flame Temperature Measurement with Different Thermocoupl Gauge
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
0
C
)
Diameter:0.15
Diameter:0.005

Figure 1. The Flame Measurement with Different Thermocouple Gauge (type R)

162
Data Acquisition System

A laptop computer is used in conjunction with LabVIEW data acquisition system
to record the response of the sensors, thermocouples, and infrared thermometer.
LabVIEW programming system is used to control the data acquisition system. The
outputs from the thermocouples and sensors is fed into signal condition 5B47 module and
amplified. The DAQ board is used to control and operate these voltage signals. The
LabVIEW program in the computer converted these voltages into temperature data
according to different type thermocouples. These inputs are recorded 1000 reading per
second. The data then saved in a datafile for data analysis (Figure 2).

The capability of the data acquisition to receive data is crucial in determination of
heat transfer coefficient and in fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity
estimation. The specifications for data acquisition system:
Computer: Laptop CPU 1GB with RAM 512
DAQ board: DAQCard-AL-16E-4
16 inputs, 500ks/s, 12-bit Multifunction I/O
Signal conditioning Module: 5B47 (from B, R, K, T), Isolated Linearized



Figure 2. Data Acquisition System


163
Heat Flux Sensors

A heat flux sensor typically consists of a thermopile or sometimes just a pair of
thermocouples in which the elements are separated by a thin layer of thermal resistance
material. Under a temperature gradient, the two thermopile junction layers will be at
different temperatures and will therefore register a voltage. The heat flux is proportional
to this differential voltage. The three modes of heat transfer, radiation, conduction and
convection can be measured by heat flux sensors. Most heat flux sensors are calibrated
using radiation heat source, which are the most consistently repeatable sources for this
purpose. So emissivity is an essay here in order to get near 100% incident heat flux.
Sensors are typically coated black to improve emissivity so the absorbed radiation is
nearly equal to the incident radiation. For the conductive heat flux, the sensor is in direct
contact with a heated material. A good thermal contact is necessary. If the contact is poor,
there will effectively be a high thermal resistance between the sensor and the material
interest, which can seriously alter the sensor reading. For convective heat flux, the heat
transfer coefficient is a function the flow’s thermal conductivity and its characteristics.
The heat transfer coefficient is usually determined by measuring the surface heat flux.
This procedure assumes that the heat transfer coefficient for the heat flux sensor and the
surrounding system are the same.

Basically, two kinds of sensor are used in thermal protective testing field. One is
slug type copper sensor; the other is skin simulant sensor. The TPP sensor and Pyrocal
sensor are slug copper sensor; and Thermoman sensor and Alberta sensor are skin
simulant sensor

TPP Sensor

The TPP sensor (Figure 3) is a copper disk sensor which is widely used for bench
top testing of thermally protective clothing materials. The thermal sensor itself consists of
a 1.57x 0.06 inch copper disk. Four J-type (iron constantan) thermocouples are secured in
the disk, positioned at 120 degree intervals and at the center. Heat flux is calculated from
164
the temperature rise, indicated by the thermocouple output, and from the mass and
specific heat capacity of the copper disk [105]. This sensor is highly reliable and rugged.
There is no loss management in its heat flux calculation. When exposed to a constant heat
flux, the copper disk temperature rise is linear to time.







Figure 3. TPP sensor

Pyrocal Sensor

This sensor is developed by North Carolina State University for use in
instrumented manikin fire testing systems[105]. It is insulated slug type sensor with
0.50x 0.06 inch copper disk, surrounded radially by a thin copper ring thermal guard.
Both the disk and the ring are supported by an insulating holder to minimize heat transfer
to and from the body of the calorimeter thus approximating one-dimensional heat flow.
Beneath the surface of the copper disk, an insulating air cavity is maintained and a T-type
(copper-constantan) thermocouple is attached to the lower side of the disk (Figure 4).
The entire assembly is encapsulated within a protective shell. Heat flux is calculated from
temperature rise and the known properties of the copper slug using a procedure that
increases the accuracy of the heat flux estimate by compensating for heat losses [106].
Copper Disk
Insulating Block
Lock Nut
Thermocouple Tube
Thermocouples
dt
t dT
A
mC
q
cu cu
p
cu
) (
ε
=
165






Figure 4. Pyrocal Sensor Used for Fabric Thermal Protective Testing [107]

Alberta Sensor

Alberta sensor is a skin simulant sensor developed by the University of Aberta for
use in their instrumented fire test manikin (Figure 5). The sensor is made of colorceran, a
mixture of inorganic materials including calcium, aluminum, and silicate with asbestos
fibers and a binder. This sensor material is reported to have thermal properties such that
heat transfer will be similar to human skin which suddenly exposed to heat flux. A T-
type thermocouple is mounted on the surface of the sensor. The thermocouple wire runs
through a hole drilled inside the sensor. Details of this sensor and procedures used to
calculate heat flux can be found in reference [91]. The surface heat flux is calculated
using Duhamel’s theorem.





( )
i L cu p cu L
T t T K
dt
t dT
d C C q
cu
− + = ) (
) (
ρ
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )



+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|
− + −

+





=


=





2 1
1
2 1
1
1
2 1
1
2 1
1
2 1
1
1
2 1
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
2
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
t
t T t T
t
t T
t t t t
t T t T
t t
t T t T
t t
t T t T
C k
t q
n s n s
n
n s
n
i
i n i n
i s i s
i n
i s n s
i n
i s n s
p
n
π
ρ
166



Figure 5. Alberta Sensor

Thermoman Sensor

This sensor is a polymeric skin model sensor developed by DuPont for use in the
Thermo-Man
®
fire test manikin. This sensor employs a thin-skin calorimeter that
incorporates a Type T thermocouple buried below the exposed surface of a cast resin
plug. The resin plug is made of a thermoset polymer that reportedly exhibits a thermal
inertia similar to undamaged human skin [106]. Heat transfer is calculated using an
inverse heat transfer model that relies on an accurate location of the thermocouple bead.

Sensor Calibration

A MEDTHERM sensor is used as referee to calibrate the above sensors. First the
radiation heat source is adjusted to 84kW/m
2
using MEDTHERM sensor, then other
sensors exposed to this known heat source for certain length of time and record their
reading. Calibration factor can be calculated based on these calibration data for each
specific sensor. The figure 6 is one of calibration examples to get calibration factor for
the different sensors.
167

Senser Calibriation Chart
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
W
/
m
2
Medtherm Pyrocal TPP Dupont Alberta

Figure 6. Sensor Calibration Using Medtherm Sensor

Heat Source

Two heat sources are used in this research. One is pure radiation heat source using
eight quartz lamps. This apparatus is also called RPP tests (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Most
heat flux sensors are calibrated using radiation heat source, which are the most
consistently repeatable sources for this purpose (Figure 7).


Quartz Lamps
Spacer
Sensors
LabView/
Data Acquisition
System

Insulating Block
Analog Backplane Device
1 2

3
Sensor Mounting Configuration


Figure 7. Radiation Heat Source
168

Figure 8. Radiation Heat Source


The other heat source used in this research is a typical TPP heat source using two
Meker burner and eight quartzs heaters (Figure 9). Two Meker burners using a methane
gas flame in combination with a bank of quartz tubes to provide convective and radiant
heat source. This heat source is used in fabric parameter estimation setup, to estimate
fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity.



Figure 9. Gas Burner and Radiation Heat Source
169
Appendix 2 Average Heat Flux Values as Model Input (heat flux:
cal/cm
2
sec)


Sensor H.Flux Sensor H.Flux Sensor H.Flux
1 1.73 49 2.01 89 1.61
2 1.78 50 2.03 90 1.75
3 2.21 51 1.76 91 1.77
4 1.57 52 2.12 92 1.99
5 2.03 53 2.24 93 1.98
6 2.15 54 2.13 94 2.04
7 1.61 55 1.93 95 1.64
8 2.05 56 2.35 96 1.97
9 1.86 57 2.30 97 1.80
10 2.32 58 2.23 98 1.94
15 1.73 59 2.00 99 2.09
16 1.95 60 1.92 100 1.80
17 2.22 61 2.39 101 2.23
18 1.71 62 2.01 102 2.23
19 2.18 63 2.12 103 2.23
20 2.25 64 2.23 105 2.18
21 1.86 65 2.25 107 2.09
22 2.05 66 2.24 108 2.41
23 2.28 67 2.26 109 2.19
24 1.92 68 2.46 110 2.07
29 1.59 69 1.89 111 1.83
30 1.96 70 2.34 112 2.03
31 2.00 71 2.02 113 1.80
32 2.21 72 2.51 114 1.92
33 1.90 73 1.82 115 1.50
34 2.32 74 1.93 116 2.05
35 2.10 75 1.84 117 1.84
36 1.97 76 2.14 118 2.00
37 2.07 77 1.96 119 2.21
38 2.28 78 2.33 120 1.96
39 2.11 79 1.87 121 1.60
40 1.59 80 1.87 122 1.91
41 2.34 81 1.43 123 1.43
42 2.08 82 1.44 124 2.15
43 2.03 83 1.96
44 1.52 84 1.97
45 1.61 85 1.68
46 1.91 86 1.72
47 1.64 87 1.83
48 2.13 88 1.61
Avg. 1.98 S.D. 0.24
170
Appendix 3 Sorted Fluxes and Their Normal Scores of
Pyroman 4sec Exposure


Sensor
Number
Heat
Flux
Normal
Scores
Sensor
Number
Heat
Flux
Normal
Scores
Sensor
Number
Heat
Flux
Normal
Scores
115 1.35 1.45 42 1.91 1.89 76 2.14 2.17
88 1.41 1.48 96 1.92 1.91 119 2.14 2.17
123 1.41 1.49 74 1.92 1.92 103 2.17 2.19
44 1.42 1.5 31 1.92 1.92 35 2.17 2.2
4 1.47 1.51 24 1.93 1.93 109 2.18 2.2
121 1.47 1.56 59 1.94 1.93 107 2.18 2.21
82 1.5 1.57 55 1.94 1.93 102 2.19 2.21
45 1.51 1.58 11 1.95 1.93 37 2.2 2.21
7 1.57 1.61 120 1.95 1.93 58 2.2 2.22
90 1.58 1.64 77 1.96 1.93 124 2.2 2.22
40 1.58 1.64 122 1.96 1.95 53 2.21 2.24
1 1.59 1.65 60 1.96 1.95 39 2.22 2.24
95 1.59 1.67 51 1.96 1.97 34 2.22 2.24
29 1.61 1.68 46 1.96 1.97 17 2.23 2.25
81 1.62 1.68 49 1.96 1.98 65 2.23 2.25
89 1.64 1.69 5 1.97 1.98 19 2.24 2.32
91 1.64 1.69 110 1.97 1.99 38 2.25 2.32
87 1.68 1.7 112 1.98 1.99 57 2.25 2.33
2 1.69 1.71 99 1.98 2 64 2.26 2.34
86 1.7 1.72 83 1.98 2 32 2.27 2.34
85 1.7 1.72 116 1.99 2.02 66 2.28 2.35
97 1.73 1.73 118 1.99 2.02 67 2.29 2.35
113 1.78 1.74 62 1.99 2.03 27 2.3 2.35
33 1.78 1.74 16 2 2.05 25 2.31 2.35
100 1.79 1.74 30 2.01 2.05 41 2.33 2.36
73 1.81 1.75 21 2.04 2.06 52 2.33 2.37
15 1.82 1.75 6 2.05 2.06 78 2.34 2.37
14 1.82 1.77 84 2.05 2.07 23 2.35 2.38
117 1.83 1.77 79 2.05 2.07 10 2.36 2.38
80 1.83 1.79 50 2.05 2.08 61 2.36 2.41
111 1.84 1.79 8 2.06 2.08 70 2.36 2.42
93 1.84 1.79 94 2.06 2.09 13 2.37 2.45
114 1.85 1.8 71 2.07 2.09 56 2.38 2.46
75 1.85 1.81 54 2.07 2.14 20 2.39 2.49
9 1.86 1.83 22 2.09 2.14 108 2.39 2.5
98 1.87 1.84 43 2.09 2.15 12 2.39 2.51
92 1.87 1.85 63 2.1 2.15 68 2.46 2.53
36 1.87 1.86 3 2.11 2.15 28 2.49 2.56
18 1.88 1.87 105 2.13 2.15 72 2.54 2.61
47 1.89 1.87 48 2.13 2.16 26 3 2.69
69 1.9 1.89 101 2.14 2.16


171
Appendix 4. Normal Distribution


For a normal distribution, only two parameters are used to determine the
distribution: the mean (µ) and the standard deviation (σ) as shown in following normal
density equation.
Where Y
i
is normal density, σ is standard deviation and µ is sample mean.
( )
2
2
2
2
1
σ
u
π σ
− −
=
i
X
i
e Y
172


Appendix 5. Garment Fabric Compression Test


Nomex
®
ШA Coverall Compression Test
Pure Compression Test
Request#: Garment N Size 42
Company Name: Mr Song
Date Tested: 03/19/02
Technician: Jon Porter
SAMPLE: GN 42
SPEED (mm/sec): 1.0
Compressive force (g/cm^2): 50.0
Stroke Sensitivity Switch (MM) = 5
Sensitivity: 2 X 5
Fabric Width: 10 CM.
Fabric Weight (g/cm^2): 2.00
Gap Dial SActual Gap Distance: 1.75
WC (Work) WC' RC LC Delta-T Thick Tm
N Compr. Recov %Resil Lnrty T EMC% (mm) (mm)
1 0 0 0.5759 0.1667 28.952 0.3131 0.7357 55.8992 1.3161 0.5804
2 0 0 0.5622 0.161 28.6446 0.4247 0.5295 47.6901 1.1103 0.5808
3 0 0 0.5883 0.1698 28.8657 0.3148 0.7474 56.3985 1.3251 0.5778
Avg 0 0 0.5754 0.1659 28.8208 0.3509 0.6708 53.3293 1.2505 0.5797
+/- 0 0 0.0107 0.0036 0.1295 0.0522 0.1001 3.9927 0.0992 0.0013
Garment ( 6.0oz/yd
2
) Fabric Compression Report



Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall Compression Test
Pure Compression Test
Request#: G 42
Company Name: Mr Song
Date Tested: 03/19/02
Technician: Jon Porter
SAMPLE: G 42
SPEED (mm/sec): 1.0
Compressive force (g/cm^2): 50.0
Stroke Sensitivity Switch (MM) = 5
Sensitivity: 2 X 5
Fabric Width: 10 CM.
Fabric Weight (g/cm^2): 2.00
Gap Dial SActual Gap Distance: 1.75
WC (Work) WC' RC LC Delta-T Thick Tm
N Compr. Recov %Resil Lnrty T EMC% (mm) (mm)
1 0 0 0.5748 0.1659 28.8592 0.2615 0.8793 65.8302 1.3357 0.4564
2 0 0 0.5715 0.1489 26.0476 0.3748 0.6099 56.728 1.0752 0.4653
3 0 0 0.5895 0.1526 25.8847 0.4076 0.5785 55.6754 1.0391 0.4606
Avg 0 0 0.5786 0.1558 26.9305 0.348 0.6893 59.4112 1.15 0.4608
+/- 0 0 0.0078 0.0073 1.3654 0.0626 0.135 4.5592 0.1322 0.0036
Garment (4.5oz/yd2) Kevlar/PBI Compression Report



173

Appendix 6. 3D Body Scanning Technology

3D Body Measurement System technology [118] developed by [TC]² includes a
white light-based scanner and proprietary measurement extraction software. The scanner
captures hundreds of thousands of data points of an individual's image, and the software
automatically extracts dozens of measurements. This measurement information can be
electronically compared to garment specifications and other data in order to recommend
the size an individual should purchase or used as a basis for made to measure clothing.

[TC]² chose the white light phase measurement profilometry (PMP) approach.
The structured light and PMP application is well suited for body measurement because of
the short acquisition time, accuracy and relatively low cost. The system design uses four
surface sensors. The sensors are stationary, so each must capture an area segment of the
surface. The area segments from the sensors are combined to form an integrated surface
which covers the critical areas of the body that are needed for making apparel.

The software program was developed in the Microsoft Developer Studio Visual
C++ under the Windows NT platform. OpenGL was utilized to create the graphics
display tools. The software performs the following functions: graphical user interface,
controlling the acquisition sequence, acquiring and storing image buffers, processing
acquired images and calculating resulting data points, and displaying graphical output.

The PMP method involves shifting the grating preset distances in the direction of
the varying phase and capturing images at each position. A total of four images are taken
from each sensor, each with the same amount of phase shift of the projected sinusoidal
pattern. Using the four images of the scene, the phase at each pixel can be determined.
The phase is then used to calculate the three-dimensional data points. With the raw scan
data acquired, a wealth of 3D geometric information is available which can be used to
predict best fit ready-to-wear clothing sizes or to make clothing for the scanned
individual with a level of fit that would be difficult to achieve with a manual
174
measurement process. However, a data extraction step is necessary to get the key
measurements. This process is a fully automated computer process. The automation is
desirable because the time required for a computer operator to extract the information
using an interactive data analysis tool can be as great as or greater than the manual
process using measurement tapes. The automated process developed by [TC]² is
beginning with the raw scan data (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Actual Scan – Raw Data

The raw scan data is further processed into a proprietary format that has several
advantages over the raw form of the scan data. This proprietary format (graphically
shown below in Figure 3) results from a sequence of processes including:

1.Data Filtering, which removes any stray points.
2.Segmentation of the body into individual limbs (arms, legs, torso)
3.Smoothing, which removes low level noise in the scan data.
4.Filling, which closes any small gaps in the scan data.
5.Compression, on the order of 100:1, to achieve a very "light" yet fully defining
data set
175


Figure 3. Processed Scan Data


The primary advantage of using this "processed" scan data is that it allows for the
creation of measurement extraction algorithms which are relatively more robust,
repeatable, and accurate as compared to algorithms which operate on the data in its raw
form. This in turn allows for the measurement extraction process to be automated, that is,
to occur without operator intervention.
176
Appendix 7. 3D Body Scanning Measurements Data
(air gaps in mm)


Points Measurements
Sen# Nomex Nomex B PBI 40 PBI 42 PBI 44
1 3.07 0.42 3.13 0.23 1.02
2 16.90 9.76 10.92 5.77 9.63
3 1.66 3.99 5.44 0.27 8.9
4 5.62 3.31 1.3 4.3 27.66
5 22.00 3.67 16.22 1.97 9.57
6 0.85 4.81 0.34 0.31 2.07
7 12.78 1.76 29.13 7.9 21.56
8 1.69 2.27 4.42 4.25 8.04
9 3.13 1.47 6.7 1.14 15.26
10 6.53 5 12.95 16.11 4.97
15 0.25 2.29 1.49 1.16 3.51
16 5.08 3.31 10.95 2.94 5
17 4.51 1.28 23.91 22.93 27.15
18 2.70 3.05 0.63 7.9 6.9
19 10.59 3.11 12.72 20.16 10.88
20 1.24 1.77 15.93 0.27 3.91
21 1.86 1.52 1.27 6.26 9.13
22 5.36 2.5 1.83 11.34 1.63
23 10.97 1.56 6.02 15.08 15.45
24 14.77 1.54 6.27 7.06 12.93
29 5.10 3.59 2.79 12.34 8.55
30 0.49 0.01 0.42 1.37 11.81
31 7.89 3.19 10.52 8.64 11.07
32 53.39 3.85 27.19 47.61 31.03
33 3.84 1.83 0.73 11.3 13.69
34 0.02 0.5 0.56 25.52 9.15
35 14.24 1.78 11.52 8.7 13.84
36 63.53 6.86 35.46 59.48 47.27
37 21.36 0.9 0.04 10.42 25.13
38 22.38 3.46 25.72 23.55 15.6
39 8.96 6.33 3.72 17.9 22.45
40 9.31 3.74 10.91 9.2 30.51
41 5.49 2.08 5.75 23.05 14.71
42 44.00 7.56 35.64 10.55 36.63
43 14.45 open 14.24 16.21 22.05
44 2.96 0pen 8.68 13.43 5.52
45 6.15 3.17 5.02 15.98 10.3
46 10.93 3.82 20.89 18.86 31.12
47 14.77 2.47 27.51 23.79 34.88
48 1.66 0.86 1.96 21.79 24.69
177
Sen# Nomex Nomex B PBI 40 PBI 42 PBI 44
49 26.15 1.72 1.85 42.04 19.84
50 25.16 0.5 29.36 45.69 47.87
51 13.77 2.35 30.43 21.6 13
52 10.74 5.26 9.17 25.72 12.74
53 6.66 2.47 2.56 20.09 4.13
54 62.13 0.9 14.18 54.29 45.5
55 8.27 3.07 13.07 14.99 23.66
56 0.12 5.86 1.35 1.2 12.9
57 2.17 4.5 1.68 8.46 8.01
58 57.25 6.63 28.41 26.67 30
59 18.14 open 39.73 23.96 40.45
60 6.41 open 11.86 3.64 9.23
61 2.15 9.15 3.72 1.7 4.13
62 2.77 6.68 2.09 0.98 2.77
63 3.99 14.58 2.74 11.06 12.82
64 3.68 4.58 3.66 8.2 4.8
65 18.53 21.15 10.18 24.38 20.94
66 12.88 8.47 17.39 12.9 16.35
67 33.71 7.12 10.02 32.28 18.35
68 4.86 7.45 8.63 14 15.42
69 8.52 4.4 4.18 15.45 15.11
70 3.78 1.17 0.69 3.55 5.17
71 2.85 3.16 1.32 3.01 3.41
72 6.56 0.25 7.36 9.98 9.59
73 6.53 0.49 2.08 0.57 19.51
74 0.20 6.09 1.84 2.47 20.41
75 20.53 16.55 5.49 30.26 12.09
76 16.58 7.05 25.78 12.25 12.09
77 28.72 11.59 8.57 27.11 21.88
78 5.26 3.59 2.31 7.36 5.72
79 2.72 0.93 10.33 1.83 15.14
80 15.53 2.38 12.15 18.23 17.42
81 6.97 7.4 10.32 17.99 24.2
82 1.10 1.42 5.32 4.86 9.2
83 7.42 1.24 21.45 4.73 25.55
84 17.56 7.59 3.21 17.35 19.91
85 1.22 3.93 4.86 2.12 6.55
86 20.32 2.19 2.63 27.92 17.55
87 11.51 2.37 5.11 17.96 24.12
88 4.38 1.83 5.3 1.66 15.12
89 4.72 0.71 9.34 7.89 22.58
90 10.68 1.74 4.89 11.29 7.37
91 11.89 2.39 9.71 21.28 15.45
92 27.38 7.59 13.68 16.06 17.49
93 28.77 4.38 1.84 5.7 8.75
94 0.05 4.93 1.71 3.86 12.36
178
Sen# Nomex Nomex B PBI 40 PBI 42 PBI 44
95 3.09 0.78 1 4.25 9.12
96 7.71 7.42 6.62 7.23
97 2.38 5.2 0.81 0.83 3.77
98 1.00 1.51 0.57 0.64 2.11
99 1.14 2.99 0.37 2.64 2.68
100 0.30 1.63 1.72 1.11 6.68
101 5.90 3.91 10.84 2.19 29.08
102 2.50 4.34 14.9 5.53 28.77
103 3.40 4.65 9.47 8.42 16.78
105 3.15 2.94 8.67 3.83 33.23
107 7.54 5.52 10.41 0.9 33
108 8.82 6.35 15.97 10.97 42.41
109 14.52 8.57 21.48 14.3 49.05
110 14.80 10.84 12.56 10.16 31.86
111 16.71 10.16 11.72 5.7 7.81
112 1.08 8.33 2.45 1.19 5.83
113 1.65 8.88 3.16 3.1 6.62
114 1.90 0.37 2.45 4.16 6.72
115 14.87 3.14 11.92 9.56 20.1
116 4.25 1.29 14.2 13.79 23.28
117 1.74 1.15 9.89 2.58 7.63
118 9.10 0.07 8.47 11.68 23.04
119 48.16 7.92 27.96 58.6 55.5
120 12.74 2.34 6.61 25.34 5.88
121 63.18 7.87 61.08 42.62 57.51
122 6.51 3.62 29.69 26.86 27.1
123 7.90 4.68 5.43 2.68 12.99
124 16.70 2.47 8.5 16 32.31

Note: Nomex B, this garment has been experienced in a 4 second exposure with
average heat flux of 2.00 cal/cm
2
sec.







179
APPENDIX 8. Garment Ease Measurements

Garment Ease Measurements are performed to each type of coveralls before and after
exposures both on table and on manikin dressed in garment.

Two garments of each type are to be measured flat on a table before and after exposure.
The garment is smoothed flat and the edge to edge measurements taken (NOT SEAM TO
SEAM).

The procedures of Ease determined while mannequin dressed in garment:

Manikin dressed in underwear and garment (or without underwear if applicable), excess
fabric at specific points on garment measured with a metal ruler - two layers of fabric
measured at once (each measurement needs to be multiplied by 2 to get total ease).
Measurements are taken at 2 sides when 2 seams to the garment component (eg. torso).
In this case, equal amounts of fabric held at each side at same time. Measurements are
taken on one side when one seam to garment component (eg. arms/legs). Fabric distance
are from mannequin body to seam measured. Ease calculated as total amount of extra
fabric in the garment circumference at the area measured

For example, torso measurement on one side = 2 inches, on the other side = 2 inches 4
inches of extra garment at this point, however, two layers of fabric at each measurement:
total ease = (2 inches + 2 inches) x 2 layers of fabric = 8 inches ease

An example of arm measurement, 2 inches of 2 layers of fabric at one point of
measurement = 4 inches ease.
180

Ease Measurements of Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall (4sec exposure)

Garment Identification: A024
Garment Description
manufacturer Bulwark
type one-piece coverall
colour tan
Type fibre/polymer 60/40 Kevlar/PBI 4sec, without UN
Identifying numbers cut#1771LOT#xce2nxc
Garment size reported 42
Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test
garment location flat "ease" flat "ease"
Chest - width (3+3.5)x2= (3+3.5)x2=
at underarm 25 13.0 25 13.0
circumference (width x2) 50 n/a 50 n/a
Waist - width (elastic relaxed) 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= 19 (1.5+1.5)x2=
circumference (width x2) 38 6.0 38 6.0
Hips - width
front halfway between crotch and (2+2.3)x2= (2+2)x2=
bottom of waistband 21.5 8.6 22 8
circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 44 n/a
Arm width - R arm
halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 2.5x2=
bottom of sleeve 7.8 5.0 8 5.0
circumference (width x2) 15.6 n/a 16 n/a
Sleeve Length - R arm
inside - underarm to bottom 18.5 n/a 18 n/a
outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23.5 23
Leg width - R leg
btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem
one third (in line with crotch) 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 13 3.5x2=7
two thirds down (74 cm) 11 3.5x2=7 11 3.5x2=7
bottom 10.3 na 10 na
Total Garment Length
from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a
at back 62 61.5
Torso length
from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a
at center back 19 19
Pant length - R leg
bottom of waistband to bottom of hem
side seam 40 n/a 40 n/a
centre front of pant leg 40 n/a 41 n/a
Back rise
base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a
centre back 34.3 35
Waistband width
centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a
* ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)




181
Ease Measurements of Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall (3sec exposure)

Garment Identification: A024
Garment Description
manufacturer Bulwark
type one-piece coverall
colour tan
design features
Type fibre/polymer 60/40 Kevlar/PBI 3sec, without UN
Identifying numbers cut#1771LOT#xce2nxc
Garment size reported 42
Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test
garment location flat "ease" flat "ease"
Chest - width (3+3.5)x2= (3.5+3.5)x2=
at underarm 25 13.0 25 14.0
circumference (width x2) 50 n/a 50 n/a
Waist - width (elastic relaxed) 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= 19 (1.5+1.5)x2=
circumference (width x2) 38 6.0 38 6.0
Hips - width
front halfway between crotch and (2+2.3)x2= (2+2)x2=
bottom of waistband 21.5 8.6 22 8
circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 44 n/a
Arm width - R arm
halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 2.5x2=
bottom of sleeve 7.8 5.0 7.8 5.0
circumference (width x2) 15.6 n/a 15.6 n/a
Sleeve Length - R arm
inside - underarm to bottom 18.5 n/a 19 n/a
outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23.5 23
Leg width - R leg
btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem
one third (in line with crotch) 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 12.5 3.3x2=6.6
two thirds down (74 cm) 11 3.5x2=7 10.5 3.5x2=7
bottom 10.3 na 10 na
Total Garment Length
from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a
at back 62 61
Torso length
from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a
at center back 19 19
Pant length - R leg
bottom of waistband to bottom of hem
side seam 40 n/a 40 n/a
centre front of pant leg 40 n/a 41 n/a
Back rise
base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a
centre back 34.3 35
Waistband width
centre back 1.5 n/a 1.58 n/a
* ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)

182
Ease Measurements of Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall (5sec exposure)

Garment Identification: A024
Garment Description
manufacturer Bulwark
type one-piece coverall
colour tan
design features
Type fibre/polymer 60/40 Kevlar/PBI 5sec, with UN
Identifying numbers cut#1771LOT#xce2nxc
Garment size reported 42
Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test
garment location flat "ease" flat "ease"
Chest - width (3+3.5)x2= (3+3)x2 =
at underarm 25 13.0 25 12
circumference (width x2) 50 n/a 50
Waist - width (elastic relaxed) 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= 19 (1.5+1.5)x2=
circumference (width x2) 38 6.0 38 6
Hips - width
front halfway between crotch and (2+2.3)x2= (2+2)x2=
bottom of waistband 21.5 8.6 22 8
circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 44
Arm width - R arm
halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 2x2=
bottom of sleeve 7.8 5.0 7.5 4
circumference (width x2) 15.6 n/a 15
Sleeve Length - R arm
inside - underarm to bottom 18.5 n/a 18 n/a
outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23.5 23
Leg width - R leg
btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem
one third (in line with crotch) 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 12.5 3.3x2=6.6
two thirds down (74 cm) 11 3.5x2=7 11 3.5x2=7
bottom 10.3 na 10 na
Total Garment Length
from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a
at back 62 61
Torso length
from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a
at center back 19 18.5
Pant length - R leg
bottom of waistband to bottom of hem
side seam 40 n/a 41 n/a
centre front of pant leg 40 n/a 40.5 n/a
Back rise
base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a
centre back 34.3 35.5
Waistband width
centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a
* ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)

183
Ease Measurements of Nomex
®
ШA Coverall (4sec exposure)

Garment Identification: A024
Garment Description
manufacturer Bulwark
type one-piece coverall
colour tan
design features "Deluxe" style
Type fibre/polymer Nomex 4sec, without UN
Identifying numbers cut#176LOT#xce2nxc
Garment size reported 42
Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test
garment location flat "ease" flat "ease"
Chest - width (3+3)x2=
at underarm 24 12.0 21 fit
circumference (width x2) 48 n/a 42
Waist - width (elastic relaxed) 18.3 (1.5+1.5)x2= 18
circumference (width x2) 36.6 6.0 36 fit
Hips - width
front halfway between crotch and (2+2)x2= fit
bottom of waistband 21.5 8 20
circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 40 fit
Arm width - R arm
halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2=
bottom of sleeve 8 5.0 6.5
circumference (width x2) 16.0 n/a 13 fit
Sleeve Length - R arm
inside - underarm to bottom 18 n/a 14
outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23 20 fit
Leg width - R leg
btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem
one third (in line with crotch) 13 2.8x2=5.6 10
two thirds down (74 cm) 11 4.3x2=8.6 9
bottom 10 na 8 fit
Total Garment Length
from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a
at back 60 53
Torso length
from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a
at center back 18 17
Pant length - R leg
bottom of waistband to bottom of hem
side seam 40.5 n/a 32 n/a
centre front of pant leg 40.5 n/a 34 n/a
Back rise
base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a
centre back 35.5 31.5
Waistband width
centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a
* ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)





184
Ease Measurements of Nomex
®
ШA Coverall (3sec exposure)

Garment Identification: A024
Garment Description
manufacturer Bulwark
type one-piece coverall
colour tan
design features "Deluxe" style
Type fibre/polymer Nomex 3sec, without UN
Identifying numbers cut#176LOT#xce2nxc
Garment size reported 42
Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test
garment location flat "ease" flat "ease"
Chest - width (3+3)x2= (2+2)x2=
at underarm 24 12.0 23.5 8.0
circumference (width x2) 48 n/a 47 n/a
Waist - width (elastic relaxed) 18.3 (1.5+1.5)x2= 18.5 (1.5+1)x2=
circumference (width x2) 36.6 6.0 37 5.0
Hips - width
front halfway between crotch and (2+2)x2= (1.25+1.25)x2=
bottom of waistband 21.5 8 20 6
circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 40 n/a
Arm width - R arm
halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 0.6x2=
bottom of sleeve 8 5.0 6.5 1.2
circumference (width x2) 16.0 n/a 13 n/a
Sleeve Length - R arm
inside - underarm to bottom 18 n/a 16 n/a
outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23 21
Leg width - R leg
btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem
one third (in line with crotch) 13 2.8x2=5.6 11 1.5x2=3
two thirds down (74 cm) 11 4.3x2=8.6 10 2x2=4
bottom 10 na 10 na
Total Garment Length
from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a
at back 60 57
Torso length
from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a
at center back 18 17
Pant length - R leg
bottom of waistband to bottom of hem
side seam 40.5 n/a 36 n/a
centre front of pant leg 40.5 n/a 38 n/a
Back rise
base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a
centre back 35.5 32
Waistband width
centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a
* ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)




185
Ease Measurements of Nomex
®
ШA Coverall (5sec exposure)

Garment Identification: A024
Garment Description
manufacturer Bulwark
type one-piece coverall
colour tan
design features "Deluxe" style
Type fibre/polymer Nomex 5sec, with UN
Identifying numbers cut#176LOT#xce2nxc
Garment size reported 42
Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test
garment location flat "ease" flat "ease"
Chest - width (3+3)x2=
at underarm 24 12.0 21
circumference (width x2) 48 n/a 42 fit
Waist - width (elastic relaxed) 18.3 (1.5+1.5)x2= 18
circumference (width x2) 36.6 6.0 36 fit
Hips - width
front halfway between crotch and (2+2)x2=
bottom of waistband 21.5 8 20
circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 40 fit
Arm width - R arm
halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2=
bottom of sleeve 8 5.0 6.5
circumference (width x2) 16.0 n/a 13 fit
Sleeve Length - R arm
inside - underarm to bottom 18 n/a 14.5
outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23 20.5 fit
Leg width - R leg
btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem
one third (in line with crotch) 13 2.8x2=5.6 11
two thirds down (74 cm) 11 4.3x2=8.6 9.5
bottom 10 na 8.5 fit
Total Garment Length
from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a
at back 60 50
Torso length
from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a
at center back 18 17
Pant length - R leg
bottom of waistband to bottom of hem
side seam 40.5 n/a 32 n/a
centre front of pant leg 40.5 n/a 31.75 n/a
Back rise
base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a
centre back 35.5 31.5
Waistband width
centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a
* ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)
186
Appendix 9 manikin test burn location with underwear

Manikin Test
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 4 sec Exposure






187



Model Prediction
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 4 sec Exposure





188
Manikin Test

Nomex
®
ШA Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 5 sec Exposure







189

Model Prediction
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 5 sec Exposure







190

Manikin Test
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 4 sec Exposure












191

Model Prediction
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 4 sec Exposure












192



Manikin Test
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 5 sec Exposure










193



Model Prediction
Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 5 sec Exposure










194



Manikin Test
Nomex
®
ШA Coverall 2
nd
and 3
rd
Burn Location with
Underwear for 5 sec Exposure










195
Time Tsen Tflame Time Tsen Tflame Time Tsen Tflame Time Tsen Tflame
3.95 31.39 110.60 4.95 127.89 1002.32 5.95 179.63 1116.58 6.95 209.77 1153.69
3.96 32.11 110.84 4.96 128.69 1010.99 5.96 180.04 1115.48 6.96 210.08 1151.61
3.97 32.89 111.57 4.97 129.47 1019.90 5.97 180.47 1115.11 6.97 210.39 1150.64
3.98 33.77 111.69 4.98 130.25 1028.44 5.98 180.86 1114.50 6.98 210.72 1149.78
3.99 34.69 111.82 4.99 131.04 1036.87 5.99 181.33 1114.75 6.99 211.02 1149.41
4.00 35.70 111.82 5.00 131.86 1045.53 6.00 181.72 1114.99 7.00 211.31 1149.41
4.01 36.72 111.82 5.01 132.66 1053.83 6.01 182.09 1115.23 7.01 211.58 1148.19
4.02 37.85 112.79 5.02 133.50 1062.26 6.02 182.48 1115.85 7.02 211.76 1146.49
4.03 39.02 113.04 5.03 134.36 1070.56 6.03 182.83 1116.70 7.03 211.91 1144.04
4.04 40.20 113.77 5.04 135.22 1078.49 6.04 183.15 1117.80 7.04 211.95 1140.50
4.05 41.47 114.87 5.05 136.13 1086.55 6.05 183.52 1119.02 7.05 212.09 1135.74
4.06 42.72 116.21 5.06 137.05 1093.99 6.06 183.79 1120.73 7.06 212.05 1130.25
4.07 44.04 118.29 5.07 138.01 1101.44 6.07 184.08 1122.68 7.07 212.05 1124.39
4.08 45.37 121.34 5.08 138.89 1108.28 6.08 184.45 1125.61 7.08 211.91 1117.68
4.09 46.78 125.37 5.09 139.77 1114.01 6.09 184.73 1128.54 7.09 211.91 1110.72
4.10 48.16 131.35 5.10 140.72 1119.02 6.10 185.06 1132.08 7.10 211.84 1103.64
4.11 49.57 138.67 5.11 141.52 1123.17 6.11 185.41 1135.50 7.11 211.76 1097.29
4.12 51.06 148.07 5.12 142.38 1126.10 6.12 185.66 1139.53 7.12 211.72 1091.19
4.13 52.52 160.03 5.13 143.20 1128.17 6.13 186.04 1143.43 7.13 211.68 1086.18
4.14 54.02 174.44 5.14 144.02 1129.40 6.14 186.37 1147.22 7.14 211.64 1082.15
4.15 55.45 190.55 5.15 144.81 1129.88 6.15 186.70 1150.76 7.15 211.58 1079.35
4.16 56.95 209.35 5.16 145.57 1129.88 6.16 186.97 1154.42 7.16 211.70 1078.13
4.17 58.44 230.84 5.17 146.23 1129.64 6.17 187.38 1157.47 7.17 211.72 1078.37
4.18 59.86 254.64 5.18 146.93 1128.54 6.18 187.72 1160.64 7.18 211.90 1079.47
4.19 61.25 280.76 5.19 147.48 1127.08 6.19 188.05 1163.57 7.19 212.05 1082.15
4.20 62.72 309.20 5.20 148.01 1125.86 6.20 188.38 1165.89 7.20 212.25 1086.43
4.21 64.16 339.11 5.21 148.50 1124.88 6.21 188.73 1168.70 7.21 212.56 1091.07
4.22 65.55 370.12 5.22 148.95 1122.93 6.22 189.08 1170.90 7.22 212.81 1096.80
4.23 67.01 402.71 5.23 149.32 1121.95 6.23 189.45 1173.22 7.23 213.11 1103.27
4.24 68.42 435.79 5.24 149.71 1121.09 6.24 189.90 1175.54 7.24 213.46 1109.99
4.25 69.84 469.24 5.25 150.10 1120.73 6.25 190.39 1177.37 7.25 213.85 1117.19
4.26 71.25 502.69 5.26 150.45 1121.09 6.26 190.86 1179.57 7.26 214.20 1124.02
4.27 72.64 536.01 5.27 150.84 1121.70 6.27 191.37 1181.15 7.27 214.53 1130.62
4.28 74.10 568.97 5.28 151.21 1122.93 6.28 191.86 1182.50 7.28 214.90 1136.84
4.29 75.51 601.56 5.29 151.68 1124.76 6.29 192.38 1183.11 7.29 215.20 1142.46
4.30 76.99 633.42 5.30 152.17 1126.71 6.30 192.89 1182.74 7.30 215.53 1147.46
4.31 78.42 662.84 5.31 152.58 1129.88 6.31 193.36 1181.76 7.31 215.78 1151.37
4.32 79.88 690.31 5.32 153.20 1133.42 6.32 193.89 1180.05 7.32 215.98 1154.54
4.33 81.31 716.92 5.33 153.73 1137.82 6.33 194.36 1177.86 7.33 216.17 1156.86
4.34 82.75 742.07 5.34 154.34 1142.09 6.34 194.82 1174.68 7.34 216.37 1158.57
4.35 84.24 766.11 5.35 154.92 1146.73 6.35 195.29 1171.75 7.35 216.47 1159.18
4.36 85.74 789.31 5.36 155.47 1151.12 6.36 195.72 1168.21 7.36 216.62 1159.18
4.37 87.21 811.04 5.37 156.06 1154.91 6.37 196.09 1164.55 7.37 216.78 1159.18
4.38 88.71 831.06 5.38 156.58 1157.96 6.38 196.47 1160.28 7.38 216.90 1158.81
4.39 90.22 850.95 5.39 157.01 1160.16 6.39 196.84 1156.49 7.39 217.05 1158.20
4.40 91.68 870.12 5.40 157.44 1161.99 6.40 197.09 1152.71 7.40 217.25 1157.84
4.41 93.05 888.92 5.41 157.87 1163.21 6.41 197.33 1149.05 7.41 217.48 1156.98
4.42 94.41 907.72 5.42 158.20 1164.06 6.42 197.48 1145.75 7.42 217.70 1156.74
4.43 95.82 926.39 5.43 158.56 1163.94 6.43 197.64 1142.46 7.43 217.97 1156.13
4.44 97.13 944.70 5.44 158.91 1162.96 6.44 197.70 1140.14 7.44 218.24 1155.64
4.45 98.48 963.14 5.45 159.32 1161.87 6.45 197.79 1138.06 7.45 218.50 1155.40
4.46 99.86 981.20 5.46 159.61 1160.89 6.46 197.85 1136.84 7.46 218.83 1154.42
4.47 101.13 998.29 5.47 160.08 1159.67 6.47 197.93 1136.11 7.47 219.06 1153.93
4.48 102.48 1015.14 5.48 160.43 1158.33 6.48 198.05 1135.99 7.48 219.30 1152.34
4.49 103.87 1032.35 5.49 160.92 1156.74 6.49 198.11 1136.96 7.49 219.53 1150.88
4.50 105.22 1049.32 5.50 161.35 1155.03 6.50 198.28 1137.82 7.50 219.79 1148.68
4.51 106.58 1066.04 5.51 161.82 1152.83 6.51 198.40 1139.04 7.51 219.90 1146.00
4.52 107.95 1082.28 5.52 162.29 1150.15 6.52 198.59 1140.26 7.52 220.14 1142.94
4.53 109.32 1098.02 5.53 162.70 1146.73 6.53 198.75 1141.60 7.53 220.31 1140.02
4.54 110.74 1113.28 5.54 163.15 1142.09 6.54 198.98 1143.07 7.54 220.55 1137.09
4.55 112.11 1127.69 5.55 163.56 1137.57 6.55 199.22 1144.65 7.55 220.76 1134.52
4.56 113.46 1140.99 5.56 163.95 1132.32 6.56 199.40 1146.24 7.56 220.96 1132.32
4.57 114.73 1153.20 5.57 164.32 1126.59 6.57 199.65 1147.22 7.57 221.13 1130.37
4.58 116.02 1163.94 5.58 164.71 1120.12 6.58 199.88 1148.44 7.58 221.33 1129.52
4.59 117.19 1173.10 5.59 165.10 1113.65 6.59 200.12 1149.41 7.59 221.62 1128.66
4.60 118.28 1180.42 5.60 165.49 1107.67 6.60 200.35 1150.03 7.60 221.91 1128.66
4.61 119.34 1186.16 5.61 165.86 1101.32 6.61 200.57 1150.03 7.61 222.15 1129.40
4.62 120.29 1190.31 5.62 166.25 1096.44 6.62 200.74 1149.41 7.62 222.40 1130.37
4.63 121.13 1192.99 5.63 166.70 1091.80 6.63 200.88 1148.19 7.63 222.75 1132.57
4.64 121.95 1194.21 5.64 167.07 1088.87 6.64 200.98 1146.73 7.64 222.99 1134.52
4.65 122.60 1193.97 5.65 167.54 1086.67 6.65 201.09 1144.29 7.65 223.32 1137.21
4.66 123.15 1191.65 5.66 168.01 1085.94 6.66 201.17 1141.60 7.66 223.63 1140.63
4.67 123.61 1187.50 5.67 168.50 1086.79 6.67 201.17 1138.67 7.67 223.91 1143.68
4.68 123.91 1181.27 5.68 168.97 1088.75 6.68 201.21 1135.62 7.68 224.18 1147.58
4.69 124.16 1172.36 5.69 169.49 1092.29 6.69 201.23 1132.32 7.69 224.45 1151.12
4.70 124.14 1160.65 5.70 170.04 1096.80 6.70 201.35 1129.52 7.70 224.71 1154.66
4.71 124.06 1146.48 5.71 170.59 1102.42 6.71 201.37 1127.32 7.71 225.04 1158.45
4.72 123.83 1130.01 5.72 171.11 1108.77 6.72 201.48 1125.49 7.72 225.22 1161.87
4.73 123.52 1111.94 5.73 171.70 1115.60 6.73 201.64 1125.00 7.73 225.41 1165.04
4.74 123.16 1092.77 5.74 172.25 1122.44 6.74 201.80 1125.00 7.74 225.57 1167.85
4.75 122.77 1073.24 5.75 172.79 1129.27 6.75 202.03 1125.49 7.75 225.65 1170.04
4.76 122.40 1054.32 5.76 173.34 1135.50 6.76 202.29 1127.69 7.76 225.78 1171.63
4.77 122.13 1036.50 5.77 173.81 1141.48 6.77 202.60 1130.74 7.77 225.78 1172.97
4.78 121.90 1020.14 5.78 174.26 1146.36 6.78 202.95 1134.52 7.78 225.78 1173.83
4.79 121.68 1005.62 5.79 174.69 1150.27 6.79 203.40 1139.40 7.79 225.74 1173.71
4.80 121.68 993.77 5.80 175.12 1152.71 6.80 203.85 1144.78 7.80 225.76 1173.71
4.81 121.68 982.79 5.81 175.45 1154.18 6.81 204.30 1150.76 7.81 225.59 1172.85
4.82 121.78 974.37 5.82 175.78 1153.93 6.82 204.84 1156.49 7.82 225.55 1172.12
4.83 121.99 967.16 5.83 176.02 1152.71 6.83 205.29 1161.74 7.83 225.39 1171.39
4.84 122.17 961.79 5.84 176.31 1150.64 6.84 205.80 1166.50 7.84 225.29 1170.41
4.85 122.38 957.64 5.85 176.56 1147.71 6.85 206.31 1169.68 7.85 225.16 1169.31
4.86 122.72 955.32 5.86 176.78 1144.29 6.86 206.74 1171.88 7.86 224.92 1167.85
4.87 123.03 954.59 5.87 177.01 1140.26 6.87 207.19 1172.61 7.87 224.71 1166.26
4.88 123.40 955.93 5.88 177.27 1136.48 6.88 207.54 1172.00 7.88 224.34 1163.82
4.89 123.87 958.86 5.89 177.50 1132.45 6.89 207.87 1170.29 7.89 224.04 1160.89
4.90 124.41 963.62 5.90 177.81 1129.15 6.90 208.22 1167.85 7.90 223.61 1157.11
4.91 124.96 969.73 5.91 178.13 1125.73 6.91 208.48 1164.55 7.91 223.20 1152.22
4.92 125.66 976.93 5.92 178.44 1122.93 6.92 208.77 1161.38 7.92 222.66 1146.73
4.93 126.43 984.86 5.93 178.83 1120.24 6.93 209.10 1158.20 7.93 222.07 1140.02
4.94 127.13 993.53 5.94 179.20 1118.16 6.94 209.43 1155.64 7.94 221.37 1132.08

Appendix 10
Sensor Flame
Temp


Sensor: 71

Flame Temperature
and Sensor Temperature
in 4 second exposure
196
Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame
2.40 35.39 381.47 3.40 60.10 1094.36 4.40 84.73 1045.04 5.40 108.42 1070.43
2.41 35.61 423.22 3.41 60.33 1096.56 4.41 84.92 1048.83 5.41 108.67 1073.00
2.42 35.80 466.68 3.42 60.53 1099.37 4.42 85.22 1052.61 5.42 108.95 1074.95
2.43 36.06 509.89 3.43 60.76 1101.81 4.43 85.45 1056.40 5.43 109.18 1076.91
2.44 36.33 552.86 3.44 61.02 1104.37 4.44 85.70 1060.06 5.44 109.45 1078.86
2.45 36.58 594.48 3.45 61.29 1107.18 4.45 85.98 1063.60 5.45 109.65 1080.45
2.46 36.80 634.52 3.46 61.50 1109.50 4.46 86.25 1067.02 5.46 109.94 1082.52
2.47 37.05 671.27 3.47 61.74 1111.21 4.47 86.52 1070.07 5.47 110.20 1084.35
2.48 37.36 705.44 3.48 61.95 1112.79 4.48 86.82 1073.00 5.48 110.47 1085.94
2.49 37.64 737.31 3.49 62.17 1113.77 4.49 87.05 1074.95 5.49 110.72 1086.91
2.50 37.91 766.48 3.50 62.48 1114.62 4.50 87.36 1076.42 5.50 111.00 1087.04
2.51 38.15 793.58 3.51 62.77 1114.99 4.51 87.60 1077.39 5.51 111.23 1086.30
2.52 38.40 817.02 3.52 62.99 1114.01 4.52 87.91 1077.39 5.52 111.43 1085.08
2.53 38.71 837.65 3.53 63.28 1113.40 4.53 88.16 1076.17 5.53 111.72 1083.01
2.54 38.97 855.84 3.54 63.50 1111.69 4.54 88.40 1074.34 5.54 111.90 1080.93
2.55 39.22 872.56 3.55 63.73 1109.38 4.55 88.69 1072.14 5.55 112.17 1078.86
2.56 39.49 886.96 3.56 63.95 1106.81 4.56 88.93 1069.09 5.56 112.42 1076.42
2.57 39.75 900.39 3.57 64.26 1104.49 4.57 89.18 1065.92 5.57 112.70 1074.34
2.58 39.94 912.23 3.58 64.47 1101.07 4.58 89.41 1062.50 5.58 112.93 1072.27
2.59 40.23 924.19 3.59 64.69 1098.02 4.59 89.69 1058.84 5.59 113.18 1069.95
2.60 40.57 935.30 3.60 64.94 1095.34 4.60 89.94 1055.66 5.60 113.42 1067.99
2.61 40.82 946.66 3.61 65.16 1092.29 4.61 90.12 1052.37 5.61 113.65 1065.31
2.62 41.09 958.37 3.62 65.39 1089.72 4.62 90.41 1049.68 5.62 113.91 1063.11
2.63 41.31 970.95 3.63 65.68 1087.52 4.63 90.68 1047.49 5.63 114.16 1061.40
2.64 41.54 983.64 3.64 65.86 1085.94 4.64 90.90 1045.53 5.64 114.40 1059.33
2.65 41.88 996.22 3.65 66.09 1085.57 4.65 91.13 1044.07 5.65 114.63 1057.62
2.66 42.17 1008.91 3.66 66.31 1085.45 4.66 91.29 1043.34 5.66 114.86 1056.64
2.67 42.44 1022.10 3.67 66.58 1085.94 4.67 91.54 1043.82 5.67 115.12 1055.42
2.68 42.70 1034.06 3.68 66.82 1087.16 4.68 91.80 1044.68 5.68 115.33 1055.42
2.69 43.01 1046.27 3.69 67.11 1088.38 4.69 92.05 1046.39 5.69 115.57 1055.42
2.70 43.24 1057.74 3.70 67.32 1089.72 4.70 92.29 1048.58 5.70 115.86 1055.42
2.71 43.56 1067.75 3.71 67.60 1090.70 4.71 92.52 1051.03 5.71 116.08 1055.42
2.72 43.87 1076.17 3.72 67.85 1091.68 4.72 92.73 1053.35 5.72 116.29 1054.69
2.73 44.14 1083.74 3.73 68.09 1092.04 4.73 92.97 1055.79 5.73 116.54 1054.20
2.74 44.43 1089.72 3.74 68.34 1092.04 4.74 93.20 1058.72 5.74 116.76 1052.86
2.75 44.67 1093.99 3.75 68.65 1091.31 4.75 93.44 1061.28 5.75 116.95 1051.51
2.76 44.96 1097.29 3.76 68.89 1090.82 4.76 93.69 1063.84 5.76 117.27 1050.05
2.77 45.20 1099.37 3.77 69.14 1089.72 4.77 93.89 1066.65 5.77 117.42 1047.49
2.78 45.45 1100.46 3.78 69.41 1088.62 4.78 94.18 1068.85 5.78 117.64 1045.04
2.79 45.76 1100.59 3.79 69.69 1087.65 4.79 94.40 1070.43 5.79 117.89 1042.85
2.80 46.02 1099.61 3.80 69.94 1086.30 4.80 94.59 1071.29 5.80 118.05 1040.53
2.81 46.27 1098.39 3.81 70.20 1084.84 4.81 94.81 1071.41 5.81 118.28 1038.21
2.82 46.54 1096.31 3.82 70.47 1083.37 4.82 95.06 1071.41 5.82 118.56 1036.50
2.83 46.86 1094.24 3.83 70.76 1082.15 4.83 95.31 1071.17 5.83 118.75 1035.03
2.84 47.13 1091.55 3.84 71.02 1080.81 4.84 95.55 1070.07 5.84 118.95 1034.18
2.85 47.38 1088.87 3.85 71.27 1079.35 4.85 95.78 1068.24 5.85 119.20 1033.45
2.86 47.60 1085.69 3.86 71.50 1077.88 4.86 96.00 1066.53 5.86 119.40 1033.45
2.87 47.91 1082.40 3.87 71.80 1077.15 4.87 96.21 1064.58 5.87 119.59 1033.45
2.88 48.15 1079.59 3.88 72.03 1076.29 4.88 96.43 1062.74 5.88 119.86 1033.57
2.89 48.42 1076.42 3.89 72.27 1075.32 4.89 96.66 1061.40 5.89 120.06 1034.42
2.90 48.67 1073.12 3.90 72.56 1074.83 4.90 96.93 1060.06 5.90 120.31 1035.65
2.91 48.97 1070.07 3.91 72.77 1073.73 4.91 97.13 1059.08 5.91 120.55 1037.48
2.92 49.24 1067.02 3.92 73.01 1072.88 4.92 97.34 1057.86 5.92 120.80 1039.80
2.93 49.47 1063.97 3.93 73.22 1072.39 4.93 97.60 1057.86 5.93 121.04 1042.73
2.94 49.73 1060.91 3.94 73.52 1071.53 4.94 97.77 1058.11 5.94 121.29 1045.78
2.95 50.06 1058.11 3.95 73.73 1071.29 4.95 97.99 1059.33 5.95 121.54 1049.07
2.96 50.31 1055.30 3.96 73.97 1071.29 4.96 98.28 1060.43 5.96 121.82 1052.74
2.97 50.55 1052.00 3.97 74.16 1071.53 4.97 98.48 1061.89 5.97 122.07 1056.64
2.98 50.80 1048.83 3.98 74.43 1072.63 4.98 98.69 1063.48 5.98 122.31 1060.79
2.99 51.06 1044.92 3.99 74.67 1074.46 4.99 98.91 1065.67 5.99 122.60 1064.70
3.00 51.35 1040.89 4.00 74.94 1076.78 5.00 99.16 1067.51 6.00 122.83 1069.34
3.01 51.62 1036.74 4.01 75.20 1079.47 5.01 99.40 1069.34 6.01 123.05 1073.12
3.02 51.84 1032.96 4.02 75.43 1082.15 5.02 99.57 1070.92 6.02 123.36 1077.15
3.03 52.13 1029.54 4.03 75.68 1084.72 5.03 99.92 1072.27 6.03 123.61 1081.79
3.04 52.34 1026.25 4.04 75.94 1087.40 5.04 100.02 1073.00 6.04 123.91 1086.18
3.05 52.66 1023.93 4.05 76.15 1089.11 5.05 100.27 1073.61 6.05 124.16 1090.58
3.06 52.85 1021.85 4.06 76.43 1090.58 5.06 100.45 1073.24 6.06 124.36 1094.60
3.07 53.16 1020.14 4.07 76.72 1090.82 5.07 100.66 1072.51 6.07 124.63 1098.02
3.08 53.38 1018.80 4.08 76.95 1091.19 5.08 100.88 1071.53 6.08 124.92 1101.20
3.09 53.63 1018.31 4.09 77.23 1090.21 5.09 101.09 1071.17 6.09 125.18 1104.00
3.10 53.85 1017.58 4.10 77.46 1088.62 5.10 101.29 1069.95 6.10 125.41 1106.57
3.11 54.10 1018.31 4.11 77.70 1086.18 5.11 101.52 1068.73 6.11 125.66 1108.64
3.12 54.32 1019.17 4.12 77.95 1082.76 5.12 101.74 1067.51 6.12 125.98 1110.60
3.13 54.59 1020.51 4.13 78.22 1079.59 5.13 101.97 1066.53 6.13 126.21 1111.82
3.14 54.82 1022.71 4.14 78.46 1076.05 5.14 102.23 1065.31 6.14 126.43 1112.79
3.15 55.02 1024.78 4.15 78.73 1072.14 5.15 102.38 1064.33 6.15 126.64 1113.89
3.16 55.25 1027.71 4.16 78.95 1068.24 5.16 102.64 1063.97 6.16 126.90 1114.38
3.17 55.49 1031.01 4.17 79.16 1064.82 5.17 102.89 1063.97 6.17 127.15 1115.23
3.18 55.72 1034.91 4.18 79.40 1061.77 5.18 103.16 1064.70 6.18 127.36 1114.99
3.19 55.90 1038.82 4.19 79.61 1058.96 5.19 103.36 1065.19 6.19 127.62 1114.01
3.20 56.15 1043.09 4.20 79.88 1056.52 5.20 103.58 1066.41 6.20 127.83 1113.04
3.21 56.37 1047.24 4.21 80.10 1053.96 5.21 103.85 1067.26 6.21 128.07 1110.96
3.22 56.58 1051.15 4.22 80.35 1051.51 5.22 104.08 1067.87 6.22 128.30 1108.28
3.23 56.74 1054.93 4.23 80.61 1049.07 5.23 104.36 1068.85 6.23 128.50 1104.98
3.24 56.99 1058.84 4.24 80.82 1046.63 5.24 104.59 1068.85 6.24 128.77 1100.95
3.25 57.17 1062.87 4.25 81.07 1043.58 5.25 104.81 1068.85 6.25 128.93 1095.70
3.26 57.36 1067.38 4.26 81.33 1041.26 5.26 105.04 1068.85 6.26 129.08 1090.21
3.27 57.56 1071.66 4.27 81.56 1039.19 5.27 105.33 1068.73 6.27 129.32 1083.86
3.28 57.79 1075.81 4.28 81.80 1036.99 5.28 105.55 1067.87 6.28 129.51 1077.15
3.29 57.97 1079.47 4.29 81.99 1034.67 5.29 105.74 1067.14 6.29 129.65 1069.58
3.30 58.16 1082.52 4.30 82.25 1032.96 5.30 105.98 1066.41 6.30 129.86 1061.89
3.31 58.38 1085.08 4.31 82.46 1031.98 5.31 106.23 1066.04 6.31 130.06 1053.96
3.32 58.56 1086.55 4.32 82.73 1031.01 5.32 106.54 1064.82 6.32 130.18 1045.17
3.33 58.73 1087.16 4.33 82.99 1031.01 5.33 106.74 1064.09 6.33 130.27 1036.50
3.34 58.89 1088.14 4.34 83.20 1032.11 5.34 106.97 1063.84 6.34 130.43 1027.22
3.35 59.12 1088.50 4.35 83.50 1032.96 5.35 107.15 1063.97 6.35 130.49 1017.82
3.36 59.30 1088.87 4.36 83.71 1034.67 5.36 107.40 1063.97 6.36 130.66 1008.30
3.37 59.49 1089.60 4.37 83.95 1036.99 5.37 107.72 1065.19 6.37 130.72 998.29
3.38 59.67 1091.06 4.38 84.22 1039.19 5.38 107.93 1066.77 6.38 130.86 986.94
3.39 59.86 1092.53 4.39 84.47 1041.99 5.39 108.15 1068.60 6.39 130.86 975.46

Sensor: 68

Flame Temperature
and Sensor Temperature
in 4 second exposure
197
Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame
0.00 30.07 29.69 1.00 40.75 1033.20 2.00 58.89 1120.41 3.00 74.69 1116.11
0.01 30.07 33.59 1.01 41.05 1033.30 2.01 59.11 1119.34 3.01 74.80 1115.23
0.02 30.07 37.79 1.02 41.21 1033.79 2.02 59.29 1118.26 3.02 75.13 1114.55
0.03 29.95 42.97 1.03 41.45 1034.86 2.03 59.23 1117.68 3.03 75.02 1113.48
0.04 30.14 49.12 1.04 41.68 1036.04 2.04 59.67 1117.19 3.04 75.41 1112.30
0.05 29.95 56.25 1.05 41.91 1037.40 2.05 59.63 1117.09 3.05 75.56 1110.94
0.06 30.07 64.84 1.06 42.10 1038.87 2.06 59.90 1116.80 3.06 75.67 1109.96
0.07 30.07 75.00 1.07 42.33 1040.63 2.07 60.12 1116.21 3.07 75.89 1108.89
0.08 30.07 86.33 1.08 42.37 1042.77 2.08 60.19 1116.41 3.08 75.96 1107.42
0.09 30.14 100.10 1.09 42.72 1044.63 2.09 60.30 1116.21 3.09 76.00 1106.74
0.10 30.07 114.45 1.10 42.95 1046.88 2.10 60.52 1116.21 3.10 76.32 1106.05
0.11 30.19 130.96 1.11 43.18 1049.02 2.11 60.57 1115.72 3.11 76.43 1105.47
0.12 30.07 148.73 1.12 43.30 1051.37 2.12 60.90 1115.33 3.12 76.54 1105.18
0.13 30.02 167.87 1.13 43.41 1053.91 2.13 60.86 1114.75 3.13 76.65 1104.98
0.14 30.02 187.50 1.14 43.83 1056.45 2.14 61.19 1113.96 3.14 76.87 1105.08
0.15 30.07 208.50 1.15 43.95 1059.28 2.15 61.42 1112.99 3.15 77.15 1105.37
0.16 30.02 230.27 1.16 43.99 1061.91 2.16 61.42 1111.82 3.16 77.30 1105.47
0.17 30.02 252.64 1.17 44.34 1064.94 2.17 61.80 1110.74 3.17 77.41 1106.35
0.18 30.07 275.78 1.18 44.61 1067.29 2.18 61.80 1109.28 3.18 77.41 1107.13
0.19 30.07 298.34 1.19 44.68 1069.92 2.19 62.09 1107.81 3.19 77.84 1107.91
0.20 30.14 320.70 1.20 44.68 1072.27 2.20 62.24 1107.13 3.20 77.84 1108.98
0.21 30.19 343.46 1.21 44.91 1074.71 2.21 62.24 1106.74 3.21 78.06 1109.86
0.22 30.07 366.31 1.22 45.21 1077.05 2.22 62.53 1106.45 3.22 78.28 1110.94
0.23 30.07 388.77 1.23 45.26 1079.10 2.23 62.69 1106.45 3.23 78.49 1111.62
0.24 29.95 411.43 1.24 45.26 1081.25 2.24 62.87 1106.05 3.24 78.60 1112.31
0.25 30.07 433.50 1.25 45.60 1082.52 2.25 63.24 1105.47 3.25 78.82 1112.89
0.26 29.95 455.37 1.26 45.83 1083.79 2.26 63.31 1105.37 3.26 78.88 1113.28
0.27 30.07 476.76 1.27 46.06 1084.96 2.27 63.36 1104.59 3.27 79.14 1113.28
0.28 30.02 498.14 1.28 46.06 1085.64 2.28 63.69 1103.61 3.28 79.03 1113.28
0.29 30.07 518.55 1.29 46.29 1085.94 2.29 63.91 1102.83 3.29 79.25 1113.18
0.30 30.07 538.38 1.30 46.36 1086.13 2.30 63.91 1101.76 3.30 79.47 1112.40
0.31 30.07 557.71 1.31 46.52 1086.33 2.31 64.09 1100.49 3.31 79.57 1111.91
0.32 29.95 576.37 1.32 46.71 1086.23 2.32 64.47 1099.41 3.32 80.01 1111.33
0.33 29.95 594.34 1.33 46.94 1085.94 2.33 64.36 1097.95 3.33 79.96 1110.84
0.34 30.07 611.52 1.34 47.17 1085.94 2.34 64.47 1096.58 3.34 80.22 1110.35
0.35 30.02 628.12 1.35 47.10 1085.84 2.35 64.87 1095.31 3.35 80.33 1110.35
0.36 30.02 643.85 1.36 47.40 1085.94 2.36 65.13 1094.14 3.36 80.33 1110.35
0.37 30.07 659.38 1.37 47.56 1085.84 2.37 65.24 1093.16 3.37 80.65 1110.45
0.38 30.02 674.32 1.38 47.85 1085.94 2.38 65.46 1092.29 3.38 80.83 1111.04
0.39 30.19 688.48 1.39 48.13 1085.94 2.39 65.57 1091.80 3.39 80.94 1111.82
0.40 30.31 702.15 1.40 48.24 1085.94 2.40 65.69 1091.80 3.40 81.15 1113.67
0.41 30.26 715.23 1.41 48.31 1085.94 2.41 65.91 1091.99 3.41 81.26 1115.63
0.42 30.31 728.42 1.42 48.47 1085.94 2.42 65.97 1092.97 3.42 81.47 1117.77
0.43 30.31 741.31 1.43 48.74 1085.94 2.43 66.02 1094.04 3.43 81.62 1120.12
0.44 30.42 753.52 1.44 48.93 1085.94 2.44 66.31 1095.22 3.44 81.69 1122.66
0.45 30.50 765.43 1.45 49.04 1086.13 2.45 66.46 1097.07 3.45 81.84 1125.59
0.46 30.54 776.86 1.46 49.34 1086.43 2.46 66.57 1098.73 3.46 82.05 1128.32
0.47 30.42 787.60 1.47 49.68 1086.91 2.47 66.79 1100.39 3.47 82.27 1131.05
0.48 30.90 797.95 1.48 49.73 1086.91 2.48 66.79 1102.44 3.48 82.48 1133.79
0.49 30.78 807.42 1.49 50.07 1087.01 2.49 66.97 1104.39 3.49 82.48 1136.62
0.50 31.02 816.80 1.50 50.18 1087.11 2.50 67.34 1106.25 3.50 82.77 1139.36
0.51 31.09 825.29 1.51 50.30 1087.01 2.51 67.23 1108.50 3.51 82.91 1142.19
0.52 31.02 833.20 1.52 50.53 1086.91 2.52 67.34 1110.55 3.52 82.98 1144.53
0.53 31.44 840.72 1.53 50.75 1086.91 2.53 67.79 1112.70 3.53 83.02 1146.87
0.54 31.49 847.56 1.54 50.75 1086.33 2.54 67.79 1114.94 3.54 83.24 1148.93
0.55 31.73 853.81 1.55 51.10 1085.94 2.55 67.79 1117.19 3.55 83.62 1150.68
0.56 31.85 859.77 1.56 51.10 1085.94 2.56 68.12 1119.24 3.56 83.56 1151.95
0.57 32.20 865.33 1.57 51.21 1085.94 2.57 68.34 1120.90 3.57 83.88 1153.12
0.58 32.32 870.51 1.58 51.44 1086.03 2.58 68.51 1122.36 3.58 83.77 1153.81
0.59 32.63 875.68 1.59 51.85 1086.82 2.59 68.67 1123.44 3.59 84.10 1154.30
0.60 32.55 880.76 1.60 51.89 1087.21 2.60 68.56 1124.41 3.60 84.31 1154.49
0.61 32.79 885.74 1.61 52.07 1088.38 2.61 68.95 1124.71 3.61 84.27 1154.49
0.62 33.03 890.82 1.62 52.19 1089.45 2.62 69.11 1124.12 3.62 84.42 1154.30
0.63 33.38 896.09 1.63 52.46 1090.43 2.63 69.22 1123.34 3.63 84.52 1154.10
0.64 33.62 901.76 1.64 52.69 1091.89 2.64 69.22 1122.36 3.64 84.63 1153.52
0.65 33.73 907.81 1.65 52.57 1093.46 2.65 69.33 1121.68 3.65 84.85 1152.64
0.66 33.97 913.87 1.66 52.87 1094.73 2.66 69.55 1120.80 3.66 84.85 1152.15
0.67 34.20 920.21 1.67 53.03 1096.09 2.67 69.83 1119.73 3.67 85.17 1151.27
0.68 34.39 927.15 1.68 53.21 1097.27 2.68 69.88 1118.95 3.68 85.23 1150.39
0.69 34.75 934.47 1.69 53.44 1098.73 2.69 69.99 1118.16 3.69 85.27 1149.41
0.70 34.86 941.89 1.70 53.66 1100.10 2.70 70.21 1118.16 3.70 85.55 1148.73
0.71 35.03 949.71 1.71 53.71 1100.98 2.71 70.21 1117.87 3.71 85.49 1147.75
0.72 35.15 957.42 1.72 53.82 1102.05 2.72 70.49 1117.58 3.72 85.70 1147.17
0.73 35.38 965.63 1.73 54.11 1103.13 2.73 70.54 1117.19 3.73 85.98 1146.48
0.74 35.57 973.24 1.74 54.27 1104.30 2.74 70.71 1117.19 3.74 86.13 1145.70
0.75 35.73 981.15 1.75 54.50 1105.66 2.75 70.98 1116.99 3.75 86.30 1144.73
0.76 35.97 988.77 1.76 54.57 1106.74 2.76 70.98 1116.41 3.76 86.24 1143.85
0.77 36.08 996.00 1.77 54.72 1108.40 2.77 71.15 1115.43 3.77 86.45 1142.38
0.78 36.44 1003.61 1.78 55.06 1109.86 2.78 71.30 1114.75 3.78 86.77 1140.43
0.79 36.67 1010.06 1.79 55.13 1111.43 2.79 71.41 1113.96 3.79 86.66 1137.99
0.80 36.86 1016.21 1.80 55.40 1112.89 2.80 71.63 1113.38 3.80 87.05 1134.96
0.81 36.90 1021.48 1.81 55.51 1114.65 2.81 71.85 1112.60 3.81 87.15 1131.54
0.82 37.14 1026.17 1.82 55.63 1116.41 2.82 71.96 1112.01 3.82 87.20 1127.73
0.83 37.37 1029.98 1.83 55.92 1117.77 2.83 72.03 1111.52 3.83 87.41 1123.24
0.84 37.68 1033.11 1.84 56.08 1119.43 2.84 72.25 1111.33 3.84 87.52 1118.26
0.85 37.72 1035.25 1.85 56.23 1120.70 2.85 72.40 1111.33 3.85 87.69 1113.09
0.86 38.03 1036.91 1.86 56.53 1122.17 2.86 72.51 1111.33 3.86 87.94 1107.52
0.87 38.14 1038.09 1.87 56.53 1123.14 2.87 72.62 1111.23 3.87 88.01 1101.46
0.88 38.54 1039.06 1.88 56.87 1124.51 2.88 72.79 1111.33 3.88 88.05 1095.31
0.89 38.54 1039.06 1.89 57.16 1125.00 2.89 72.95 1111.43 3.89 88.37 1088.57
0.90 38.77 1038.96 1.90 57.14 1125.29 2.90 73.06 1112.11 3.90 88.37 1081.54
0.91 39.12 1038.09 1.91 57.39 1125.98 2.91 73.16 1112.31 3.91 88.58 1074.32
0.92 39.12 1037.40 1.92 57.61 1125.98 2.92 73.38 1113.09 3.92 88.69 1067.09
0.93 39.47 1036.52 1.93 57.84 1125.59 2.93 73.67 1113.38 3.93 88.90 1059.08
0.94 39.59 1035.94 1.94 57.88 1125.00 2.94 73.67 1114.16 3.94 89.01 1050.98
0.95 39.70 1035.25 1.95 58.10 1124.80 2.95 73.93 1114.84 3.95 89.18 1042.48
0.96 39.94 1034.38 1.96 58.22 1123.63 2.96 74.04 1115.53 3.96 89.43 1033.69
0.97 40.17 1034.08 1.97 58.40 1122.85 2.97 74.15 1115.92 3.97 89.43 1024.12
0.98 40.29 1033.20 1.98 58.62 1121.97 2.98 74.47 1116.11 3.98 89.75 1014.36
0.99 40.52 1033.20 1.99 58.89 1121.19 2.99 74.58 1116.21 3.99 89.82 1004.39

Sensor: 02, in the arm.

Flame Temperature
and Sensor Temperature
in 4 second exposure
198
Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame Time T
sen
T
flame
0.00 33.69 36.33 1.00 45.03 1063.48 2.00 62.24 1016.21 3.00 76.86 956.45
0.01 33.74 39.16 1.01 45.68 1064.36 2.01 62.49 1019.43 3.01 76.86 952.73
0.02 33.86 44.14 1.02 45.22 1064.45 2.02 62.53 1022.66 3.02 77.29 949.12
0.03 33.86 51.37 1.03 45.49 1063.97 2.03 62.68 1025.78 3.03 77.03 945.80
0.04 33.74 61.04 1.04 45.72 1062.60 2.04 63.02 1028.42 3.04 77.40 942.58
0.05 33.74 73.44 1.05 45.68 1060.35 2.05 63.02 1031.05 3.05 77.51 939.55
0.06 33.58 88.96 1.06 46.59 1057.62 2.06 63.26 1032.72 3.06 77.51 937.40
0.07 33.69 107.42 1.07 45.91 1054.30 2.07 63.31 1033.89 3.07 77.83 935.06
0.08 33.86 128.22 1.08 46.29 1050.49 2.08 63.46 1034.18 3.08 77.83 934.37
0.09 33.81 151.56 1.09 46.41 1046.09 2.09 63.68 1034.18 3.09 78.05 933.79
0.10 33.58 176.27 1.10 46.59 1041.41 2.10 63.79 1033.69 3.10 78.12 934.77
0.11 33.69 202.54 1.11 47.17 1036.72 2.11 63.86 1032.62 3.11 78.16 935.94
0.12 33.86 230.27 1.12 47.10 1032.42 2.12 64.24 1030.86 3.12 78.48 938.18
0.13 33.74 258.11 1.13 46.94 1028.03 2.13 64.24 1028.32 3.13 78.33 940.23
0.14 33.69 286.13 1.14 47.17 1024.41 2.14 64.46 1025.68 3.14 78.55 942.77
0.15 33.86 313.38 1.15 47.56 1020.80 2.15 64.57 1022.75 3.15 78.92 945.90
0.16 33.69 340.53 1.16 48.31 1017.77 2.16 64.71 1020.31 3.16 78.70 949.12
0.17 33.69 367.68 1.17 47.86 1015.23 2.17 64.75 1017.68 3.17 79.13 953.13
0.18 33.62 394.63 1.18 47.97 1012.79 2.18 64.97 1016.02 3.18 79.13 957.32
0.19 33.58 421.39 1.19 48.24 1010.94 2.19 65.24 1015.23 3.19 79.35 961.82
0.20 33.74 448.14 1.20 48.36 1009.18 2.20 65.35 1014.94 3.20 79.42 966.80
0.21 33.97 474.32 1.21 48.84 1007.52 2.21 65.30 1015.53 3.21 79.46 971.68
0.22 33.81 500.39 1.22 48.66 1006.05 2.22 65.46 1016.89 3.22 79.74 976.66
0.23 33.86 525.88 1.23 49.04 1005.27 2.23 65.68 1018.65 3.23 79.63 981.93
0.24 33.69 550.98 1.24 49.00 1004.30 2.24 65.79 1020.41 3.24 80.10 986.91
0.25 33.86 575.00 1.25 49.38 1003.61 2.25 65.79 1022.85 3.25 80.17 991.89
0.26 33.58 598.63 1.26 49.87 1003.13 2.26 66.08 1025.29 3.26 80.00 996.48
0.27 33.97 621.39 1.27 49.80 1002.83 2.27 66.08 1027.34 3.27 80.28 1001.27
0.28 33.86 643.07 1.28 49.84 1002.05 2.28 66.23 1029.10 3.28 80.54 1005.27
0.29 33.97 664.16 1.29 49.91 1001.95 2.29 66.45 1030.47 3.29 80.75 1008.98
0.30 33.86 684.08 1.30 50.30 1001.47 2.30 66.56 1031.25 3.30 80.86 1012.30
0.31 33.81 703.03 1.31 50.62 1000.78 2.31 66.59 1031.05 3.31 80.64 1015.14
0.32 33.97 721.19 1.32 50.87 999.80 2.32 66.74 1030.18 3.32 81.18 1017.68
0.33 33.81 738.38 1.33 50.75 998.54 2.33 66.74 1029.10 3.33 81.29 1019.73
0.34 34.05 754.49 1.34 51.21 997.56 2.34 67.12 1027.83 3.34 81.46 1021.48
0.35 33.81 769.63 1.35 51.16 996.68 2.35 67.30 1026.66 3.35 81.61 1022.75
0.36 33.81 783.79 1.36 51.76 996.09 2.36 67.52 1025.88 3.36 81.51 1024.02
0.37 34.05 797.17 1.37 51.89 995.90 2.37 67.52 1025.98 3.37 81.89 1024.80
0.38 34.09 809.86 1.38 51.78 995.51 2.38 67.74 1026.86 3.38 82.00 1025.68
0.39 34.05 821.97 1.39 51.89 995.31 2.39 68.00 1029.20 3.39 82.26 1026.66
0.40 34.21 833.11 1.40 52.07 995.31 2.40 68.11 1032.42 3.40 82.22 1027.44
0.41 34.28 843.85 1.41 52.55 995.31 2.41 68.07 1037.01 3.41 82.37 1028.32
0.42 34.28 853.32 1.42 52.41 995.31 2.42 68.44 1041.99 3.42 82.69 1029.79
0.43 34.33 862.01 1.43 52.75 995.12 2.43 68.55 1047.95 3.43 82.80 1031.74
0.44 34.28 869.43 1.44 52.91 995.12 2.44 68.77 1053.81 3.44 82.86 1033.30
0.45 34.28 876.37 1.45 52.87 995.51 2.45 68.66 1060.16 3.45 83.12 1035.25
0.46 34.56 882.13 1.46 53.62 996.09 2.46 68.95 1065.63 3.46 83.01 1037.01
0.47 34.63 886.91 1.47 53.59 996.48 2.47 69.06 1070.21 3.47 83.33 1038.67
0.48 34.75 890.82 1.48 53.59 997.27 2.48 69.06 1073.83 3.48 83.55 1039.45
0.49 34.91 893.75 1.49 53.55 998.44 2.49 69.32 1075.98 3.49 83.61 1039.84
0.50 35.03 895.90 1.50 53.82 999.90 2.50 69.28 1077.15 3.50 83.87 1039.26
0.51 35.27 897.27 1.51 54.30 1001.27 2.51 69.54 1076.56 3.51 83.76 1037.79
0.52 35.34 898.34 1.52 54.23 1002.64 2.52 69.72 1074.80 3.52 84.08 1035.35
0.53 35.34 898.63 1.53 54.50 1004.39 2.53 69.98 1072.07 3.53 84.19 1032.03
0.54 35.74 898.83 1.54 54.61 1005.76 2.54 69.94 1068.46 3.54 84.26 1027.83
0.55 35.93 899.41 1.55 54.68 1007.42 2.55 70.31 1064.06 3.55 84.51 1022.85
0.56 36.20 899.51 1.56 55.31 1008.89 2.56 70.16 1059.08 3.56 84.45 1017.58
0.57 36.32 899.90 1.57 55.13 1010.25 2.57 70.27 1054.10 3.57 84.83 1011.52
0.58 36.28 900.29 1.58 55.40 1011.72 2.58 70.42 1049.02 3.58 84.73 1005.37
0.59 36.74 900.88 1.59 55.36 1012.89 2.59 70.86 1044.24 3.59 85.15 999.61
0.60 36.86 901.46 1.60 55.85 1013.77 2.60 70.97 1039.65 3.60 85.26 994.04
0.61 36.98 902.64 1.61 56.21 1014.16 2.61 71.08 1035.35 3.61 85.05 988.96
0.62 36.98 904.20 1.62 56.19 1013.87 2.62 71.36 1031.15 3.62 85.58 984.77
0.63 37.37 906.64 1.63 56.30 1013.28 2.63 71.41 1027.25 3.63 85.69 980.96
0.64 37.73 909.47 1.64 56.53 1011.91 2.64 71.63 1023.54 3.64 85.90 977.93
0.65 37.96 913.09 1.65 56.53 1009.67 2.65 71.69 1020.12 3.65 85.97 975.10
0.66 38.43 917.48 1.66 56.89 1006.93 2.66 71.80 1016.80 3.66 85.90 972.85
0.67 38.43 922.66 1.67 56.82 1004.10 2.67 71.91 1013.38 3.67 86.33 970.70
0.68 38.54 928.32 1.68 56.86 1000.78 2.68 71.91 1010.45 3.68 86.44 968.85
0.69 38.61 934.57 1.69 57.16 997.66 2.69 72.13 1007.81 3.69 86.40 966.70
0.70 38.73 941.11 1.70 57.16 994.73 2.70 72.28 1005.66 3.70 86.50 965.14
0.71 39.43 947.56 1.71 57.68 991.89 2.71 72.50 1003.81 3.71 86.54 963.57
0.72 39.31 954.39 1.72 57.76 989.36 2.72 72.72 1002.15 3.72 86.93 962.30
0.73 39.59 960.84 1.73 57.72 987.21 2.73 72.83 1000.78 3.73 87.08 961.43
0.74 39.71 967.29 1.74 57.72 985.06 2.74 73.05 999.41 3.74 87.29 960.94
0.75 40.06 973.63 1.75 58.06 983.01 2.75 72.94 998.24 3.75 87.40 961.72
0.76 40.48 979.39 1.76 58.39 981.64 2.76 73.27 998.05 3.76 87.18 963.38
0.77 40.24 985.25 1.77 58.28 980.08 2.77 73.33 998.14 3.77 87.82 966.02
0.78 40.48 990.33 1.78 58.44 978.71 2.78 73.70 998.83 3.78 88.04 969.82
0.79 40.87 995.31 1.79 58.73 977.64 2.79 73.81 1000.10 3.79 88.00 974.61
0.80 41.10 1000.00 1.80 58.95 977.15 2.80 73.88 1001.07 3.80 88.14 980.08
0.81 41.68 1003.81 1.81 59.25 976.56 2.81 74.14 1002.25 3.81 88.04 986.33
0.82 41.29 1007.23 1.82 59.18 976.56 2.82 74.36 1003.42 3.82 88.46 992.97
0.83 41.52 1010.45 1.83 59.45 976.56 2.83 74.47 1004.59 3.83 88.68 1000.20
0.84 41.91 1013.18 1.84 59.56 976.86 2.84 74.68 1005.08 3.84 88.63 1007.81
0.85 42.03 1016.21 1.85 59.74 977.54 2.85 74.90 1005.37 3.85 88.99 1015.23
0.86 42.56 1018.65 1.86 60.19 978.61 2.86 74.68 1004.88 3.86 88.68 1022.85
0.87 42.33 1021.58 1.87 60.23 979.79 2.87 75.23 1004.10 3.87 89.06 1030.37
0.88 42.72 1024.51 1.88 60.34 981.25 2.88 75.23 1002.34 3.88 89.42 1037.21
0.89 42.68 1027.83 1.89 60.30 983.20 2.89 75.55 999.80 3.89 89.57 1043.95
0.90 42.91 1031.74 1.90 60.52 985.16 2.90 75.62 996.48 3.90 89.74 1049.80
0.91 43.49 1035.45 1.91 61.08 987.50 2.91 75.45 992.97 3.91 89.78 1054.98
0.92 43.53 1039.94 1.92 61.12 990.43 2.92 75.99 989.16 3.92 89.95 1059.18
0.93 43.65 1044.04 1.93 61.12 993.16 2.93 75.73 984.96 3.93 90.06 1062.50
0.94 43.60 1047.95 1.94 61.35 996.48 2.94 76.10 980.66 3.94 90.02 1064.26
0.95 43.88 1051.66 1.95 61.46 999.80 2.95 76.32 976.37 3.95 90.48 1064.55
0.96 44.64 1054.98 1.96 61.48 1003.32 2.96 75.99 972.17 3.96 90.59 1063.09
0.97 44.34 1057.62 1.97 61.75 1006.54 2.97 76.38 968.26 3.97 90.69 1059.67
0.98 44.57 1060.16 1.98 61.90 1009.67 2.98 76.49 964.06 3.98 90.76 1054.20
0.99 44.80 1062.40 1.99 62.13 1012.89 2.99 76.75 960.25 3.99 90.97 1046.48

Sensor: 34, in the leg.

Flame Temperature
and Sensor Temperature
in 4 second exposure
199
Appendix 11 Estimated heat transfer coefficient


Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef. Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef.
2.6 32.05 32.05 271.87 361.05 3.1 43.67 43.66 520.06 250.5
2.61 32.23 32.2 272.75 316.88 3.11 43.87 43.91 527.68 247.18
2.62 32.38 32.33 273.13 301.3 3.12 44.12 44.17 535.42 243.99
2.63 32.46 32.48 274.02 304.16 3.13 44.43 44.43 543.42 240.63
2.64 32.6 32.64 275.17 311.41 3.14 44.65 44.66 550.91 237.11
2.65 32.79 32.79 276.44 311.62 3.15 44.88 44.92 558.27 234.35
2.66 32.95 32.96 277.83 317.67 3.16 45.12 45.18 565.76 231.58
2.67 33.07 33.13 279.23 322.96 3.17 45.43 45.43 573.63 228.7
2.68 33.3 33.34 281.01 334.58 3.18 45.66 45.67 581.5 225.47
2.69 33.48 33.54 283.42 341.47 3.19 45.9 45.9 589.38 222.33
2.7 33.71 33.73 285.7 343.43 3.2 46.13 46.13 596.74 219.27
2.71 33.93 33.94 288.37 347.07 3.21 46.37 46.37 604.48 216.46
2.72 34.06 34.16 291.16 351.6 3.22 46.56 46.61 611.47 214.1
2.73 34.34 34.39 293.95 357.03 3.23 46.86 46.85 618.19 211.77
2.74 34.59 34.62 297.76 359.14 3.24 47.11 47.08 625.05 209.27
2.75 34.79 34.85 301.19 360.17 3.25 47.28 47.3 631.4 206.94
2.76 35.04 35.1 304.87 363.06 3.26 47.54 47.55 638.63 204.6
2.77 35.27 35.34 308.94 363.84 3.27 47.77 47.78 645.62 202.32
2.78 35.55 35.59 313.13 363.73 3.28 48.01 48.01 652.6 200
2.79 35.78 35.81 317.69 360.93 3.29 48.24 48.24 660.22 197.54
2.8 36.02 36.03 322.01 357.69 3.3 48.46 48.46 667.96 195.02
2.81 36.23 36.28 326.84 356.03 3.31 48.69 48.69 675.58 192.68
2.82 36.45 36.54 331.41 355.28 3.32 48.91 48.91 683.45 190.32
2.83 36.76 36.79 336.74 352.68 3.33 49.14 49.15 691.32 188.17
2.84 37.01 37.04 342.07 350.06 3.34 49.38 49.41 699.44 186.2
2.85 37.21 37.3 347.15 347.54 3.35 49.63 49.66 707.57 184.13
2.86 37.52 37.56 352.73 345.05 3.36 49.92 49.92 715.69 182.17
2.87 37.77 37.82 358.32 342.09 3.37 50.12 50.13 723.82 179.87
2.88 38.01 38.06 364.03 338.19 3.38 50.39 50.36 732.2 177.75
2.89 38.3 38.32 370.38 333.98 3.39 50.57 50.59 739.18 175.98
2.9 38.52 38.56 375.97 330.25 3.4 50.82 50.83 745.65 174.48
2.91 38.77 38.83 382.19 326.86 3.41 51.08 51.07 752.13 172.95
2.92 39.04 39.1 388.28 323.84 3.42 51.29 51.31 758.6 171.5
2.93 39.32 39.35 395.01 319.36 3.43 51.52 51.57 764.82 170.31
2.94 39.59 39.61 402.25 314.82 3.44 51.8 51.83 770.92 169.17
2.95 39.81 39.86 408.59 310.59 3.45 52.07 52.08 776.76 167.98
2.96 40.1 40.13 415.7 306.8 3.46 52.31 52.3 782.6 166.65
2.97 40.33 40.39 423.07 302.4 3.47 52.54 52.54 788.18 165.45
2.98 40.63 40.66 430.18 298.5 3.48 52.75 52.79 793.39 164.52
2.99 40.88 40.91 437.41 294.15 3.49 53.01 53.04 798.85 163.48
3 41.13 41.17 444.65 290.13 3.5 53.3 53.27 803.8 162.46
3.01 41.39 41.42 452.14 285.61 3.51 53.5 53.5 808.75 161.35
3.02 41.66 41.66 459.25 281.48 3.52 53.71 53.73 813.07 160.5
3.03 41.88 41.9 466.74 277.04 3.53 53.97 53.97 817.76 159.62
3.04 42.13 42.16 474.36 273.01 3.54 54.2 54.21 822.08 158.78
3.05 42.38 42.41 481.72 269.24 3.55 54.43 54.43 826.4 157.91
3.06 42.64 42.67 489.46 265.33 3.56 54.67 54.66 830.33 157.12
3.07 42.89 42.92 497.33 261.46 3.57 54.88 54.89 834.52 156.29
3.08 43.15 43.18 504.95 257.98 3.58 55.12 55.12 838.71 155.51
3.09 43.4 43.42 512.31 254.28 3.59 55.35 55.35 842.77 154.72






200



Continued
Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef. Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef.
3.6 55.59 55.59 846.71 154.05 4.1 67.15 67.17 966.55 135.49
3.61 55.8 55.83 850.64 153.39 4.11 67.38 67.41 968.2 135.32
3.62 56.07 56.07 854.83 152.68 4.12 67.66 67.64 970.24 135.04
3.63 56.31 56.29 858.64 151.89 4.13 67.87 67.88 972.27 134.79
3.64 56.52 56.51 862.32 151.17 4.14 68.07 68.11 974.17 134.56
3.65 56.72 56.72 866.26 150.34 4.15 68.36 68.36 976.2 134.38
3.66 56.97 56.94 870.32 149.57 4.16 68.58 68.58 977.98 134.09
3.67 57.15 57.16 873.88 148.86 4.17 68.83 68.79 980.01 133.77
3.68 57.38 57.4 877.81 148.24 4.18 69 69 981.53 133.5
3.69 57.62 57.65 881.11 147.78 4.19 69.22 69.23 983.18 133.29
3.7 57.87 57.88 884.67 147.2 4.2 69.45 69.46 984.71 133.09
3.71 58.13 58.09 888.22 146.48 4.21 69.69 69.67 986.61 132.8
3.72 58.32 58.29 891.4 145.8 4.22 69.9 69.89 988.39 132.52
3.73 58.5 58.51 893.94 145.34 4.23 70.1 70.1 989.53 132.33
3.74 58.73 58.76 896.86 144.96 4.24 70.33 70.34 990.93 132.18
3.75 58.98 59 899.52 144.59 4.25 70.55 70.56 992.2 132.01
3.76 59.24 59.23 902.19 144.19 4.26 70.8 70.79 993.34 131.87
3.77 59.45 59.45 904.6 143.73 4.27 71 71 994.1 131.74
3.78 59.69 59.66 907.14 143.26 4.28 71.23 71.24 995.12 131.65
3.79 59.88 59.87 909.55 142.77 4.29 71.44 71.48 996.39 131.54
3.8 60.1 60.11 911.84 142.45 4.3 71.7 71.72 997.53 131.45
3.81 60.31 60.34 913.99 142.14 4.31 71.95 71.95 998.42 131.37
3.82 60.59 60.58 916.41 141.83 4.32 72.17 72.18 999.05 131.28
3.83 60.8 60.81 918.44 141.52 4.33 72.4 72.42 1000.2 131.22
3.84 61.03 61.05 920.98 141.16 4.34 72.62 72.65 1000.45 131.21
3.85 61.27 61.27 923.13 140.83 4.35 72.91 72.9 1001.34 131.17
3.86 61.5 61.51 925.17 140.55 4.36 73.09 73.11 1001.72 131.1
3.87 61.72 61.73 927.2 140.21 4.37 73.36 73.35 1002.73 131
3.88 61.97 61.97 929.1 139.99 4.38 73.56 73.58 1002.86 131.03
3.89 62.17 62.2 930.88 139.76 4.39 73.79 73.81 1002.73 131.08
3.9 62.44 62.47 932.91 139.64 4.4 74.06 74.04 1003.24 131.03
3.91 62.68 62.71 934.43 139.48 4.41 74.24 74.25 1003.75 130.93
3.92 62.97 62.95 936.34 139.26 4.42 74.47 74.49 1003.75 130.99
3.93 63.16 63.17 937.86 139.01 4.43 74.69 74.72 1003.88 131
3.94 63.4 63.4 939.26 138.81 4.44 74.96 74.95 1004.13 131.01
3.95 63.63 63.64 940.53 138.69 4.45 75.16 75.17 1003.5 131.09
3.96 63.85 63.88 942.18 138.51 4.46 75.39 75.4 1003.12 131.18
3.97 64.12 64.12 943.57 138.34 4.47 75.61 75.63 1003.5 131.16
3.98 64.36 64.35 944.97 138.17 4.48 75.86 75.85 1002.73 131.27
3.99 64.55 64.59 947 137.9 4.49 76.08 76.06 1002.86 131.22
4 64.82 64.83 948.27 137.78 4.5 76.27 76.28 1002.86 131.23
4.01 65.06 65.07 949.92 137.6 4.51 76.48 76.5 1002.86 131.24
4.02 65.27 65.31 951.57 137.43 4.52 76.74 76.73 1002.86 131.28
4.03 65.55 65.54 953.35 137.2 4.53 76.93 76.94 1002.99 131.24
4.04 65.78 65.77 955.38 136.91 4.54 77.19 77.16 1003.37 131.19
4.05 65.98 66 956.78 136.72 4.55 77.36 77.37 1003.5 131.15
4.06 66.23 66.24 958.81 136.49 4.56 77.6 77.6 1003.88 131.12
4.07 66.47 66.49 960.59 136.32 4.57 77.81 77.82 1004 131.12
4.08 66.7 66.72 962.62 136.04 4.58 78.05 78.05 1004 131.15
4.09 66.97 66.95 964.77 135.73 4.59 78.26 78.27 1004.64 131.05






201




Continued
Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef. Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef.
4.6 78.5 78.49 1005.27 130.97 5.1 90.22 90.23 1042.09 128.42
4.61 78.69 78.68 1006.04 130.8 5.11 90.45 90.46 1042.09 128.45
4.62 78.93 78.9 1007.05 130.68 5.12 90.68 90.68 1042.47 128.42
4.63 79.08 79.13 1007.81 130.6 5.13 90.9 90.89 1042.34 128.41
4.64 79.36 79.39 1009.08 130.53 5.14 91.11 91.09 1042.72 128.34
4.65 79.61 79.61 1009.59 130.49 5.15 91.29 91.3 1042.85 128.31
4.66 79.84 79.84 1010.86 130.35 5.16 91.52 91.51 1042.22 128.37
4.67 80.04 80.07 1011.37 130.31 5.17 91.74 91.72 1042.22 128.37
4.68 80.29 80.3 1012.13 130.26 5.18 91.89 91.92 1041.96 128.37
4.69 80.53 80.53 1013.02 130.17 5.19 92.17 92.11 1041.84 128.34
4.7 80.74 80.77 1013.53 130.15 5.2 92.32 92.3 1041.07 128.39
4.71 80.98 81.01 1014.16 130.14 5.21 92.48 92.5 1040.57 128.42
4.72 81.23 81.27 1014.92 130.14 5.22 92.73 92.69 1039.68 128.5
4.73 81.48 81.52 1015.56 130.14 5.23 92.91 92.88 1039.04 128.53
4.74 81.74 81.74 1016.45 130.05 5.24 93.07 93.07 1038.28 128.58
4.75 81.97 81.95 1017.21 129.92 5.25 93.3 93.29 1038.03 128.63
4.76 82.17 82.17 1018.1 129.82 5.26 93.48 93.5 1037.01 128.76
4.77 82.36 82.41 1018.86 129.78 5.27 93.73 93.71 1036.76 128.8
4.78 82.64 82.67 1019.62 129.77 5.28 93.93 93.91 1036.5 128.8
4.79 82.89 82.91 1020.51 129.72 5.29 94.12 94.12 1036.5 128.81
4.8 83.13 83.14 1021.52 129.63 5.3 94.32 94.33 1036.63 128.78
4.81 83.36 83.39 1022.29 129.61 5.31 94.57 94.56 1036.76 128.8
4.82 83.59 83.63 1022.92 129.59 5.32 94.75 94.78 1037.01 128.78
4.83 83.87 83.89 1023.55 129.6 5.33 95 95.01 1037.27 128.79
4.84 84.08 84.13 1024.32 129.58 5.34 95.22 95.23 1038.15 128.68
4.85 84.36 84.39 1025.46 129.54 5.35 95.45 95.45 1038.54 128.67
4.86 84.61 84.63 1025.71 129.55 5.36 95.64 95.68 1039.42 128.59
4.87 84.86 84.86 1026.86 129.44 5.37 95.9 95.92 1040.06 128.56
4.88 85.06 85.08 1027.87 129.32 5.38 96.13 96.15 1040.82 128.5
4.89 85.31 85.32 1028.13 129.33 5.39 96.37 96.39 1041.84 128.43
4.9 85.53 85.54 1029.01 129.22 5.4 96.58 96.63 1042.72 128.36
4.91 85.76 85.77 1029.27 129.22 5.41 96.86 96.87 1043.74 128.3
4.92 85.98 86.01 1029.65 129.23 5.42 97.07 97.1 1044.76 128.21
4.93 86.21 86.26 1030.66 129.19 5.43 97.33 97.34 1045.9 128.12
4.94 86.48 86.52 1030.66 129.28 5.44 97.54 97.57 1047.17 127.99
4.95 86.74 86.74 1031.55 129.18 5.45 97.79 97.8 1048.18 127.89
4.96 86.97 86.97 1032.06 129.16 5.46 98.01 98.03 1049.45 127.77
4.97 87.15 87.21 1032.82 129.1 5.47 98.22 98.27 1050.34 127.71
4.98 87.44 87.45 1033.2 129.13 5.48 98.5 98.49 1050.98 127.66
4.99 87.68 87.69 1034.47 129.01 5.49 98.71 98.7 1052.12 127.51
5 87.89 87.9 1034.85 128.95 5.5 98.91 98.9 1052.88 127.38
5.01 88.14 88.13 1035.74 128.87 5.51 99.12 99.11 1053.52 127.31
5.02 88.32 88.35 1036.12 128.81 5.52 99.3 99.35 1053.52 127.37
5.03 88.58 88.59 1036.89 128.79 5.53 99.55 99.59 1054.53 127.29
5.04 88.79 88.82 1038.15 128.65 5.54 99.84 99.81 1054.79 127.28
5.05 89.06 89.06 1038.79 128.63 5.55 100 100.01 1054.91 127.23
5.06 89.26 89.29 1039.55 128.56 5.56 100.22 100.22 1054.91 127.24
5.07 89.51 89.52 1040.19 128.51 5.57 100.43 100.44 1054.91 127.25
5.08 89.75 89.75 1040.82 128.47 5.58 100.65 100.65 1055.55 127.18
5.09 89.94 89.99 1041.2 128.46 5.59 100.86 100.87 1055.67 127.18




202


Continued
Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef. Time T
caltem
T
sen
T
flame
H.T.Coef.
5.6 101.08 101.08 1055.8 127.17 6.1 111.43 111.46 1053.52 127.63
5.61 101.29 101.31 1056.06 127.18 6.11 111.66 111.69 1053.01 127.74
5.62 101.5 101.53 1056.06 127.2 6.12 111.9 111.93 1052.37 127.9
5.63 101.76 101.75 1056.06 127.23 6.13 112.11 112.17 1051.99 128.02
5.64 101.95 101.96 1056.06 127.23 6.14 112.4 112.42 1050.85 128.24
5.65 102.17 102.17 1056.06 127.23 6.15 112.62 112.66 1049.96 128.42
5.66 102.38 102.37 1056.06 127.21 6.16 112.85 112.9 1049.2 128.59
5.67 102.58 102.59 1055.93 127.24 6.17 113.13 113.14 1048.18 128.79
5.68 102.77 102.79 1055.93 127.24 6.18 113.34 113.37 1047.04 128.97
5.69 103.03 103 1055.42 127.3 6.19 113.58 113.59 1045.9 129.16
5.7 103.2 103.2 1055.55 127.27 6.2 113.79 113.82 1044.63 129.38
5.71 103.38 103.39 1055.17 127.3 6.21 114.02 114.06 1043.74 129.55
5.72 103.63 103.61 1055.93 127.21 6.22 114.26 114.3 1042.85 129.73
5.73 103.79 103.81 1055.42 127.27 6.23 114.49 114.52 1042.09 129.87
5.74 104.02 104.02 1055.93 127.21 6.24 114.75 114.74 1040.82 130.07
5.75 104.24 104.23 1056.06 127.19 6.25 114.92 114.95 1039.93 130.2
5.76 104.41 104.42 1056.31 127.14 6.26 115.16 115.18 1039.55 130.3
5.77 104.65 104.64 1057.07 127.07 6.27 115.37 115.4 1038.79 130.43
5.78 104.82 104.85 1057.45 127.01 6.28 115.61 115.62 1038.28 130.53
5.79 105.08 105.05 1058.47 126.88 6.29 115.82 115.83 1038.03 130.59
5.8 105.25 105.24 1059.1 126.77 6.3 116.04 116.05 1037.14 130.73
5.81 105.45 105.45 1059.86 126.68 6.31 116.25 116.24 1037.01 130.74
5.82 105.65 105.66 1060.75 126.57 6.32 116.47 116.45 1036.38 130.83
5.83 105.88 105.87 1061.39 126.5 6.33 116.62 116.65 1035.87 130.9
5.84 106.07 106.07 1062.53 126.34 6.34 116.86 116.86 1035.74 130.94
5.85 106.29 106.28 1063.29 126.25 6.35 117.07 117.06 1035.62 130.96
5.86 106.47 106.48 1063.67 126.19 6.36 117.27 117.25 1034.73 131.05
5.87 106.7 106.68 1064.05 126.12 6.37 117.46 117.45 1034.47 131.09
5.88 106.9 106.86 1064.05 126.08 6.38 117.62 117.63 1034.47 131.06
5.89 107.05 107.04 1063.93 126.06 6.39 117.87 117.81 1034.22 131.07
5.9 107.25 107.24 1064.18 126.02 6.4 118.01 117.98 1033.33 131.13
5.91 107.44 107.45 1063.67 126.08 6.41 118.16 118.16 1033.2 131.12
5.92 107.66 107.65 1063.55 126.09 6.42 118.36 118.35 1032.82 131.16
5.93 107.85 107.84 1062.53 126.2 6.43 118.56 118.52 1032.19 131.2
5.94 108.05 108.03 1062.02 126.23 6.44 118.73 118.67 1031.81 131.17
5.95 108.22 108.21 1061.13 126.32 6.45 118.87 118.81 1030.79 131.21
5.96 108.42 108.42 1060.63 126.38 6.46 119 118.94 1030.16 131.21
5.97 108.61 108.62 1060.24 126.43 6.47 119.14 119.06 1029.4 131.18
5.98 108.83 108.83 1059.86 126.48 6.48 119.28 119.18 1028.25 131.21
5.99 109.02 109.03 1059.23 126.57 6.49 119.36 119.27 1027.49 131.15
6 109.24 109.25 1058.59 126.68 6.5 119.49 119.39 1025.59 131.3
6.01 109.45 109.46 1058.47 126.71 6.51 119.55 119.5 1024.44 131.31
6.02 109.67 109.68 1057.96 126.8 6.52 119.73 119.62 1022.79 131.42
6.03 109.88 109.88 1057.32 126.88 6.53 119.81 119.69 1021.02 131.47
6.04 110.1 110.08 1057.07 126.91 6.54 119.9 119.76 1018.86 131.58
6.05 110.27 110.3 1056.06 127.06 6.55 119.94 119.83 1016.83 131.67
6.06 110.49 110.55 1056.06 127.13 6.56 120.02 119.89 1014.29 131.81
6.07 110.74 110.79 1055.29 127.3 6.57 120.12 119.97 1011.75 131.99
6.08 111.02 111.01 1054.79 127.41
6.09 111.21 111.23 1054.15 127.51






203
Appendix 12 Model Results of Kevlar/PBI
®
Coverall for 4 second
Exposure

Sensor # 1, 2ND burn: 3.21 s, 3RD burn: 10.36 s
Sensor # 2, 2ND burn: 17.48 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 3, 2ND burn: 2.95 s, 3RD burn: 8.50 s
Sensor # 4, 2ND burn: 9.03 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 5, 2ND burn: 5.67 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 6, 2ND burn: 3.19 s, 3RD burn: 10.10 s
Sensor # 7, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 8, 2ND burn: 7.64 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 9, 2ND burn: 5.08 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 10, 2ND burn: 6.63 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 15, 2ND burn: 5.40 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 16, 2ND burn: 6.72 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 17, 2ND burn: 7.21 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 18, 2ND burn: 9.08 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 19, 2ND burn: 11.18 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 20, 2ND burn: 2.91 s, 3RD burn: 8.30 s
Sensor # 21, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 22, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 23, 2ND burn: 6.51 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 24, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 29, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 30, 2ND burn: 5.29 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 31, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 32, 2ND burn: 9.96 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 33, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 34, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 35, 2ND burn: 8.22 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 36, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 37, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 38, 2ND burn: 6.51 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 39, 2ND burn: 8.39 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 40, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 41, 2ND burn: 6.20 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 42, 2ND burn: 7.25 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 43, 2ND burn: 8.26 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 44, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 45, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 46, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 47, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 48, 2ND burn: 7.59 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 49, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 50, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 51, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
204
Sensor # 52, 2ND burn: 8.34 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 53, 2ND burn: 6.93 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 54, 2ND burn: 7.74 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 55, 2ND burn: 11.90 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 56, 2ND burn: 4.58 s, 3RD burn: 27.58 s
Sensor # 57, 2ND burn: 6.22 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 58, 2ND burn: 6.94 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 59, 2ND burn: 8.00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 60, 2ND burn: 7.17 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 61, 2ND burn: 4.89 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 62, 2ND burn: 4.65 s, 3RD burn: 20.43 s
Sensor # 63, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 64, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 65, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 66, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 67, 2ND burn: 6.91 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 68, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 69, 2ND burn: 11.34 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 70, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 71, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 72, 2ND burn: 5.91 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 73, 2ND burn: 4.16 s, 3RD burn: 14.86 s
Sensor # 74, 2ND burn: 6.54 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 75, 2ND burn: 10.05 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 76, 2ND burn: 8.76 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 77, 2ND burn: 12.28 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 78, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 79, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 80, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 81, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 82, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 83, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 84, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 85, 2ND burn: 8.65 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 86, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 87, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 88, 2ND burn: 6.90 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 89, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 90, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 91, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 92, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 93, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 94, 2ND burn: 7.47 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 95, 2ND burn: 17.10 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 96, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 97, 2ND burn: 4.76 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
205
Sensor # 98, 2ND burn: 4.29 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 99, 2ND burn: 6.40 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 100, 2ND burn: 5.30 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 101, 2ND burn: 5.52 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 102, 2ND burn: 7.44 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 103, 2ND burn: 7.88 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 106, 2ND burn: 6.38 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 107, 2ND burn: 4.56 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 108, 2ND burn: 6.08 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 109, 2ND burn: 6.77 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 110, 2ND burn: 13.22 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 111, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 112, 2ND burn: 4.89 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 113, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 114, 2ND burn: 9.50 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 115, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 116, 2ND burn: 9.04 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 117, 2ND burn: 7.17 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 118, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 119, 2ND burn: 32.06 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 120, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 121, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 122, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 123, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 124, 2ND burn: 13.70 s, 3RD burn: .00 s

Note: .00s represents no burn occurred; number represents the time to second or third
degree body burn.


















206

Appendix 13 Model Results of Nomex
®
ШA Coverall for 4 second
Exposure

Sensor # 1, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 2, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 3, 2ND burn: 5.94 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 4, 2ND burn: 10.18 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 5, 2ND burn: 7.11 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 6, 2ND burn: 4.48 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 7, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 8, 2ND burn: 5.45 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 9, 2ND burn: 7.17 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 10, 2ND burn: 6.08 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 15, 2ND burn: 3.26 s, 3RD burn: 9.91 s
Sensor # 16, 2ND burn: 9.13 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 17, 2ND burn: 4.90 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 18, 2ND burn: 6.59 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 19, 2ND burn: 6.31 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 20, 2ND burn: 4.97 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 21, 2ND burn: 6.34 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 22, 2ND burn: 6.41 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 23, 2ND burn: 4.97 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 24, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 29, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 30, 2ND burn: 3.85 s, 3RD burn: 13.39 s
Sensor # 31, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 32, 2ND burn: 6.55 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 33, 2ND burn: 8.98 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 34, 2ND burn: 1.77 s, 3RD burn: 5.79 s
Sensor # 35, 2ND burn: 5.44 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 36, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 37, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 38, 2ND burn: 5.69 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 39, 2ND burn: 7.52 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 40, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 41, 2ND burn: 5.11 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 42, 2ND burn: 7.13 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 43, 2ND burn: 4.03 s, 3RD burn: 8.11 s
Sensor # 44, 2ND burn: 20.98 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 45, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 46, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 47, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 48, 2ND burn: 4.59 s, 3RD burn: 17.67 s
Sensor # 49, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
207
Sensor # 50, 2ND burn: 4.61 s, 3RD burn: 18.39 s
Sensor # 51, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 52, 2ND burn: 7.03 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 53, 2ND burn: 5.51 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 54, 2ND burn: 4.66 s, 3RD burn: 20.94 s
Sensor # 55, 2ND burn: 6.86 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 56, 2ND burn: 2.28 s, 3RD burn: 6.78 s
Sensor # 57, 2ND burn: 5.72 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 58, 2ND burn: 6.57 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 59, 2ND burn: 4.03 s, 3RD burn: 8.06 s
Sensor # 60, 2ND burn: 4.37 s, 3RD burn: 8.64 s
Sensor # 61, 2ND burn: 6.13 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 62, 2ND burn: 7.55 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 63, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 64, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 65, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 66, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 67, 2ND burn: 6.60 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 68, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 69, 2ND burn: 7.93 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 70, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 71, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 72, 2ND burn: 3.55 s, 3RD burn: 8.55 s
Sensor # 73, 2ND burn: 21.92 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 74, 2ND burn: 2.88 s, 3RD burn: 8.62 s
Sensor # 75, 2ND burn: 9.77 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 76, 2ND burn: 8.14 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 77, 2ND burn: 11.30 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 78, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 79, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 80, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 81, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 82, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 83, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 84, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 85, 2ND burn: 5.77 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 86, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 87, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 88, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 89, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 90, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 91, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 92, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 93, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 94, 2ND burn: 2.06 s, 3RD burn: 6.41 s
Sensor # 95, 2ND burn: 9.75 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
208
Sensor # 96, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 97, 2ND burn: 7.06 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 98, 2ND burn: 4.95 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 99, 2ND burn: 4.92 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 100, 2ND burn: 3.42 s, 3RD burn: 11.31 s
Sensor # 101, 2ND burn: 6.47 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 102, 2ND burn: 6.59 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 103, 2ND burn: 6.55 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 106, 2ND burn: 5.96 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 107, 2ND burn: 10.12 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 108, 2ND burn: 5.91 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 109, 2ND burn: 6.71 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 110, 2ND burn: 13.67 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 111, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 112, 2ND burn: 4.76 s, 3RD burn: 31.65 s
Sensor # 113, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 114, 2ND burn: 5.95 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 115, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 116, 2ND burn: 5.14 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 117, 2ND burn: 5.96 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 118, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 119, 2ND burn: 10.51 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 120, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 121, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 122, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 123, 2ND burn: .00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s
Sensor # 124, 2ND burn: 6.00 s, 3RD burn: .00 s

Note: .00s represents no burn occurred; number represents the time to second or third
degree body burn.
















209
Appendix 14 Model Predictions and Manikin Tests



Model
PBI Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.
2nd % 48.4 51.6 52.5 50.83 48.36
3rd % 7.4 8.2 8.2 7.93 12.3
Total % 55.8 59.8 60.7 58.77 60.66
4 second exposure without underwear
Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor




Model
PBI Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.
2nd % 19.6 15.6 18 17.73 12.29
3rd % 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.60 9.02
Total % 26.2 22.2 24.6 24.33 21.31
3 second exposure without underwear
Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor






Model
Nomex Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.
2nd % 45.9 46.7 52.5 48.37 44.26
3rd % 14.8 12.3 9.8 12.30 18.85
Total % 60.7 59 62.3 60.67 63.11
Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor
4 second exposure without underwear




Model
Nomex Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.
2nd % 26.2 22.9 22.9 24.00 14.75
3rd % 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.60 10.66
Total % 32.8 29.5 29.5 30.60 25.41
3 second exposure without underwear
Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor

Pyroman chamber is investigated by measuring the flame temperature over each sensor and its average heat flux. An estimated method is used to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient at each sensor locations for a 4 second exposure to an average heat flux of 2.00 cal/cm2sec (84 kW/m2). The thermal conductivity (k) and volumetric heat capacity (ρCp) of the protective fabrics under high heating rate and high temperature are found not constant. A parameter estimation method is used to estimate heat induced changes in fabric thermophysical properties. The air gaps distributions (between garment and the manikin) of different garment (Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA ) and size (coverall size 40, 42 and 44) including a Nomex®ШA garment size 42 that has undergone a 4 second exposure has been assessed using a three-dimensional body scanning technology. Nomex®ШA coverall air gap sizes between the garment and manikin are considered as temperature dependent for a 4 second exposure as a result of thermal induced shrinkage. The multi-layer skin model and a burn evaluation method were used to predict second and third degree skin burn damage.

The established numerical model was validated by Pyroman® tests using thermally protective Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA coveralls. The manikin tests covered exposure time from 3 seconds without underwear, 4 seconds with and without underwear, and 5 seconds with underwear.

A parametric study conducted using the developed numerical model indicates the influencing parameters on garment thermal protective performance in terms of skin burn damage for a 4 second flash fire exposure. The importance of these parameters was

analyzed and distinguished. These parameters includes fabric thermophysical properties, the flash fire characteristics in Pyroman® chamber, garment shrinkage and fit factors, as well as garment temperature and test environment. Different skin models and their influence on garment thermal protective performance prediction were also investigated using the numerical model.

MODELING THERMAL PROTECTION OUTFITS FOR FIRE EXPOSURES
by

GUOWEN SONG

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FIBER AND POLYMER SCIENCE

Raleigh, 2002

APPROVED BY:

Co-Chair of Advisory Committee

Co-Chair of Advisory Committee

"We gain strength... we must do that which we think we cannot. and courage. and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face ." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt ii .

North Carolina.BIOGRAPHY The author. he enrolled in the Ph. 1998. Following his graduation. received a Bachelor of Science degree in Textile Chemistry in Tian Jin Polytechnic University in 1986. after one year work in T-PACC. born December 14. Guowen Song. In August. He worked for a Chang Chun Textile Company for three years before returning to Tian Jin Polytechnic University and got a Master of Science degree in Textile Engineering and Chemistry in 1992.D. 1965. He is married to Tu Luan. he joined the faculty in Tian Jin Polytechnic University. program in Fiber and Polymer Science at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. iii .

Appreciation is given to Shawn Deaton and Jim Fowler. Barker for his invaluable support.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to Dr. The author wishes to thank to David Bruner and Mike King of Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation (TC2) for help in conducting the three dimensional body scanning and James Beck and R. for providing support and advice. Scruggs for their support. The author is also appreciative to his fellow student Patirop Chitrphiromsri in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering for help in programming. his parents and his wife’s parents for their patience and support during the pursuit of his education. McMaster in Michigan State University who helped in parameter estimation method and codes. Also thanks to Dr. Hauser and Robert C. Peter J. will also benefit author in his future work. which leads to author’s graduation. Roger L. the author would like to express his sincere thanks to his wife for coming with him enduring all the hardships. The author acknowledges with thanks Hechimi Hamouda. Jon Porter and Dr. B. trust and guidance through the entire research. co-chairmen of his Advisory Committee. and also to other members of this committee: Andrey Kuzentsov. who help to manipulate Pyroman® tests and some experimental work. Barker’s instruction and encouragement. iv . Smart. Finally. Donald Thompson. Dr.

2........................2........... 2........................................................2.......................... 2...... 31 Skin Burn Models.........3 INTRODUCTION..TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......3 2.... 2.. 5 Test Methods........5...... 18 Fabric Optical Properties in a Flash Fire Environment ..............................3.............................................3.................1.......4... Effects of High Heat Exposure on Fabric Dimensions...................................3...........................1....... Jiji and Lemos Model....5.......... 35 The Weinbaum. 27 2.....................4...... 13 FABRIC PROPERTIES AND FIRE CHARACTERISTICS .................... 33 Bioheat Transfer Models .4 2........................ 5 CHAPTER 2 2......................................................................................... 2..............4................................3....4....................1........................................................2..................2 2..1.. 21 Fabric Thermal Properties in Flash Fire Condition ...........1...................2......2 1.......................................................................................1...........4........ IX LIST OF FIGURES......1........ 1 RESEARCH MOTIVATION ....................... 24 Heat Capacity and Thermal Decomposition Temperature....... 2.............................................. 7 Measuring the Thermal Protective Performance of Fabric ........................................................................................................................ 2............................. 5 Flame-resistant Fibers Suitable for Protective Clothing.......3...............X CHAPTER 1 1........................................................... 2 APPROACH. 13 Manikin Research on Garment Thermal Protective Performance ..........................4..................... 2.....................................................4...........................2.......................................... 30 Characterization of the Fire Environment................................ 2........ 2........................................ 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................1.........2............................................ 2..........3... 2.............................. MANIKIN TESTING AND NCSU PYROMAN® ............3............1 1.......................................3.......... 2...1...................3................... 2.........................2................................................. 33 v ......................................................................... 2.............................4.......................................1 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND TEST METHODS ........ 24 Thermal Conductivity ............ 34 The Chen and Holmes Model ............................................2....................................................................................... 8 Assessment of Protective Performance Using TPP Methods ................. 5 Protective Clothing.......................................................................1......................... 10 NCSU’s “Pyroman” System .............................. 37 MODLES FOR PREDICTING SKIN BURN INJURY ......... 2......................................................... 2 A LITERATURE REVIEW................. 36 Skin Burn Models.... 21 2........ 2.............

.........................2.3 CHAPTER 5 5.2.... 89 Garment Fabric Thermal Properties.1 4......................................2...............................................3 3.......................................Fabric-Air Gap-Test Sensor Model.............. 5....................2 4.. 100 vi ....................1....... 48 A NUMERICAL HEAT TRANSFER MODEL ..............2 4....1........... 89 GARMENTS USED IN THIS STUDY ....................................... 89 Garments Fabric Thickness..... 61 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES........... 5................ AIR GAP AND SKIN .....4 Modeling Thermal Degradation in Fabrics..................................................1.....................................................1.... 5.................................. 80 Air Gaps Determination of Protective Garments in Pyroman®.. 80 Ease Measurement Method.......3................................. 91 FIRE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ....................... 57 FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD ............................1...............................2..1.............. 5.. 2........................................................1......1 5...................5 MODELING HEAT TRANSFER IN PROTECTIVE FABRICS ...............................2................................... 2.............................................................................. 45 MODEL THE PYROMAN® SYSTEM ....... 5...... 76 Estimation of Protective Fabrics Thermal Properties............3..................1.5........ 62 CHAPTER 4 4...................................... 2................2 4........... 40 Torvi Model-........................ 42 Mell and Lawson Model .......................................2 3.. 48 HEAT TRANSFER IN FABRIC.................. 88 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND MODEL EVALUATION .............5........... 94 MODEL EVALUATION ....................3..............................................................1..........4..........3........1 4...................... 89 Garments Preparation ............................. 64 Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination ..............................................2.............................1......................................5...............................3....................... 2.... 78 PROTECTIVE GARMENTS AIR GAP DISTRIBUTION IN PYROMAN® BODY ......4..........1...........1 3.... 44 2..............1 4.............................................................................. CHARACTERIZING THE PYROMAN® THERMAL ENVIRONMENT ... 91 Summary of Garments and Fabric Properties Used in the Model .................................2 4. 75 Parameter Estimation Method.. 80 Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology.......... 93 GARMENTS AIR GAP SIZE DETERMINATION .... 62 Heat Flux Distribution..............................................1 4..........3............................................ 51 HEAT TRANSFER IN SKIN MODEL AND BURN EVALUATION...................................................................................... 40 Gibson Model -............................................... 5.....................5......3 4....................... 94 MODEL RESULTS AND PREDICTIONS...........5................................. 39 Heat Transfer Models ............ 5.... 68 CHARACTERIZING HEAT INDUCED CHANGE IN FABRIC PROPERTIES ....................................2...................5.Multiphase Heat and Mass Transfer Model . CHAPTER 3 3......................................................1...............................

............... 108 PARAMETRIC STUDY............................................................................................................................................................ 7....1.......1...........................................................2...............................................1........... 6.............. INITIAL................................................. 137 6.................. 116 Transmissivity .......1......................5......... 159 APPENDIX 1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS USED IN THIS RESEARCH.............................................. 6..... 142 REFERENCES.................................................................. 113 Volumetric Heat Capacity ....5...............4.....................................................1................ 6.........2.......................1..3.. 160 TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT DEVICE ................. 111 Thermal Conductivity .................2... AMBIENT AND FIRE DISTRIBUTION INFLUENCE .. 134 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............. 131 Temperature Distribution in the skin................1..................................................3.................. 101 One Layer Garments with Underwear.............................. 114 Emissivity... 6..................... 6.................................. 141 AUTHOR’S NOTE .......................................... 5........................... 5.......................5.................................................................................... 6............ CHAPTER 7 7..................................................................................................... 6.......................................... 125 Shrinkage and Its Temperature Effect on Protective Performance ...2............. 6.....................................................2................................... 107 Model Evaluation Summary .................... 119 GARMENT DESIGN AND FIT FACTORS ........2.... 6.........................3.3.......1................. 129 Blood Perfusion ...........3.....4..................................................................................4.................................... 121 Fire Distribution influence ..............................................1.......... 132 Single Layer and Multi Layers Skin Model Comparison.................................................................................. 6. 124 SKIN MODEL INFLUENCE .......2.................. 131 SUMMARY ...........3............................................................................................ 110 INFLUENCE OF FABRIC THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES ....................... 6...............1.....3............................. 6.............. 120 Ambient Temperature ............. 6..........2..........4............ 118 Fabric Initial Temperature ..............3........5.......................... 6.............................. 6..... CHAPTER 6 6............................ 6......................................... 144 APPENDICES...............................5.....................3. 121 Same Garment and Ambient Temperature......................................4........4................................3.......... 160 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM............................................................................................2.............1 One Layer Garments without Underwear .. 137 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................1......................................................................2..................................... 110 Fabric Thickness....................................................................... 162 vii .... 6....................................... 122 Garment Components ................................................................... 127 Garment Size.3............. 7...........................

. 173 APPENDIX 8.............. 209 viii .................................................................................................. 169 APPENDIX 4.......................................................... GARMENT FABRIC COMPRESSION TEST ................................................................................................................ 203 APPENDIX 13 MODEL RESULTS OF NOMEX®ШA COVERALL FOR 4 SECOND EXPOSURE 206 APPENDIX 14 MODEL PREDICTIONS AND MANIKIN TESTS ........................................... 199 APPENDIX 12 MODEL RESULTS OF KEVLAR/PBI® COVERALL FOR 4 SECOND EXPOSURE ....................................................... GARMENT EASE MEASUREMENTS .................................................... 3D BODY SCANNING TECHNOLOGY .......... 163 SENSOR CALIBRATION ..... NORMAL DISTRIBUTION .....................HEAT FLUX SENSORS ................ 166 HEAT SOURCE .................................................................................... 167 APPENDIX 2 AVERAGE HEAT FLUX VALUES AS MODEL INPUT (HEAT FLUX: CAL/CM2 SEC).......................... 171 APPENDIX 5............ 172 APPENDIX 6.................................................................................... 179 APPENDIX 11 ESTIMATED HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT ......................................

........................................... 133 Table 6-15............................................................................................... Values of P and ∆E Used in Burn Integral Calculations .................................. Model Parameters for Heat Flux Distribution Study .............. Blood Perfusion Influence on Time to 2nd and 3rd Burn ... 39 Table 3-1...................... Numerical Model Setup ........................................ 117 Table 6-6........................ 92 Table 5-3....................................................... 113 Table 6-4......... Parameters Used in Model Predictions .............. Model Parameters for Fabric Conductivity Study........................................... Thermal Properties of Skin Models..................................................................... 28 Table 2-4. 22 Table 2-3.................. Numerical Model Setup ............................ 118 Table 6-7............... Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study .... 58 Table 5-1..... Calibrated Heat Flux Values for Pyroman Before and After Burns........................ 95 Table 6-1.............................. Range of Values of Thermophysical Properties of Garment Fabric ..... Model Parameters for Fabric Transmissivity Study ........ 119 Table 6-8.............................. 22 Table 2-2.......... 119 Table 6-9....................................... 29 Table 2-5......................... 130 Table 6-12............................................................................................ Model Parameters for Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity Study ................... 111 Table 6-3.. 128 Table 6-11..................................................... Numerical Model Setup ................................. 135 Table 6-16................................................................ 132 Table 6-14.... Thermal Decomposition Temperature ............ Thermal Properties of Cotton Underwear... Fabric properties [31] . Human Skin Properties in Skin Model [91]... Test Garments Style and Fabric Property........ Model Parameters for Blood Perfusion Study.................................................. Numerical Model Setup ................ 132 Table 6-13.. Fabric Transmissivity Influence on Time to Body Burn Predicted by Model.......... 110 Table 6-2..................................................................................................................................................... 115 Table 6-5.............................. Values for use in Equations for NomexIIIA and Kevlar/PBI Fabrics ...... Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study ................................List of Tables Table 2-1... 135 ix ...................... Model Parameters for Garment Thickness Study . 92 Table 5-2............... 93 Table 5-4................. Fabric optical properties [32]................................................................. 123 Table 6-10.................

.............. 65 Figure 4-5.................... Temperature............. Fabric Thermal Conductivity vs. Elements of Fabric Air-Gap Skin Model.................. 11 Figure 2-4. Normal Scores From a Calibration ... Heat Exposure Intensity [25]... Nude Pyroman® and Its Burning ......................... Pyroman Burn Prediction in terms of 2nd Burn and 3rd Burn ..................................... 72 Figure 4-10...... Fabric-air gap-fabric-skin Model............. 51 Figure 3-4..... 74 x ...... 17 Figure 2-9.. 50 Figure 3-3................ 63 Figure 4-2.......................... Heat Flux Distribution with Different Standard Deviation ........................... Histogram and Cumulative Curve of Heat Fluxes of 122 Sensors ......... 14 Figure 2-6.................. 8 Figure 2-2... Elements of Heat Transfer and Burn Evaluation ................................................................................................... TPP Traces of the Test Fabrics [21]......................................................... 73 Figure 4-11................... 68 Figure 4-9......... Pyroman Fire Chamber and Gas Delivery System................... Schematic for one-dimensional Heat Transfer Model..List of Figures Figure 2-1................ 55 Figure 4-1... 15 Figure 2-7............ 49 Figure 3-2................. Schematic Diagram of TPP Tester ....................... 18 Figure 2-10......................... Temperature rise (°C ) in Skin Stimulant .................................................... 20 Figure 2-11............................ Three Phases Present in Hygroscopic Porous Media .. Specially Designed Sensor Used to Measure Flame Temperature and Heat Flux .. Sensor Location Factor and Its Heat Transfer Coefficient...... Predicted % Burn Injury after 5 s Exposure ............................................................ LabVIEW Data Acquisition System and Software....................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 4-6............................ The Scatterplot of Heat Fluxes vs........................ 26 Figure 2-12............. 9 Figure 2-3. 74 Figure 4-12........ 64 Figure 4-4.......................................................................................................................................................... Pyroman Manikin..................................... 12 Figure 2-5................................. Predicted Body Burn vs.............. Flame Temperature and Heat Transfer Coefficient.......... Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimation from Temperature..... 16 Figure 2-8. Heat Flux Distribution in a Manikin for a 4 second Exposure............. Sensor Numbers and Distribution over Manikin Body.. Estimated Heat Transfer Coefficient Using Pyrocal Sensor................................................................................................................... Pyrocal Sensor Flame Temperatures and Copper Temperatures......................................................................................... Close up View of TPP Tester in NCSU ....................... 67 Figure 4-8........................ 43 Figure 3-1............. 66 Figure 4-7..... 64 Figure 4-3..................................

...... 100 Figure 5-11...................... 96 Figure 5-5................. 103 Figure 5-15........ 102 Figure 5-13..................... 83 Figure 4-21. Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Scanning Image . Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Nomex®ШA Coverall .................................. 101 Figure 5-12......... Slicing the ‘Body’ at Specific Sensor Position...... Sensor Flux Values on Different Calibration Days............... Nomex®ШA Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load.... Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second........Figure 4-13............. 94 Figure 5-4........ Temperature Profiles in Skin Model for a 4 Second Exposure ....................................... 78 Figure 4-15..................................... Superimposed 3D Body Scanning Data Showing the Sensor Positions .......................................... 86 Figure 4-24............... Measuring Air Gap........ 79 Figure 4-16....... Air Gap Determinations by Superimposing Dressed and Nude.. Omega Integral Value ( Sensor #60) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure........ Nude and Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Measurements Image .... 105 Figure 5-19............................. 104 Figure 5-17.......... Comparison between Kevlar/PBI® Garment Manikin Test and ... 99 Figure 5-10... Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for ......... Second and Third Degree Burn Location of Pyroman Test for .................................... 105 Figure 5-18......................... Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for ............... Comparison between Nomex®ШA Garment Manikin Test and .... 85 Figure 4-23............ Omega Value with and without Underwear in 4 second Exposure... Air Gap Distribution between Garment and Manikin at the Typical Positions 84 Figure 4-22........ Different Garments with Same Size and Pattern Shows Different Air Gap ..................... Omega Integral Value after (Sensor #56) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure 98 Figure 5-9. 106 xi ..... Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for .......... 86 Figure 4-25..................................................... Different Garment Sizes and Their Different Air Gap in Pyroman Body ............ Temperatures and Heat Flux Profiles during Exposure Experiment................ 87 Figure 5-1... Temperature History in Skin with Underwear in 4 second Exposure ................ Estimated Transient Thermal Properties of Kevlar/PBI during 4 Second Exposure ............................... Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second............. 96 Figure 5-6.. 83 Figure 4-20... Comparisons of Air Gaps Before and After 4sec Exposure....... 91 Figure 5-3............... Second and Third Degree Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for 102 Figure 5-14.... Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for ........... 103 Figure 5-16 ........... 77 Figure 4-14........... Schematic Diagram of the Transient Experiment for Parameter Estimation .... 97 Figure 5-7. 81 Figure 4-17.............................. 82 Figure 4-19....... 82 Figure 4-18.......................... Kevlar/PBI Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load ............. Air Gap Distribution of Different Size Garments Dressed in Pyroman ........... 98 Figure 5-8.. 90 Figure 5-2........

108 Figure 5-23.............. 109 Figure 6-1....................................................... 121 Figure 6-7....... 112 Figure 6-2............ Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Nomex®ШA ...... Effects of Garments Components and Body Burn Prediction........ 136 xii .......... Relationship between Burn Damage Predicted by ............... Comparison between Nomex®ШA Garment Manikin Test and ...... Garment Fabric Thermal Conductivity and Predicted.... Effect of Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity and Predicted Thermal Protection116 Figure 6-4......... Comparison between Kevlar/PBI® Garment Manikin Test and ............ Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for .................................................................... 129 Figure 6-13....... Garments and Ambient Temperature Influence on Body Burn Prediction....... 134 Figure 6-15... Effect of Fabric Emissivity on Garment Protective Predictions... 128 Figure 6-12....... 106 Figure 5-21...... 117 Figure 6-5.... 122 Figure 6-8.... Effects of Skin Model Initial Temperature Distribution and .Figure 5-20............. Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Kevlar/PBI® .. Effect of Garment Initial Temperature on Body Burn Predictions ................................ 120 Figure 6-6................ 126 Figure 6-10............... 124 Figure 6-9............ Ambient Temperature Effect on Garment Thermal Protective Prediction ...................... Fabric Shrinkage Temperatures and Protective Prediction ................................ 127 Figure 6-11... Effect of Garment Size and Thermal Protective Prediction .... 130 Figure 6-14....... Nomex Deluxe Protective Coverall.. Influence of Shrinkage during Exposure on Burn Prediction .. 109 Figure 5-24...................... Pyroman Heat Flux Standard Deviation Effect on Burn Prediction ........ Single Layer and Multi-layer Skin Model and Burn Prediction ........................ 107 Figure 5-22................... 114 Figure 6-3........

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on modeling heat transfer and predicting skin burn injury as a result of heat transfer through fabric layers. This research developed numerical model capable of predicting heat transfer through clothing materials and garments exposed to intense heat environments. Nor is there a basic understanding of the effects of garment design and fit on thermal protection. 2]. and shrinkage. especially in configurations that realistically simulate the shape of the human body. optical and spatial properties through pyrolysis. Therefore. no generally applicable model exists to explain heat transfer and thermal degradation processes and the influence of flash fire conditions.1 Research Motivation There is inadequate fundamental understanding of the thermal mechanisms associated with the thermal protective performance of materials and garments in flash fire environments. exposed in a realistic fire configuration. Furthermore. char formation.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. heat transfer models cannot accurately predict protective clothing performance without considering the complex dynamics that significantly alter the properties of clothing materials exposed to high thermal exposures. Consequently. These exposures produce nonlinear transient thermal physical properties and fabric optical characteristics [1. Intense heat exposures induce fundamental changes in fabric thermal. No generalized model for heat transfer through protective garment layers. can yield meaningful results without including these data. The primary objective is to construct a model to simulate heat transfer through single layer 1 . a reliable model is needed to account for these factors in predicting the thermal protective performance of garments in realistic conditions.

The research advances the science of thermal modeling and contributes to the development of improved thermal protective materials and clothing. to generate a database of protective fabric transient thermophysical properties exposed in intense heat as well as flash fire. and to establish systematic basis for engineering materials and garments for optimum thermal protective performance. fabrics and ensembles. This approach is intended to provide foundation for a model that will consider the effects of heat exposure on the transient thermophysical properties of protective materials.3 Approach This research developed a heretofore unavailable database of protective fabric thermophysical properties and high temperature heat source characteristics. and characteristics of the heat source. The generalized model can be applied to improvement the safety and comfort performance of protective materials. 1. Specific objectives are to characterize the flash fire environment produced in the Pyroman® test. as well as the air gap distribution between the fabric and skin. to develop a fundamental understanding of mechanisms of transient heat transfer through protective garments exposed extreme thermal environments. Effects of fabric moisture content and shrinkage will be considered by this model. This model will be used to predict burn injury in human body by calculating of heat transfer in protective garments.2 Goals and Objectives The goal of this research is to develop an understanding of heat transfer in protective garments exposed to intense fire environment.protective garments worn by manikin exposed to flash fire. 1. to develop a model to predict performance of protective garments under intense thermal environments in terms of burn injury. 2 . The integrated generalized model developed was validated using the “Pyroman” Thermal Protective Clothing Analysis System [3].

The heat transfer coefficient for each of 122 sensors will be determined by these measurements.The characteristics flash fire generated in the Pyroman® test chamber will be examined by measuring the flame temperature above each of 122 manikin sensors and corresponding heat flux history. convection. The air gap distributions of different size garments including one after exposed to 4 second burning will be analyzed using three-dimensional body scanning technology. therefore producing changes in heat transfer efficiency. This research will measure the thermophysical properties of commonly used protective fabrics including their thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. All the heat flux histories of 122 sensors of calibration nude burn before the garment test are used as one of the input of the numerical model. these unique data will be used in the heat transfer model to improve the accuracy of skin burn prediction. This parameter estimation method used will treat measurement and model errors in a statistical context in order to provide means for estimating the temperature dependent thermophysical properties of fabrics. This research will use three-dimensional (3D) body scanning technology to measure the actual air gap distribution between garments and the “Pyroman®” instrumented manikin body. The heat flux distribution of 122 sensors during 4 second exposure is statistically investigated. An important consideration will be the effect of heat induced shrinkage. and conduction and the thermal response of skin. A parameter estimation approach will be used to estimate fabric thermophysical properties from dynamic thermal exposure experiments. and increases layer-to-layer contact. This is important because shrinkage reduces the air space between the fabric and skin. Since the air gap between the fabric and skin is important to garment protective performance. A one dimensional finite difference formulation will be developed and used to provide a numerical solution for the coupled system of differential equations that control heat transfer by radiation. 3 .

An iteration technique will be utilized to accommodate nonlinearities in the governing equations that occur as a result of the dependence of fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity on temperature and moisture content. 4 . The convergence of iterative relative to controlling equations will be insured by purposely linearizing source terms and by using an appropriate overrelaxation or underrelaxation parameters.

such as aramid.1 Protective Clothing and Test Methods 2. Fibers used in the fabric or composite should be non-melting and flame resistant. The protective garments themselves should be designed with closures and waistbands to reduce chimney effects possible during exposures. and be liquid-repellent. modacrylic. 2.1. Low thermal conductivity is needed to reduce heat transfer to underlying skin. Protective Clothing The purpose of thermal protective clothing is to reduce the rate of heat build up in human skin in order to provide time for the wearer to react. Ease of maintenance and proper fit must be considered.CHAPTER 2 A LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Toxic gases should not be emitted at high temperature. The fibers should resist shrinkage and maintain strength and flexibility at high temperatures. This is accomplished by using a garment which is both flame resistant and thermally insulating. semi-carbon. Inherently flame resistant fibers are those in which the flame resistant properties are built into the polymer or fiber structure. 5 . and phenolic fibers.2. Fabrics should not break or split open when exposed to flames. They should have low air permeability to minimize convective heat transfer. and not hinder normal work. The protective garment must also meet other requirements: it must maintain integrity during the heat exposure. One of the most important functions for protective garments is to limit the amount of heat stress to the wearer. polybenzimidazole (PBI). and avoid or minimize skin burn injury [4]. This is can be challenging since severe changes meant to increase protection often come at the expense of garment comfort. Flame-resistant Fibers Suitable for Protective Clothing Flame-resistant fibers can be divided into two classes: inherently flame-retardant fibers and chemically modified fibers and fabrics.1.1.

The molecule chains of heat resistant fibers have a “stiff backbone” due to the aromatic groups which limit bond rotation. Normally flammable fibers. Titanium and zirconium complexes are effective flame-retardants for wool. is widely used commercial available protective fabric that uses this percentage. 6 . Wool has a relatively high LOI (Limiting Oxygen Index) and high combustion temperature. Polybenzimidazole (PBI) fiber. Proban 210. are often blended with Nomex to reduce high heat shrinkage.and nitrogen-containing flame-retardant. developed for protective clothing used by military personnel. It self-polymerizes to form a three-dimensional-network polymer within the microvoids found in cotton fibers. which raises the phosphorus to the more stable oxidation state. with no afterglow and shrinkage [8]. which is phosphorus. They produce relatively little smoke when heated. their chemical structure is such that they do not easily break down into combustible molecular fragments. can be treated to make them to suitable for use in thermal protective garments. Nomex is the best-known meta-aramid fiber. produced by Hoechst-Celanese. integrity. The Nomexwas introduced by DuPont in 1962. However Nomex may shrink and break open under intense heat. Curing is followed by a post-oxidative treatment. thus resulting in high decomposition and melting temperatures and low thermal shrinkage [8]. resists high temperatures and chemicals and is reported to have excellent textile characteristics [7]. is one of the most successful cellulose fire retardant finishes [9]. While aramid fibers contain no FR chemical elements such as phosphorus or halogen. and others working in specialized industrial applications [6]. para-aramid fibers. A similar meta-aramid fiber was introduced by Teijin in 1972 as Conex. a blend of 95% regular Nomex with 5% Kevlar . For this reason. astronauts. These fabrics generally provide better fire protection than aramid fibers while remaining flexible. An example of Nomex III. such as cotton and wool. Kevlar.

The time for the flame to travel 127 mm is then recorded. temperature of the burning fabric. The reliability of individual tests varies considerably. rate and extent of flame spread. Test Methods Fabric flammability is often characterized by ease of ignition. In this test. Following fabric igniting. Quantification of these properties depends on the nature of the ignition source. Other factors often considered are the duration of flaming. bottom. the ratio of oxygen and nitrogen are adjusted until the sample is completely consumed at a slow and steady rate. The Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) (ASTM D 2863 [13]): The Limiting Oxygen Index is the lowest concentration of oxygen necessary to support combustion in fabric samples. Vertical tests (ASTM D 3659 [12]): This test method is a more stringent measure of fabric flammability than the 450 test method. However.2. it is very reliable in its ability to eliminate these dangerous flammable textiles. This test can only eliminate dangerously flammable fabrics as it fails to ignite most fabrics. and by the amount of heat evolved in burning. Then the char length. A standard burner flame is applied to the upper surface near the lower end for 1 sec. orientation of the test fabric. or face). The LOI entrusted as the minimum fraction of oxygen in the chamber respond to maintain slow and steady combustion. the flame itself does not assist in burning the test fabric. afterflame. location of the ignition (top. edge. as well as the air movement in the test sample [10]. and afterglow times are measured. 7 . The 450 test method (ASTM D 1230-94 [11]): This test uses a 50 mm by 165 mm specimen held in place at 450 to the horizontal. In this test a sample is exposed to a vertical flame for a given length of time. and ease of flame extinction. This test is conducted by igniting the top of a vertically oriented sample with a hydrogen flame. and environmental conditions. therefore. Moisture and ambient temperature are important.3.1. repeatable results are easily obtained.

Heat sources range from radiant panels to gas burners or a combination of two.4.1. Heat sensors range from copper disk to skin simulant sensors which the thermal inertia of the sensor material is almost the same of human skin. Typical TPP experimental arrangements use a methane gas flame in combination with a bank of quartz tubes to provide a convective and radiant heat source. Measuring the Thermal Protective Performance of Fabric Several methods have been developed to measure the insulative properties of fabrics against high-intensity thermal energy. depending on the type of fire simulated. Schematic Diagram of TPP Tester 8 . One method is ASTM D4108-87. Two thermal protective performance (TPP) test methods have received wide application by different associations and standards organizations. Sens or block To data acquisition system Sens or Spacer Fabric s pecimen W ater cooled shutter M eker burner Quartz Tube Bank Figure 2-1.2. which uses a single laboratory gas burner as the heat source. The other procedure is a more versatile method that combines two gas burners and quartzs heaters to provide different mixtures of radiant and convective heat.

or vents to thermal protective performance by clothing in actual wear. A pneumatic and water cooled shutter controls the duration of exposure and comes front to end the exposure. pockets.Figure 2-2. and the role of seams. They provide no information about the spatial effects which may be important in predicting the protective performance of clothing worn on the human body. The heat transferred through the fabric is measured by a copper calorimeter sensor painted with flat black. They also provide no information on the effects of garment design and construction. Close up View of TPP Tester in NCSU The fabric specimen is mounted 50 mm above the burner top (Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). 9 . precise and a relatively inexpensive means for comparative the thermal protective performance of fabrics. The distance between the fabric and the calorimeter heat sensor can be varied using spacer plates of different thickness. However. closures. and to the configuration of test fabric. TPP tests are limited to a certain heat exposures. The TPP test is a convenient.

fabrics insulate best against a 50% radiation and 50% convection. Therefore. They found that the air/fiber ratio of the fabric and the maintenance of air volume in fabric structure are important to thermal protective performance. Air and fiber conduction dominate in intense exposures. as the fabrics were relatively opaque. as fibrils on the surface of the fabric function as baffles. This finding is attributed to the effect of protruding fibers on thermal insulation. Their research also shows that moisture plays an important role in determining thermal transfer in TPP tests. On the other hand surface fibers are expected to play a less important role in purely radiant exposures [18]. retention of thermal properties.2. the fiber type is shown to have a significant effect on heat transfer. direct radiation transmission. Barker and Shalev’s experiments used a 50% convection and 50 % radiation heat source. Assessment of Protective Performance Using TPP Methods Barker and Shalev [14. They point out that thermal physical properties change greatly during a TPP exposure. 17] analyzed the TPP of single layer fabrics using different heat source combinations and intensity levels. Moisture in fibers can increase the volumetric heat capacity of and provide an ablative effect. not the initial values of these properties. hot gases do not appear to blow through the fabric. Barker and Lee [16. contrary to the behavior observed in low heat flux condition where fabric structure dominates. They assume that stagnant air layers entrapped by surface fibers play an important part in heat transfer especially in convective heat exposure.48kW/m2 exposures. Their work indicates that the ability of a fabric to maintain a profusion of surface fiber is important in convective exposures. In these studies. is not as important. Except for the 0. holding still air and extending the boundary layer on the fabric. the times to exceed the Stoll criterion are lowest in 100% radiation exposures. 10 . hence increasing heat transfer resistance. 15] have reported extensively on the use of TPP test to understand the thermal response of fabrics in high heat exposures.5.1. for all the fabrics. thus increasing thermal protective performance. They show that. Barker and Shalev show fabric air permeability does not correlate with TPP test results. Thermal properties change of different fabrics was presented with time for different exposures. is the key to heat transfer in TPP tests.

The increased insulation of the fabric air gap assembly slows heat transfer through it. Further increase in air thickness results in rapid heat transfer to the sensor by heat convection through the entrapped air layer. 25 C o tto n N o m ex 20 PBI 15 T em p eratu re r is e ( d e g C ) 10 5 0 0 mm 1 mm A ir s p a c e t h ic k n e s s ( m m ) 2 mm Figure 2-3.The effects of different test conditions and fabric properties on fabric properties on test results were also discussed. Nomex and PBI (Figure 2-3). for a given exposure and duration. She found that. His results show that heat transfer declined as the air gap between two fabric layers increased from 0 to 2 mm for each of three fabric specimens viz. 11 . For a fabric with weight of 3oz/yd2.second Flame Exposure [19] Freeston [20] used a skin simulant heat sensor in his investigation of the effect an air gap between the two layers of fabrics. the optimum air gap thickness for 1 to 3 seconds exposures is approximated 4 mm. Temperature rise (°C ) in Skin Stimulant of Naval Materials Laboratory after 3. cotton. the air gap increases the insulation offered by the fabric air assembly. Stoll et al [19] studied the effect of heat exposure duration and the thickness of the air space between the thermal sensor and the test fabric.

FR wool produces heat transfer response characterized by constant slope. For cottons treated with halogenated FR finish. In the case of cottons treated with a phosphonium FR finish.0 cal/cm2sec is shown in Figure 2-4 [21]. a relatively rapid deposition of non combustible condensate on the calorimeter occurs when the critical volatilization temperature for the applied flame retardant is reached. flame regression due to radical scavenging reaction steadily interferes with burning as antimony halide species evolve. Catastrophic break down is observed in cotton materials treated with halogenated finish. C) 50 45 40 35 30 0 2 4 6 Time (s) 8 10 12 14 FR COTTON # 34 FR COTTON # 68 NOMEX KEVLAR PBI P/K Figure 2-4.70 65 60 55 Temperature Rise (deg. TPP Traces of the Test Fabrics [21] The heat transfer response of different types of fabrics exposed 2. Most fabrics exhibit an exponential response as the rate of heat transfer increases with fabric pyrolyzes in intense heat. similar to that observed in inorganic fibers. 12 . Cotton fabrics. treated with different FR finishes show fundamentally calorimetric curves.

Figure 5 shows a diagram of the system. North Carolina State University.2 Manikin Testing and NCSU Pyroman® Garments burning behavior and thermal protective performance cannot be fully predicted from bench-scale fabric testing. Colebrook used non-instrumented manikins to test garment in a wire body form. In 1940’s Baker and Smith used the first manikin to compare the burning rate of shirts.2. The Pyroman® Thermal Protective Clothing Analysis System [24] consists of a number of integrated components. NCSU’s “Pyroman” System Pyroman.1. 2. designed to work together to measure the performance of protective clothing under full scale. not only of the thermal physical properties of fiber and fabrics. The development of full scale manikin tests was a significant step toward the realistic evaluation of garment protective performance since they provide a realistic simulation of real fire exposures. flash fire exposure conditions. located in College of Textile.2. Non-instrumented manikins continued to be used extensively in assessing garment flammability [22]. as well as a new software package. DuPont developed this technology and built an instrumented manikin called Thermo-man. 13 . One of the first instrumented manikins was used in 1962. is one of few manikins in the world actively involved in garment protective performance research testing. but also of design and fit of garments themselves. when Stoll conducted tests for the United States Navy that analyzed a leather-covered manikin quipped with temperature detector paper and melting point indicators [23]. This system was recently upgraded to include a new sensor technology and data acquisition system. Manikin tests provide more realistic evaluation of protective performance evaluation since they measure the influence. these efforts had involved into a full-scale instrumented manikin tests that used burning aircraft jet fuel as a heat source. By 1972.

Electrically controlled valves prevent supply of high-pressure gas for the test exposure unless all of the safety devices are satisfied and the test is ready to be run. The gas supply line is insulated and electrically heated to provide for a constant supply of fuel throughout changes in the weather. The gas supply line is also vented through solenoid valves.Gas Supply System: Propane gas is supplied to the burner system from a buried tank through a series of valves and reducers. The fire chamber is provided with supply and exhaust ducts and fans. which are automatically controlled to provide safe startup of the 14 . Pressure sensitive switches monitor the system to maintain safe operating conditions. Pyroman Fire Chamber and Gas Delivery System Fire Chamber: The instrumented manikin and the exposure system are housed in a flame resistant room (Figure 2-5) with large viewing windows on one wall and double entrance doors on the opposite wall. when the system is not in use. Figure 2-5. which are open.

Each burner has a pilot flame which is lighted and proven before the gas is supplied to the torch. Figure 2-6. Pyroman Manikin 15 . The gas control panel monitors the state of each pilot flame and prevents opening of the exposure torch valve if there is no pilot flame present. Flash Fire Exposure System . which fully engulfs the manikin. This feature provides both safety and control over the position and number of torches used in each test. The gas control panel also monitors the condition of the gas supply line and safety devices and will shut the system down and vent the gas in the supply line in case of a malfunction. produce the flash fire and are carefully positioned to create a large volume of fire. The speed of these fans is controlled to permit testing under wind conditions with velocities up to about 5 miles per hour. which have been modified.system and rapid removal of the products of combustion and degradation after a test exposure.Burners and Control Panel: The most important requirements of the flash fire system are safe operation and reproducibility. Eight industrial burners.

which are uniformly distributed on the surface. Leads from each sensor are taken to the data acquisition unit through a guarded. Computer System: A sophisticated computer system is used to control the National Instruments data acquisition system. At this speed. 16 . acquire data from the sensor system and to calculate and display the results of the numerical model used to estimate skin damage. Nude Pyroman® and Its Burning The garment testing protocol sequence includes dressing the manikin with the garment. heat shielded cable. interacting with the computer to assure safe conditions. each of the 122 sensors can be read more 10 times per second. There are sockets for 122 heat sensors. Figure 2-7. The output from the 122 sensors is fed into conditioned analog amplifier multiplexer. This amplified output is then fed to a 12 bit resolution DAQ board.25MS/s. The code width for the range 0-10V input is 2. lighting the pilot flames. made from a flame resistant polyester resin reinforced with fiber glass (Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7).4 mV.Manikin: The test manikin is a size 40 regular male. which transfers the analog signal to digital signal with sampling rate of 1. The manikin is suspended from the ceiling of the burn chamber on an adjustable fixture.

The data acquired by the system is used to calculate the incident heat flux and to predict burn injury for each sensor. Pyroman Burn Prediction in terms of 2nd Burn and 3rd Burn The calculated incident heat flux is used to calculate the temperature of human tissue at two depths below the surface of the skin. These heat fluxes apply to skin model to calculate temperature change at the certain depths in skin model. one representing second degree and the other representing third degree burn injury. The prediction results can be obtained using burn evaluation model which programmed in the computer. The computer control system will compute the received temperature profiles of each sensor.exposing the garment to the flash fire. 17 . Figure 2-8 shows a burn prediction in terms of second and third degree burn. Figure 2-8. acquiring data. and running the fans to vent the chamber. translated into heat flux history of total data acquisition time.

2.3 0 7 g /m 2 ) P r o b a n I n d u r a ( 4 2 R .97 . Manikin Research on Garment Thermal Protective Performance Dale [25] compares protective garments at different heat exposure levels.3 3 4 g /m 2 ) % B o d y B u rn 50 40 30 20 10 0 4 5 6 7 8 T h e r m a l E n e r g y L e v e l ( c a l/s q .8.1 8 7 g / m 2 ) P r o b a n F R 7 . shown in Figure 2-9.2. indicates that intrinsically heat resistant materials like Nomex IIIA and blend of Kevlar and PBI show a steady rise in 90 80 70 60 N o m e x I I I ( 4 2 R . Proban cotton and Zirpro wool for testing on "Thermo-man".2. These materials represent the range of anticipated fabric reactions to intense thermal exposures. Behnke et al [26] investigated the protective performance of garments made of fabrics with different thermophysical properties. Heat Exposure Intensity [25] predicted body burn injuries with increasing level of input thermal energy. They selected Kevlar.36 cal/cm2 (250 . and thermal chemical reactions that occur when heat exposure energies produce this degradation in these materials. Nomex IIIA.A ( 4 2 R .c m ) Figure 2-9. The performance of FR cotton results from lower thermal degradation temperature. The results of his experiments. while FR cotton materials show a sudden rise in predicted body burn injuries at an exposure level of thermal energy in between 5. Proban Cotton 18 .2 1 0 g /m 2 ) K e v la r /P B I ( 4 4 R . depending upon fabric mass per unit area.350 kJ/m2). Predicted Body Burn vs.

These sizes are 40. In these studies the data from unprotected heat sensors.and Kevlar® were selected for their dimensional stability while Nomex® IIIA and Zirpro® wool were selected due to their relatively higher shrinkage with high temperature exposure.1 oz/yd2). For Nomex III. exposures on "Thermo-Man". They notes that some sensor positions in manikin test are similar to TPP contact configuration. They tested three different size coverall made of Nomex and Kevlar/PBI [28]. 42R and 44 (about 3% size differences). investigated the effects of protective garment size fitted in the manikin. which is comparable to TPP results. using the Pyroman® Burning Evaluation System. and other sensor positions show the results that are comparable to TPP results with spaced configuration. These fabrics were tested as size 42 regular single coveralls. Barker et al. located in the head of the manikin were not included since the coverall did not cover the manikin head. where the thermal average shrinkage is 10 to 15%. These tests show that much less burn occurred with FR Aramid underwear comparing with non FR cotton. 19 . Data on burn injury percentage in case of coveralls made of Kevlar/PBI show that the garment size does not affect the level of protection. Pawar and Barker [1] related manikin-burning prediction with TPP tests in both contact and spaced configurations.6-8. Crown [27] studied different garment systems with different underwear and compared with the TPP test. Figure 2-10 shows the predicted burn injury after 5 sec. size 42R offers maximum protections in term of burn injure percentage. All of these test specimens were woven fabrics with densities in the range of 260-280 g/m2 (7.

Predicted % Burn Injury after 5 s Exposure and heat flux of 2. In this research. Nomex III and Kevlar 100 fabrics appear to be superior to FR cotton and FR wool samples.0 cal/cm2sec on "Thermo-Man" Behnke and Barker compared stationary manikin tests results with a dynamic Thermal-Leg evaluation system [26]. in a dynamic configuration. the ability to retain strength and structural integrity of the protective in prolonged exposure to flames is much more important in terms of protection. The “Thermal-leg” evaluation system assess the ability of clothing materials to protect the wearer in realistic simulations of running motions similar to a victim escaping a flash fire accident. These novel experiments show that. 20 .90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Nomex III 100% Kevlar Proban cotton Zirpro wool 2nd degree burn (%) 3rd degree burn (%) Total (%) Figure 2-10.

5 µm. Hence. Polymeric materials are highly absorbing at wavelengths greater than 3µm. a significant amount of the thermal energy is transferred by thermal radiation. The flash fire generated in Pyroman® that is created by burning liquid propane through eight burners.2. [31] measured spectral reflectance and transmittance using a GierDunkle integrating sphere reflectometer with a Beckman DK-2A spectrophotometer between 0. the optical properties of the fabric can affect the heat absorption characteristics of the protective garment. optical transmittance is largely related to fabric porosity [48]. Since a substantial part of the thermal energy is radiant heat. The impinging fire is usually considered a convective heat source.1. Spectral absorbance is lower at wavelength range shorter than 3µm. therefore. On the other hand. crucial to developing a model capable of accurately predicting protective performance of clothing.3 Fabric Properties and Fire Characteristics 2. Proper treatment of the optical properties during the burning process is. reflect poorly in the far infra-red and the ultraviolet.5 µm and 2. regardless of their color. but at high flame temperatures. This method enabled measurement of energy in all directions and yields integrated values for each wavelength.3. Dark color fabrics are 60%--70% reflective at wavelength in the near infra-red [21]. Fabric Optical Properties in a Flash Fire Environment Fabric optical properties play an important role in determining garment protective performance. Morse also used high and low reflectance backing to the fabric and a reflectometer to determine the directional 21 . Light colored fabrics reflect well in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum. in order to calculate how much energy is transmitted and absorbed by any given fabric system. Morse et al. Almost all fabrics. it is necessary to know the spectral distribution of the energy source and the spectral reflectance and transmittance of the fabric [29]. especially when exposed to intense fire environments. thus providing turbulent jet flame.

Absorptivity.76 0. τ .17 0.B.18 0.5 38.21 0. Fabric optical properties [32] Fabric NomexШ PBI S-PBI Transmittance % 8. Fabric properties [31] Property Weight (gm/cm2) Thickness (cm) Moisture regain Specific Heat (cal/gm.0323 13.0 0.4 Ross [32] measured the optical properties of several fabrics using the Beckman DK-2A reflectometer with a xenon source (Table 2-2).6 22.0 42.0139 0.11 300 to 400 0C S-PBI 0.01 2% at 500 0C to 19% at 840 0C α τ ρ Charred α τ 32% max from 40% max from Linear Shrinkage ρ .0C) (5 0C to 283 0C) ρ row Optical Properties (1010 C B.72 0.06 0.2 0.reflectance and transmittance. α .45 0.9 29.17 0. Table 2-1.0146 0.5 µm was found to be low for all samples.0 0.Reflectivity.0 15.73 0.62 0.0 41.06 400 to 450 0C 121 0.18 0.26 0. Table 2-1 shows that fabrics optical properties change after exposure to heat. 22 .78 0.48 0.) 0 Nomex 0.0323 5.Transmissivity Table 2-2.0146 0.45 0.15 0.38 – 0.23 0.3 Absorptance % 39.3 Reflectance % 43.38 – 0.0364 12. Reflectance beyond 2.57 0.3 – 0.

[33] also measured the optical properties of fabrics. These models use Beer’s law with an extinction coefficient and measure using transmissivity measurements in the infrared region. a benefit in purely radiant thermal exposures [34]. 23 . Aluminization can increase the reflectance of protective fabric up to 90 percent.Backer et al. both before exposure to heat and in charred states using the integrating sphere and opaque fabric backing. Aluminization. 36]. is detrimental in a flame environment due to improved conductive transfer and ignition of the laminate [35. An extinction coefficient for fabrics of interest can be calculated as: γ =− ln(τ ) L fab Torvi uses a Nicolet Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer to measure transmissivity in Nomex IIIA and Kevlar/PBI fabrics samples before and after 10 sec exposure to a heat flux of approximately 80 KW/m2 using. Other treatments of radiant transmission through fabric consider the absorption of incident radiation [37]. Furthermore. costly and sensitive to soiling and soot. however. stiff. Torvi shows no significant changes to the transmissivities of these fabrics before and after burning. Aluminization is a common method used to change fabric optical properties. Aluminized fabrics are otherwise impervious to moisture and air.

Thermal Conductivity The literature describes a variety of methods to measure fabric thermal conductivity [38]. Morse et al. Fabric Thermal Properties in Flash Fire Condition 2. The Thermal Properties Test Fixture (TPTF). Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) techniques can also be used to determine thermal conductivity values for protective fabrics. This apparatus evaluates clothing materials with relatively little compression loads. developed by the Ktech Corporation. and 24 . where V f . These techniques are dependent on the choice of the analytical or numerical model used to fit the data.3. while allowing for evaluation of wet materials. under high heat flux conditions. In comfort conditions. The Ktech method is similar to the method used by Stoll and Chianta [40] and Baker. A computer program is used to determine thermal properties based on the heat flux and measured temperature rise measured in different layers in the test fixture. Other methods include a thin heater apparatus or a heat flow meter. as described by Shalev [42]. et al. [41].2.1.3. [43] calculate fabric thermal conductivity using the flowing equation: K = x (V f k f + V a k a ) + y k f ka Va k f + V f k a . Va = volume fraction of fiber and air.2. They fitted experimental data to results using analytical models to determine the thermal conductivity of protective fabrics and charring ablators. Other than DSC method. uses a skin simulant sensor to estimate the thermal properties of fire fighting clothing materials at low heat flux exposure levels [39]. It is known that the initial thermal properties and physical dimension of protective fabrics change during high heat exposures due to the shrinkage and degradation [36]. a guarded hot plate can be used. all these methods assume either constant thermal properties or operate in a temperature range far below the intense heat flux condition expected in protective clothing.2.

k f . conduction in solid fibers.13 + 0.000054(T ( K ) − 700 K ) T ≤ 700 K T > 700 K .0018(T ( K ) − 300k ) = 1 . Since heat transfer in fibrous materials is a combination of conduction/convection in the air between fibers. and radiation heat transfer between fibers.000068(T ( K ) − 300 K ) = 0. k fiber (T ) = 0. For Nomex fiber [45. where ν air is the volume fraction of air in the fibrous material. In this equation. 25 . effective conduction can be represented as: k eff (T ) = (ν air k air (T ) + (1 − ν air )k fiber (T )) + k rad (T ) .0 T ≤ 700k T > 700k . Torvi used a simplified model to weight contributions from the solid fibers and the air.026 + 0. 46]. k a = conductivity of fiber and air. k air (T ) = 0. Such that k eff = ( k gas + k solid ) + k rad . x +y = 1 And Va + V f = 1 . as well as the contribution of radiation heat transfer between fibers [44]. The thermal conductivity of air has been represented by a linear relationship [47].053 + 0.

In these models. the fibers in the fabric are assumed to function as infinite plates acting as radiation shields.8 0. The radiation portion of thermal conductivity is known to be very small. Hence. and ∆x = width of the particular finite element. Thermal Conductivity v.s. Figure 2-11 shows the relationship between thermal conductivity and temperature predicted for Nomex IIIA.6 0. Fabric Thermal Conductivity vs.4 0. For a 100K temperature difference across on finite fabric element in the fabric. Temperature 26 . the contribution due to thermal radiation is about 5% of the total thermal conductivity [44]. This model can be used to calculate the thermal conductivity in a wide range of temperature of interest. = 2 − ε fiber where ε fiber = emissivity of the fibers. Temperature Theramal Conductivity (W/m C) 1.2 1 0.2 0 0 500 1000 Temperature (K) 1500 2000 K Fibre K Air K Fabric Figure 2-11. the portion of the thermal conductivity due to thermal radiation between the fibers is assumed to equal k rad σε fiber ∆x (T12 + T22 )(T1 + T2 ) .

From TGA curves found in the literature [51.The difference between the thermal conductivities of the Nomex IIIA and Kevlar/PBI are expected to be very small.K.22T + 629 . 27 . where T is in Kelvin and Cp is given in J/kg.2. measured over temperatures range of 50-250 0C. Schoppee [48] et al.2. For many different fabrics he found heat capacities in the range of 0. Consequently. Two thermal analysis methods can be used to calculate fabric heat capacity at high temperatures: Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) and the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC).39 cal/g/K at 20 0C [20]. The approximate temperature ranges over which the majority of the thermal decomposition occurs for these materials in helium and oxygen environment is noted as [51]. Backer et al. [49] introduced an exacting method of measuring fabric heat capacity by dropping a tightly rolled fabric into a water-containing calorimeter. advance an empirical formula to calculate change in CP with temperature for “average” polymeric materials: C p = 2. Detailed information of the application of these methods can be found in Torvi [50]. The heat capacity of most fabrics changes about 50% when temperature rises from 500 K to 1000K.22-0. the mass of Nomex and Kevlar/PBI fabrics remains fairly constant until the onset of thermal decomposition. 2. 52].3. these relationships can be used to represent the effective thermal conductivity of both Nomex IIIA and Kevlar/PBI protective clothing materials.64 cal/g/K.29-0. Heat Capacity and Thermal Decomposition Temperature The specific heat of polymeric materials ranges from 0.

The only problem associated with the use of DSC for this purpose relates to the temperature limitation. while TGA curves do not shift indefinitely as the heating rate increases. The heating rate in TGA is 20 0C per minute. [55]. Efforts have been made to develop equipment to measure at higher heating rates. shifting the TGA graph to higher temperature as the heating rate increases. These experiments show that. and Shlensky. rapid data acquisition. The advantage of using DSC to measure the specific heat of fabrics includes accuracy. et al. Torvi expressed the apparent specific heat equation for Nomex and Kevlar/PBI fabrics using information obtained from TGA and DSC as follows: c A (T ) = 1300 + slope(T − 300 K ) = ∆hwtr ( moist ) ∆T slope + 1300 + wtr ∆Twtr 2 T < Twt1 Twt1 ≤ T ≤ Twtr 2 Twtr 2 < T < Trxl = 1300 + slope(T − 300 K ) = ∆T slope ∆hrx + 1300 + slope(Trxl − 300) + rx 2 ∆T rx Trx1 ≤ T ≤ Trx 2 = 1300 + slope(Trx1 − 300 K ) T > Trx 2 . Some investigators have found that heating rate affects TGA results. but encountered difficulty due to the accuracy of DTA. 28 .Table 2-3. the heating rates can be at the order of about 104 0C per minute. Thermal Decomposition Temperature Material Helium Oxygen NomexIIIA Kevlar/PBI 430-620 C 575-620 0C 0 420-640 0C 530-660 0C During burning. Torvi attempted to use differential thermal analysis (DTA) to obtain high temperatures. Bingham and Hill [54]. the ultimate thermogravimetric curve no longer tends to depend on heating rate. including Herderson and O’Brien [53]. and relatively small sample sizes [56].

6 130 425 650 These calculations are for a heating rate of 20 0C per minute. et al.08 75 125 1. Schoppee. exothermic reactions may be possible due to the significantly higher amount of oxygen available to the fabric. and slope is the slope of specific heat-temperature curve for each fabric.05 75 125 1. moist is the initial mass fraction of moisture in the fabric. slower than heating rate in actual burns.8 130 425 650 2500 0. It has also been assumed that the thermal decomposition reactions of the fabrics are endothermic. [48] have stated that.where: ∆hwtr is the latent heat of vaporization of water. in tests which use a radiant heat source rather than a flame. Values for use in Equations for NomexIIIA and Kevlar/PBI Fabrics Constant NomexIIIA Kevlar/PBI ∆hwtr ( KJ / Kg ⋅0 C ) moist Twtr1 (0C) Twtr 2 (0C) slope (J/kg⋅0C2) ∆hrx (kJ/Kg⋅0C) Trx1 (0C) Trx 2 (0C) 500 0. Values used in above equations for Nomex IIIA and Kevlar/PBI® are shown in Table 2-4 below: Table 2-4. 29 . ∆hrx is the energy associated with thermal decomposition.

Fabric thickness can vary considerably depending on the pressure at which they are measured. Therefore.4 oz/yard2 protects 72. This is because the increased mass per unit area changes fabric density. Fabric thickness is less important if air gaps are introduced in the protective system. or from charring. This can be modeled by considering the fabric to be composed of varying proportions of pure char and pure plastic. Manikin tests show that a Nomex III 6. Since thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is often used to determine mass loss as a function of temperature and time. Shrinkage may dramatically reduce the air gap between the fabric and skin or fabric to fabric. In transient heat transfer processes. rather than by measuring it separately [60]. Effects of High Heat Exposure on Fabric Dimensions Fabric mass per unit area.2. 30 . which is thermal conductivity divided by the thickness. treat thickness by including it in the thermal conductance. The initial thickness of protective fabrics correlates well with thermal protective performance [58]. This is due to the overwhelming importance of the thickness of the still air maintained by the fabric in a conduction dominated heat transfer process. these changes increase time to the second and third degree burn. heat capacity and thickness. while Nomex IIIA 7.2 oz/yd2 coverall protects 59. Change in fabric density during thermal exposures may arise from shrinkage. This process has been modeled for space vehicle reentry heat shields [59]. the ability of a fabric to maintain its original weight will directly affect its performance. we need to compare the heating rate in TGA tests with the actual conditions of high intensity exposures.5% of the body from burn. Some investigators.3. considered to be the potential burn injury.3. charring and ablation.3% in 3 sec. therefore. thickness and bulk are important to thermal protective performance. Fabric thickness can change in intense heat exposures due to melting. especially in intense heat flux flame conditions. hence. emissivity. duration with exposure of 84kW/m2 [57].

Thermal Protection Performance (TPP) test methods combine the effects of flame impingement and spectral and transfer modes simulate exposure conditions. Wavelengths range 1-6 microns at heat flux levels above 84kW/m2. CO2 at 2. ethane. Radiant intensity.3 µm.3. For this reason. usually in the range of 1500-1800 0C [65]. and 167-226 kW/m2 for JP-4 fuel fires. determines the potential hazard of the fire exposure.3 µm. Schoppee et 31 . with a peak at about 2 microns. Heat flux from a fire is similar to a black body at the fire temperature. laevoglucose [64].7 and 6. fabric densities may not remain constant. fires have different characteristics depending on type of fuel that is burned. ethylene. Holcombe an Hoschke[66] measured heat fluxes of 130-330 kW/m2 from simulated mine explosions. such as Nomex. formaldehyde.7 and 4. especially for fabrics that shrunk. Noncombustible products can include carbon dioxide. Common combustible degradation products from polymers are methane.While the density of the protective fabrics (Nomex and Kevlar/PBI) is expected to change during the exposure. Characterization of the Fire Environment Real fires produce a thermal environment characterized by turbulent buoyant diffusion flames [62]. The radiation characteristics of the fire depend on the degradation products of the combustion process. This can be further justified by NASA database of properties of thermal protective materials [61]. [67] reported estimates of 180kW/m2 in seven room fires from just below flashover to flashover and severe postflashover fires. acetone and carbon monoxide [63]. when the temperature produced by the thermal exposure exceeds this range. et al. which is wavelength dependent. Krasiy. hydrogen chloride and water.4. Water has strong absorption bands at 2. these changes have been shown to be relative small when the fabric temperature does not exceed 400 0C. 2. However. or in the case of FR cotton.

al [68] compare the behavior of quartz panels to a blackbody that.76 N 2 → 3 × CO2 + 4 H 2O + 18. He heated fire fighter jacked materials. If propane is assumed to react with stoichiometric air. At lower temperatures. he concluded that a cone heater may be more representative of actual fires than quartz lamps. then the chemical reaction for complete combustion can be written as [71] C3 H 8 + 5O2 + 5 × 3.8 N 2 Adiabatic flame temperatures of about 2400K and 2270K were calculated using STANJAN with and without dissociation. Siegel and Howell [70] report values of about 2200K for flame temperature in their experiments. with the same thermal flux. Actual flames are cooler due to heat transfer from the flame and incomplete combustion. 32 . the emissive power of a quartz panel falls within the waveband containing 75 percent of the total emissive power of a blackbody at the same temperature. David [69] compares quartz lamps and a cone heater having different spectral distribution of radiant energy. For these reason. Shalev [42] found that a propane burning Meker burner produced a heat flux which was approximately 70% convective and 30% radiative in nature. whose reflectivity and absorbtivity curve depend on the wavelength of the incident radiant energy. Adiabatic flame temperature is the maximum possible temperature for this flame. respectively. wavelengths coincide with temperatures above 1023K. These experiments show that the different temperature history occurred on the fabric and the different prediction time to get 2nd degree burn was found. Holcombe and Hoschke [66] report that approximately 25% of the heat energy released by a Meker burner is thermal radiation. Fire is generated in the Pyroman® chamber with liquid propane gas burned in eight gas burners. at maximum output. Maximum experimental values for laboratory burners using methane show flame temperature the order of 2000K to 2100K [65].

or fourth degree burns [72]. second. Second degree burns may be further divided into superficial or deep. Certain elements. Burn injuries.4. such as hair follicles and glands. third. are some of the worst injuries that can happen to human beings. Large volumes of extravascular fluid are lost die to injury to underlying tissue and surrounding the area of full thickness injury. the major tissue response of first degree burns is vasodilation of the subpapillary vessels which results in redness to the burned region of the skin. Superficial second degree burns are those in which a significant fraction of the cells at the base of the dermis are not destroyed. which are time and temperature dependent. the result of thermal attack to human skin. Skin Burn Models Burns. have been classified as first. With no blood flow. may remain and there is widespread stasis and destruction of cells in the subpapillary plexus. including damage of blood vessels in the burn region. Healing is normally quick with no permanent scarring or discoloration. There is an associated loss of fluids and which leads to systemic effects. Deep second degree burns result in loss of much of the dermal base. depending on the penetration depth in the injured zone. a major factor causing shock in untreated burn patients. 33 .4 Modles for Predicting Skin Burn Injury 2.1. In these burns cell structure can be damaged. Third degree burns involve destruction of all epidermal elements and supporting dermal structure.2. and blood vessels may be distorted and partially blocked. Burn injuries require a long time to heal and are sometimes difficult to treat clinically. Second degree burns are characterized by capillary damage which produces tissue edema and blisters. In a first degree burn. No systemic effects occur and discomfort is temporary. In this case. healing is normally prompt and without scarring since the majority of the cells at the dermal base are not injured. Plasma volume may also be lost. Second degree burns involve damage to epidermis and dermis layers of skin. the cells in the region of full thickness burn eventually die.

In addition to burn injury. bone. although greater complications due to the injuries to underlying tissue may occur. decrease in cardial output. as well as complications related to nutritional defects and altered immune function. blood temperature is constant and equal to body core temperature. but may vary from layer to layer.4. systemic heat trauma due to the thermal stress and the inflammatory mediators occur within the body and are released to the circulatory system. Healing is not significantly different from the with third degree burns. metabolic energy production can be assumed to be negligible. low intensity heat exposure. Traumatic effects include the shock of fluid loss. 34 .2. The resulting simplified bioheat equation is based on following specific assumptions [74. and other structures beneath subcutaneous tissue may be damaged. 75]: heat is linearly conducted within tissues. In long duration. 2. negligible between the large blood vessels (arteries and veins) and the tissue.Fourth degree burns involve incineration of the skin tissue. the local blood flow rate is constant. and injuries to the respiratory system. Bioheat Transfer Models Pennes [73] proposed a transfer equation to describe heat transfer in human tissues: ρc ∂T = k ∇ 2 T − G ( ρ c ) b (T − Tc ) ∂t Pennes’ model assumes that skin tissue above an isothermal core is maintained at a constant body temperature. the rate of metabolic energy production is included in the above equation. Most of these traumas result from the altered condition of skin due to intense heat exposure. tissue thermal properties are constant in each layer. In a case of high intensity exposures (84 kW/m2 from flash fires). An increase in body metabolic rate can occur to compensate for the large losses from outer evaporation from injured areas. Muscle.

( ) where ρ . 2. ω ∗ is the perfusion parameter that reflects blood flow within vessels in the control volume. as he assumes. but rather in pre. rather than the scalar perfusion term suggested by Pennes. heat transfer between small blood vessels and tissue is separated into three modes. The thermal contribution is described by a term. and small vessels. deals with blood vessels that are already thermally equilibrated. This model represents the part of heat transfer that occurs when the flowing blood convects heat against a tissue temperature gradient. and Ta∗ represents the temperature of the blood within the largest vessel in the control volume. or for heat exchange between the small and closely-spaced vessels [77]. c . The second. The Chen and Holmes Model Chen and Holmes’ model [78] group blood vessels into two categories: large vessels. 35 . Nor does Pennes' model account for convective heat transfer due to the blood flow. considers equilibration of blood and tissue temperature.4. convective mode. not in blood capillaries. The first. q p . similar to the perfusion term in Pennes' equation: q p = ω ∗ (ρc )b Ta∗ − T . In their model. treated as part of the continuum that includes the skin tissue. Klinger [77] points out that Pennes’ equation does not include heat transfer in the vicinity of large blood vessels. each treated separately.3.Several investigators have questioned the validity of the assumptions underlying Pennes model. Wulff [76] claim that the blood flow contribution to heat transfer in tissue must be modeled as a directional term of the form (ρc )b u ⋅ ∇T . perfusion mode. For this mode of heat transfer.and post-capillary vessels. and T are defined as in Pennes' equation. Deficiencies in Pennes’ model result from the fact that thermal equilibrium process occur.

not with heat exchange at the capillary level. Jiji and Lemos Model Based on anatomical observations in peripheral tissue. [82] conclude that the main contribution of local blood perfusion to heat transfer in tissue is associated with incomplete countercurrent heat exchange between pairs of arteries and veins. [80]. 2. The Chen and Holmes model accounts for all three modes of heat transfer between the blood and the tissue. ∂t ρc ( ) The Chen and Holmes model has been applied to different biothermal situations in Xu [79] and in Xu et al. the heat transfer contribution can be estimated as: q c = −( ρc )b u ⋅ ∇T . where k p is a perfusion conductivity tensor that depends on local blood flow velocity within the vessel. A third mode describes thermal conduction due to small temperature fluctuations that occurs in the blood along the tissue temperature gradient: q pc = ∇k p ∇T .blood is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with the tissue at a temperature T. They propose a model 36 . where u is the net volume flux vector permeating a unit area of the control surface. the relative angle between the directions of the blood vessel.4. the local tissue temperature gradient and the number of vessels in the control volume. [81] and Jiji et al. The Weinbaum. so that ∂T = ∇ ⋅ (k∇T ) + ( ρc )b ω ∗ Ta∗ − T − ( ρc )b u ⋅ ∇T + ∇ ⋅ k p ∇T + q m . Weinbaum et al.4.

rb is the vessel radius.that consists of three coupled thermal energy equations to describe heat transfer involving arterial and venous blood and skin tissue.a quantitative measure of burn damage at the basal layer or at any depth in the dermis. and V is the blood velocity within the vessel. working at the Harvard Medical School. P – frequency factor. Their models are stated as: dTa = − qa ds (ρc )b π rb2V ⋅ dTv = − qv ds d (Ta − Tv ) ∂T = ∇ ⋅ (k∇T ) + n g (ρc )b ⋅ (Ta − Tv ) − n π rb2 (ρc )b V ⋅ + qm . [83].315 J/kmol.4. n is the vessel number density. S-1. 8. and in Song et al. 85]. so that a first order Arrhenius rate equation can be used to estimate the rate of tissue damage as: dΩ ∆E = p exp( − ). 2. Skin Burn Models Heriques and Moritz [86]. They claim that skin burn damage can be represented as a chemical rate process. ρc ∂t ds ⋅ (ρc )b π rb2V where g is the volumetric rate of the bleed-off blood flow (the flow out of or into the blood vessel via the connecting capillaries). 37 . E – the activation energy for skin.K T – the absolute temperature at the basal layer or at any depth in the dermis. were among the first to publish a skin burn model.5.15K). and T – total time for which T is above 440C (317. dt RT where Ω . Applications of this model to a variety of biothermal situations are presented in Dagan et al. R – the universal gas constant. J/mol. K. [84.

Mehta and Wong [74] used the Henriques burn integral to predict skin burns. Data observed by these researchers are summarized in table 2-5. 38 . RT Integration is performed for a time when the temperature of basal layer of the skin. However. each with different properties. Simplicity is the main advantage of this method. Bench scale tests of protective fabrics typically use data from the work of Stoll and Chianta [90] to estimate of the time for second degree burn. long duration tests can be used in high intensity. They point out that the temperature used to calculate the pre-exponential factor and activation energy had not been accurately measured. Any variation from rectangular heat pulse invalidates the use of Stoll criteria to predict skin burn injury. they conclude that the Henriques’ equation is valid only for superficial (epidermal) burns. Mehta and Wong model skin as a finite solid with different layers. They express doubt as to whether data from low intensity. short duration tests. and a constants used in the Henriques burn integral and the thermal protection of fabrics. They alter the upper time limit in the Henriques’ integral to include cooling time. Stoll criteria assume a “rectangular” heat pulse exposure. Butter [87] also uses the Henriques’s burn integral. T. However.Integrate this equation yields: Ω = ∫ p exp( − 0 t ∆E )dt . much of his work involves determining the threshold of unbearable pain when non-penetrating infrared radiation was used to heat the skin of human volunteers. exceeds or equals to 44 0C. Stoll [18] published extensively on determining the skin pain threshold temperatures. Takata [89] used a large number of anaesthetized pigs exposed JP-4 liquid fuel fires to analyze the skin data.

86 x 1069 ∆E (J/kmole) for dermis at temperature ≥ 50 °C 7. the fiber content and their thermal properties remain constant during the initial heating phase. Most of these changes initiate focusing the exposed side of the fabric system and propagate toward the skin side of the protective material. If the fiber does not melt or transition temperature is not exceeded. the structural integrity of fabric system is maintained during this phase of heating. the amount of retained moisture and its thermal properties varies.784 x 108 4.82 x 1051 9.143x 108 4.18 x 10124 4. Consequently. Protective garments exposed to a fire hazards undergo three heating phases. Changes in the amount of retained moisture and its thermal properties continue to occur during this phase.39 x 10104 2. most of these changes are due to the react of surface chemical treatments and finishes to heating. or to slight degradation of fiber surfaces.222 x 108 6. through the skin itself. the temperature of the fibers in the fabric and the moisture retained within the fabric increases at a rate dictated by the system’s thermal properties and by the intensity of the incident heat.5 Modeling Heat Transfer in Protective Fabrics Predicting thermal protective performance requires an ability to model heat transfer through protective clothing materials. finally. During an initial warm up phase.Table 2-5.654 x 108 4. and.604 x 108 < 50 °C 3.1064 1.32 x. The end of the second heating phase is the temperature criteria below which thermally protective fabrics are designed to function. The second heating phase is marked by the onset of changes in the thermal properties of fabric. Values of P and ∆E Used in Burn Integral Calculations Source P (Hz) for epidermis at temperature ≥ 50 °C Weaver & Stoll [1969] Takata [1974] Mehta & Wong [1973] 2.604x 108 2. Initially. 39 . For most fabric systems. through interfacial air gaps between the skin and clothing.43 x 1072 < 50 °C 1.

the fabric itself becomes a source of off-gassing heat and flame.5. 2. A third and final phase of the exposure is marked by chemical and structural degradation of the protective fabric. Heat Transfer Models Heat transfer models have been developed to characterize the behavior of protective fabrics in short duration high heat flux exposures. through the fabric to the skin. Some models focus on specific mechanisms of heat transfer. absorbed radiation. in some instances. no moisture is retained by the fabric. The model treats heat transfer in the vertical dimension only. convection. conduction. the occurrence of the subsequent third phase occurs only when the protective clothing system is used beyond its intended limits of application.1. with a copper calorimeter held over the fabric. and conduction. while others provide a predictive model for a particular thermal test. and radiation in the air gap between the fabric and the sensor.Fabric-Air Gap-Test Sensor Model Torvi [91] introduced a model to describe an experimental apparatus consisting of a fabric held horizontally over a Meker burner.1. 2. Torvi’s model accounts for the most significant contributions to heat transfer from the burner. These models are Torvi Model [91]. This phase is followed by rapid fabric decomposition or combustion. It accounts for convection and radiation in the air gap between the burner and the fabric.5. Torvi Model-. It can be extended to treat heat transfer in 40 .1. Three models offer the most promising foundation for development into a complete generalized model. At this point. and thermochemical reaction within the fabric. the Gibson Model [92]. In practice. and the Mell and Lawson Model [93]. At this point.Protective fabrics exposed beyond the second phase loose its protective properties and. become a source of harm to the wearer.

εg. and εb are emissivities of the hot gases. Tg. and from the burner head to the fabric. Radiation heat flux on the inside is q rad = σ (T f4 − Ts4 ) 1− εs εs A + s Af  1 1− ε f  + F εf  s     . where Ts. and Tb are the temperatures of the hot gases. of a test sensor taking the place of skin. respectively. exposed to the burner. the outside of the fabric. respectively. and through multiple layers of fabric. the fabric. where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. and As are the temperature. Fa and Fb are view factors accounting for the geometry of the fabric with respect to the ambient air and to the burner. 41 . Therefore. Tf. and conduction/convection and radiation in the air gaps between fabric and skin. emissivity. respectively.multiple dimensions. and Af and Ab are the surface areas of the fabric and the burner head. and Fs accounts for the geometry of the fabric with respect to the sensor. εs . q rad = σε g T − σε f Fa (1 − ε g )(T − T ) + 4 g 4 f 4 a σFb (1 − ε g )(Tb4 − T f4 ) 1 − ε f Af 1 − ε b 1 + Fb (1 − ε g ) +  ε Ab ε b  f     . Radiation heat flux is exposed as the sum of blackbody components from hot gases. and the burner head. respectively. the ambient air. from the fabric to ambient air. εf. and the burner head. Ta. respectively. and surface area. Extensions of this model treat convective heat transfer in the fabric and heat conveyed by moisture within the fabric or in air gaps. Torvi accounts for convection and radiation on the outside of the material.

Gibson Model -. and absorption of incident radiation that occurs with the fabric. accounting for conduction by all phases. CA is a temperature-dependent "apparent" specific heat. Gibson and Charmchi [95] extended the model to include heat transfer to skin in contact with the fabric.1. Gibson has applied Whitaker’s theory. a free liquid water phase. 2. ∂t ∂x  ∂x  C A (T ) where T is the temperature. This model treats heat transfer in three dimensions. Gibson’s model thoroughly treats convection heat transfer in the fabric. and qrad is the incident radiation heat flux. and transformations among the phases.5. to derive a set of equations that model heat and mass transfer through 42 .Multiphase Heat and Mass Transfer Model Gibson [92] built on Whitaker’s theory of coupled heat and mass transfer through porous media [94] to derive a set of equations modeling heat and mass transfer through textile materials as hygroscopic porous media. γ is the extinction coefficient of the fabric. convection by the gas and liquid phases. which incorporates latent heat associated with thermochemical reaction. as well as radiative transfer. The resulting energy balance equation is written as ∂T ∂  ∂T  −γ x =  k (T )  + γ q rad e . coupling heat and mass transfer through porous media [94]. and energy conservation equations to the fabric as a three-phase system consisting of a solid phase with a concentration of bound water. and a gas phase of water vapor in air. Gibson applies continuity.Torvi accounts for conduction.2. Further extensions can be made to include air and moisture mass transfer in multiple layers and air gaps. linear momentum conservation. thermochemical reaction. k is a temperature-dependent thermal conductivity.

textile materials as hygroscopic porous media [92]. It accounts for conduction by all phases. convection by the gas and liquid phases. and a gaseous phase consisting of water vapor and inert air (Figure 2-12). and a gas phase of water vapor in air. a liquid phase consisting of free liquid water solid.g. Gibson writes the thermal energy balance equation as: ρ cp   ∂T  +  ∑ (c p ) j ρ j v j + ρ β (c p ) β v β + ∑ (c p ) i ρ i v i  ⋅ ∇ T  ∂t i  j  T & & & + ∆hvap mlv + Ql msl + (Ql + ∆hvap ) msv = ∇ ⋅ ( K eff ⋅ ∇ T ). a free liquid water phase. Three Phases Present in Hygroscopic Porous Media Gibson applies continuity. linear momentum and energy conservation equations to the fabric. Gibson applies continuity. and energy conservation equations to the fabric as a three-phase system consisting of a solid phase with a concentration of bound water. consisting of solid (e. and all transformations among the phases. The model accounts for conduction 43 . linear momentum conservation. The material modeled a mixture of a solid phase.. Figure 2-12. The model treats heat transfer in three dimensions. polymer) material plus water absorbed into the polymer matrix. treating heat transfer in three dimensions.

moisture barrier. desorbing from the solid to the gas. (1) for water. and & & & mlv . Keff is the effective thermal conductivity tensor. including trim material. Like Torvi. and transformations among the phases. and (3) for inert air.3. and to model thermochemical processes in fabrics. eff ( ) where ρ C p = ρ1 (c p )1 + ρ 2 (c p ) 2 + ρ 3 (c p ) 3 . and evaporating from the liquid. and msv denote the mass flux desorbing from the solid to the liquid. (2) for dry solid. Gibson and Charmchi extended the model to include heat transfer to skin in contact with the fabric [5]. the absorption of radiation. or a multi-layer composite consisting of a shell layer. v denotes velocity. The bracketed terms 〈〉 denote a volume averages over all phases. ∆hvap is the heat of vaporization of the liquid phase. Ql is the heat of desorption from the solid phase. the thermal energy balance equation can be written as: σ γ   ∂T  (c p )1 ρ β v β + ε σ ρ1 v1 + ε γ ρ1 v1  ⋅ ∇T ρ Cp + ∂t  + (c ) ε ρ v σ + (c ) ε ρ v γ   2 2 3 3 p 2 σ p 3 γ   & & & + ∆hvap mlv + Ql msl + (Ql + ∆hvap ) msv = ∇ ⋅ (K T ⋅ ∇T ). If we number each distinct species.1. msl . or over the single phase as indicated by a superscript. The term ε denotes the volume fraction of a single phase. Their model thoroughly treats convection heat transfer in fabrics.5. convection by the gas and liquid phases.by all phases. provided the heat flux is not too high. and thermal liner. Mell and Lawson account 44 . 2. It further treats heat transfer in three dimensions and can be extended to treat high heat fluxes. Mell and Lawson Model Mell and Lawson [93] use a model similar to Torvi's to treat heat transfer in a fire fighter's turnout coat. respectively.

Dt 45 . This approach is overly simplified. Staggs [99] model’s thermal degradation utilizing the following kinetic rate law: Dµ = − f (µ . Staggs [104] suggest a heat transfer model that incorporated a general single-step solid-phase reaction for thermal degradation of polymer material. Whiting et al. Their model is an example of extending the Torvi model to treat a multi-layer fabric assembles. defining incident fluxes on both sides of each layer of material to account for interlayer flux due to reflected radiation between fabric layers.for conduction and absorption of incident radiation in the material layers. Delichatsios and Chen [98]. 2. Mell and Lawson advance a forward-reverse radiation model. Ricci [96]. It could be extended to treat heat transfer in three dimensions. Kashiwagi [103] reviews physical and chemical phenomena involved in polymer combustion and highlights the complexity of this process. where the degradation of the solid is assumed to occur infinitely rapidly once a critical temperature reached. The critical-temperature approach has been utilized by some researchers to derive simplified models of thermal degradation. A number of different approaches for modeling this problem have been suggested in the literature. Other researchers model solid-phase degradation using limited global in-depth reactions [100][101][102]. to model convective heat transfer and heat conveyed by moisture within the air gaps. Staggs model does not account for heat transport by gaseous products escaping from the solid. and Staggs [99] suggest modeling thermal degradation of polymers as a Stefan problem. In addition. T ) .5.2. because it is assume that the polymer can volatilize only at surface exposed to heat. Modeling Thermal Degradation in Fabrics The combustion and thermal degradation of polymeric fabrics are complicated processes involving physical and chemical phenomena that are only partially understood. [97].

such as the specific chemical reaction that describes its degradation.where µ is a scalar quantity representing the progress of the reaction (the ratio of the mass of the material element to its initial mass). then its mass at time t is µ (t )m0 . This finding explains 46 . Recasting this relation for a unit volume results in the following term for the energy equation for the fabric layer: q ′′′ = ρ ∆H Dµ ρ ∆H =− Aµ n exp(− T A / T ) . the use of an nth order Arrenius reaction provides sufficient agreement with experimental data. Dt where ∆H is the heat of vaporization. Accounting for degradation in the solid material produces an additional term in the energy conservation equation. µ Dt µ Staggs shows that the nth order Arrenius reaction is used to model thermal degradation. and f is a function determined by the rate of degradation. For the most polymeric fabrics. Surface temperature is not determined solely by the properties of the polymer material. t is the time. A is the empirically derived pre-exponential factor. so that: f = Aµ n exp(− T A / T ) . the predicted surface temperature increases slowly during the mass loss period. The rate of heat consumption for the vaporization of polymer material in this element during its degradation can be expressed as ∆H m0 Dµ . but by interaction between reaction kinetics and the rate of heat loss [99]. where TA is the activation temperature. If m0 is the initial mass of the material element. Different forms for the f function can be used to model specific decomposition mechanisms characteristic of different types of polymers or other chemicals used in thermally protective clothing. and n is the order of the degradation reaction.

As previously noted. This will hinder not only transport of the gaseous products of polymer degradation but also moisture transport through the degrading fabric. One of the issues to be addressed is the change of permeability of the porous medium as a result of its thermal degradation. It is expected that degradation will produce a decrease of permeability in the fabric and thus worsening its mass transport characteristics. Moisture accumulation in fabrics has been proven to have a profound influence on heat transfer and thermal protective performance. can lead to accumulation of heat moisture in the fabric because the moisture that results from sweating will not be removed. This model can be supplemented with a model that describes transport of these products through the fabric layer.why the critical-temperature ablation models of polymer degradation do not provide sufficiently accurate to predict heat transfer through fabrics exposed to intense heat. Staggs’ model does not consider transport of gaseous products from the degrading polymer material. 47 . modeled as a thermally degrading porous medium. This. in turn.

CHAPTER 3

MODEL THE PYROMAN® SYSTEM

The NCSU Pyroman® is an instrumented, six-foot, one-inch tall, high-temperature manikin embedded with 122 heat sensors. It is used to test and measure the protective performance of a variety of garments and clothing systems under realistic flash fire conditions. The Pyroman® dressed with protective garments and engulfed in flames so that factors like garment construction, fabric weight, material type, style, fit and the impact of outerwear and undergarments can be taken into account. Results of these tests are then analyzed to determine the skin damage in terms of second and third degree burn. It is the most advanced life-size thermal burn injury evaluation system in the world today. In this chapter, two configurations are modeled to represent heat transfer in one layer protective garment dressed in a manikin with and without underwear. The developed two models are fabric-air gap-skin model and fabric-air gap-fabric-skin model used to calculate heat transfer at one hundred-twenty two sensors locations in Pyroman® body. The heat transfer in fabric, air gap and human skin as well as corresponding boundary conditions are described in this chapter. Fabric shrinkage, and the effect of this on air gap size, is also included. The skin model and burn evaluation model used in present model are outlined.

3.1 A Numerical Heat Transfer Model
Fundamental elements of the Pyroman® fire test and burn evaluation processes are illustrated in Figure 3-1. Flash fire is generated in the Pyroman® burn chamber by eight propane burning torches. The intense heat from the flash fire transfers through the fabric and air gaps between the garment and manikin body. One hundred twenty-two sensors embedded in Pyroman® body record the temperature change and feed this information to computer. The temperature profiles recorded by these sensors are translated into

48

corresponding heat flux profiles and then applied to a skin burn model. The skin model calculates the temperature profile at basal layer and dermal layer according to the thermal properties of the skin. Second and third degree burn skin damages are made using temperature histories by computing the Omega (Ω) value in the Pyroman® burn evaluation model.

Flash fire: Air gap

Heat Flux Profile Sensor Skin Model Burn Evaluation Model

Ω = ∫ P exp( −
0

t

∆E ) RT

Protective garments system

Pyroman Body

Basal layer T-t history, 2nd degree burn data

Dermal layer T-t history, 3rd degree burn data

Figure 3-1. Elements of Heat Transfer and Burn Evaluation
in the “Pyroman” System

The numerical model developed in this research model the entire burning process. It first calculates heat generated by the flash fire generated in Pyroman® chamber from the estimated general heat transfer coefficients and measured heat fluxes in calibration burns. The heat transfer in the fabric and air gaps is calculated in conduction, radiation and convection modes. A bioheat transfer equation is subsequently applied in conjunction with a multi-layer skin model to estimate temperature profile in basal and dermal skin layer. Skin damage is predicted using burn evaluation model. The model is illustrated in Figure 3-2. In order to perform the analysis of heat transfer in the model, several assumptions are made. A one-dimensional heat transfer process is assumed in the model; no mass

49

transfer occurs in fabric and air gap; the fabric is considered as grey body for radiation. As the special protective garment is chosen here, the thermal-chemical reaction and degradation of fabric are neglected for short time exposure in this research. The thermal properties of skin are assumed to be constant. For the present model, the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of fabrics under intense exposure are not assumed constant; these properties are estimated using parameter estimation method. The heat flux at each sensor location is assumed uniform due to one-dimensional heat transfer. An in-depth radiation in fabric is involved in the heat transfer in fabric as introduced in Torvi’s model [91].

Flash fire

Air gap

Skin Model Burn Evaluation Model

Ω = ∫ P exp( −
0

t

∆E ) RT

Protective garment system

Basal layer T-t history, 2nd degree burn data

Dermal layer T-t history, 3rd degree burn data

Figure 3-2. Elements of Fabric Air-Gap Skin Model

50

3.2 Heat Transfer in Fabric, Air gap and Skin
The schematic of this model is illustrated in Figure 3-3. The model is assumed that convective heat transfer occurs only as far as the surface of fabric. Radiative heat flux is assumed to penetrate the fabric to a certain depth. Based these assumptions, the energy balance in the infinitesimal element of fabric can be described by the following equation:
∂  ∂T  ∂T −γx =  k fab ( T )  − γ ⋅ q rad e ∂t ∂x  ∂x 

ρ

fab

( T ) Cp

fab

(T )

(3-1)

Figure 3-3. Schematic for one-dimensional Heat Transfer Model

where ρfab is the density of the fabric; Cpfab is the specific heat of the fabric; kfab is the thermal conductivity of the fabric; γ is the extinction coefficient of the fabric which can be determined from the transmissivity τ and the thickness Lfab,

51

Tfab. for t > 0. qrad is the incident radiation heat flux on which can be expressed as follows: 4 q rad = σε g ( T g4 − T fab ) − σε 4 4 F fab − amb (1 − ε g )( T fab − Tamb ) . the outside surface of the fabric. for t > 0: ∂T ∂x = (q air . and fab refer to the burner flame. respectively. g. At the inside surface of the fabric (x = Lfab).cond / conv )x = L − k fab (T ) x = L fab fab . The boundary conditions for the outside surface of the fabric are (x = 0). respectively. (3-2) fab (3-3) where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.γ = − ln( τ ) / L fab . and the ambient air.rad + q air . Tg. and εfab are the emissivity of the hot gases and the fabric. x =0 (3-4) where qrad is the incident radiation heat flux. and qconv is the convective heat flux between the fabric and hot gas given as follows: q conv = h fl (Tg − T fab ) . (3-6) 52 . the hot gases from the burner. and Tamb are the temperatures of the hot gases. ∂T ∂x − k fab (T ) = (q conv + q rad )x =0 . εg. Ffab-amb is the view factor accounting for the geometry of the fabric in relative to the ambient air. (3-5) The subscript fl. and the outside surface of fabric.

rad is the energy transfer by radiation from fabric to the human skin across the air gap given as: q air . kair(T) is the thermal conductivity of the air and Lair.gap is the thickness of the air gap. In some specific fabric.cond / conv x = L fab = h air . h air.where qair. and εskin are the fabric and human skin emissivities. Ffab-skin is the view factor accounting for the geometry of the fabric relative to the human skin. (3-7) In the equation 3-7. the air gap is a function of fabric temperature. gap is the heat transfer coefficient of air due to conduction and natural convection in air gap given by: k air ( T ) . In order to consider the heat transfer by natural convection occurred in between the air gap of fabric and skin when the air gap size and temperature difference are large 53 .rad = σ T fab 4 − Tskin 4  Askin   A fab   1 − ε fab 1  +  ε F fab − skin  fab ( )  1 − ε skin +  ε skin      . respectively. gap = Nu (3-8) where Nu is the Nusselt number. cond/conv is the thermal energy transfer by conduction/convection from fabric to the human skin across the air gap given as: q air . In the equation 3-6. Afab and Askin are the surface areas of the fabric and the human skin. L air . Tfab. and the human skin. gap h air . This is because the heat induced shrinkage of garment during exposure reduces air gap size. εfab. and Tskin are the temperatures of the inside surface of the fabric. qair. (3-9) where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. gap (T fab − T skin ) .

(3-10) (3-11) / αν .    5830     •  1708 (sin 1 .81 m/s2) β = the thermal expansion coefficient of the air (k-1) ∆Τ = the temperature difference across the air gap α = the thermal diffusivity of the air (m2/s) ν = the kinematic viscosity of air (m2/s) Similarly.enough. Catton [107] using a relationship based on Denny and Clever’s work [108]. the quantity should be taken as zero. 6 1 −  Ra cos τ      (3-12) where τ = angle of inclination. et al. The correlation for vertical enclosure can be calculated by combining with the scaling suggested by Ayyaswamy and Catton [110] as: 54 . where Nu = the Nusselt number (hδ/k) Ra = Rayleigh number (gβ∆Τδ3/αν) g = the gravity acceleration (9. 294 . Hollands. 112 Ra Ra = g β ∆ T δ 3 0 . 8τ ) 1 . 446 1 − Ra cos τ      Ra cos τ  1 / 3  +  − 1 . expresses the Nusselt number correlation for air in a long vertical enclosure as: Nu = 0 . The notation [ ]• in above equation indicates that if the argument in the square brackets is negative. [109] gives the correlation for any chosen reference tiled enclosure as •  1708  Nu = 1 + 1 . a corrected Nusselt number was selected used in equation 3-8 which represents natural convection in a vertical enclosure heated from one side.

Nu (τ ) = Nu (τ = 90 o )(sin τ ) 1 / 4 . (3-13) Another configuration modeled in this research is one layer protective garment with underwear. Flash fire Underwear fabric Skin Model Burn Evaluation Model Ω = ∫ P exp( − 0 t ∆E ) RT Protective gar m ent system Air gap Basal layer T-t history. In this configuration an extra cotton fabric layer is added with assumption that no air gaps exist between skin and underwear cotton fabric. 2nd degree b u r n d a ta Dermal layer T-t history. the thermal properties of underwear fabric assume constant. The heat transfer in underwear fabric can be described as: ρ underwear Cp underwear ∂T ∂ 2T = k underwear . ∂t ∂x 2 (3-14) where ρunderwear = density of underwear fabric Cpunderwear = specific heat of underwear fabric k underwear = thermal conductivity of underwear fabric 55 . Fabric-air gap-fabric-skin Model The underwear fabric under short time exposure is experiencing relatively low temperatures. The elements in this configuration are illustrated in Figure 4-10. 3rd d e g r e e b u r n d a ta Figure 3-4. therefore.

rad x = L fab + L gap = σ T fab 4 − T underwear A  underwear  A fab   1 − ε fab 1  +  ε F fab − underwear fab  ( 4 )  1 − ε underwear +  ε underwear      .cond/conv = the energy transfer by conduction/convection from the protective fabric to the underwear fabric across the air gap given as follows: q air . (3-16) where σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5. rad + q air . for t > 0. (3-15) where qair. gap (T fab − Tunderwer ) .rad = the energy transfer by radiation from the protective fabric to the underwear fabric across the air gap given as: q air . gap = the heat transfer coefficient of air due to conduction and natural convection in air gap given by: 56 .669 × 10-8 W/m2·K-4) εfab = the emissivity of the protective fabric εunderwear = the emissivity of the underwear fabric Tfab = the temperature of the inside surface of the protective fabric Tunderwear = the temperature of the inside surface of the underwear fabric Ffab-underwear = the view factor accounting for the geometry of the protective fabric with respect to the underwear fabric Afab = the surface areas of the protective fabric Aunderwear = the surface areas of the underwear fabric qair.The boundary conditions at the outside surface of the underwear fabric are (x = Lfab + Lgap).cond / conv x = L fab + L gap = hair . cond x = L fab + L gap − k underwear / conv ) x = L fab + L gap . ∂T ∂x = (q air . (3-17) h air.

T(x. There is no air gap between the underwear fabric and the human skin. Pennes’ model assumes the energy exchange between the blood vessels in the skin and the surrounding tissue. gap (3-18) where Nu = the Nusselt number kair(T) = the thermal conductivity of the air Lair. is the thickness of underwear fabric. At the inside surface of the fabric (x = Lfab + Lgap + Lunderwear). the underwear fabric temperature is assumed as initially uniform. The conductive heat transfer only occurs at the interface of fabric and epidermis skin layer. the underwear fabric is assumed to contact directly to the human skin. for t > 0 ∂T ∂x ∂T ∂x − k underwear = − k skin x=L fab . ∂t ρ skinCpskin (3-14) 57 . The bio-heat transfer equation is written as: ∂T = ∇ ⋅ (k skin∇T ) + ( ρCp ) blood ω b (Ta − T ) + qm . According to this Model. L air . the total energy exchanged by the flowing blood is proportional to volumetric heat flow and the temperature difference between the blood and skin tissue.3 Heat Transfer in Skin Model and Burn Evaluation The present model incorporates Pennes Model to describe the heat transfer in skin. t = 0) = Ti(x) 3.gap = the thickness of the air gap.h air . Lunderwear. gap = Nu k air ( T ) . In addition. x=L fab (3-19) + L gap + L underwear + L gap + L underwear The initial condition is a given temperature distribution at t = 0.

cond / conv )x = L fab + Lgap .523 1200 3400 2. for t > 0.15 0.°C) Density (kg/m3) Sub-cutaneous Specific heat (J/kg.15 0.s Thks Ts ks ρs Cp. Table 3-1.0X10-2 310.°C) Density (kg/m3) Dermis Specific heat (J/kg.where ρskin and Cpskin are the density and the specific heat of human skin.94 310.15 ρs Cp.167 1000 3060 1.s Thks Ts The boundary conditions for the model at the surface of the skin are (x = Lfab + Lgap). Ta is the arterial temperature. − k skin (T ) ∂T ∂x x = L fab + Lgap = (q air .255 1200 3600 8. and qm is the metabolic volumetric heat.°C) Density (kg/m3) Epidermis Specific heat (J/kg. kskin is the thermal conductivity of the human skin.°C) Thickness (m) Initial surface temperature (K) Thermal conductivity (W/m. ρblood and Cpblood is the density and the specific heat of the blood. (3-15) 58 .°C) Thickness (m) Symbol ks Value 0.rad + q air .s Thks Emissivity of human skin Initial surface temperature (K) Thermal conductivity (W/m.0X10-3 310. ωb is blood perfusion.°C) Thickness (m) Initial surface temperature (K) εs Ts ks 0.0X10-5 ρs Cp. Human Skin Properties in Skin Model [91] Human Skin Thermal conductivity (W/m.

The destruction rate of the growing layer can be modeled by a first order chemical reaction. These layers are epidermis. fabric temperature is assumed to be initially uniform. In addition. s-1 E = the activation energy for skin. The initial condition is a given temperature distribution at t = 0. Thermal damage begins when the temperature at the basal layer (the interface between the epidermis and dermis in human skin) rises above 44 ºC. t = 0) = Ti(x) Multi-layer skin model is used in present model. The tissue burn injury model is based on work by Henriques and Moritz [86]. The numerical approach utilizes the finite difference method to predict the temperature and heat flux occurred under simulated flash fire conditions. The blood perfusion is included only in the latter two regions.315 J/kmol·K 59 .The boundary condition at the blood vessel is (x = Lfab + Lgap + Ltissue). Arrhenius rate equation can be used for the rate of tissue damage as: dΩ  ∆E  = P exp  − . for t > 0. T(x. J/mol R = the universal gas constant. T = Ta. The thermal properties of fabric are assumed to change while skin layers’ properties are assumed constant. 8. dermis and subcutaneous with different thickness and thermal properties [91] which is shown in Table 3-1. dt  RT  (3-16) where Ω = a quantitative measure of burn damage at the basal layer or at any depth in the dermis P = the frequency factor or pre-exponential factor.

T is the temperature of the basal layer.39 × 10104 s-1 ∆E/R = 80. Third degree burn occurs when Ω = 1.000 K P = 2. These values were suggested by Weaver and Stoll [11] for the basal layer and by Takata and et al. First degree burn occurs when the value of the burn integral. K t = total time for which T is above 44 ºC (317. reaches 0. [12] for the dermal base. The values of P and ∆E are: Epidermis for T < 50ºC for T ≥ 50ºC Dermis for T < 50ºC for T ≥ 50ºC P = 4.109.T = the absolute temperature at the basal or at any depth in the dermis.534. These tissue burn damage criteria can be applied with providing the appropriate values of P and ∆E.53 at the basal layer.0 at this location.0 at the same location. T is the temperature of the dermal base (the interface between the dermis and the sub-cutaneous layer).8 K 60 .823 × 1051 s-1 ∆E/R = 39.15 K) The above equation can be integrated over the time interval that the temperature at the basal layer is above 44 ºC.32 × 1064 s-1 ∆E/R = 50. while second degree burn happens when Ω = 1. RT  (3-17) For predicting first and second degree burns. Ω = ∫ P exp  −  0 t  ∆E  dt . represented by Ω.9 K P = 1. For predicting third degree burns.000 K P = 9.185 × 10124 s-1 ∆E/R = 93.

61 . the Crank-Nicholson implicit scheme was used to solve the resulting ordinary differential equations in time. and skin layers [111.4 Finite Difference Method For the present model. The program was written in Microsoft FORTRAN PowerStation. Due to nonlinear term of absorption of incident radiation. In addition.3. 112]. the underrelaxation process was added to the Gauss-Seidel method. air gap. the GaussSeidel point-by-point iterative scheme was used to solve these equations. In order to avoid divergence that is usually found in the iterative scheme. a finite difference method was used to solve the differential equations that describe heat transfer through the fabric.

76 N 2 → 3 × CO2 + 4 H 2O + 18. then the chemical reaction can be written as [71] C3 H 8 + 5O2 + 5 × 3. Application and validation of the model required several experimental studies.CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES The numerical model developed by this research models each of the one hundred twenty-two thermal sensors embedded in the Pyroman® body (Figure 4-3). Third analysis examined the existing air gap distribution and sizes between protective garment and the manikin body.1 Characterizing the Pyroman® Thermal Environment The Pyroman® flash fire simulation is produced by eight propane burning industrial torches. 4. If propane is assumed to react with stoichiometric air. In actual conditions.8 N 2 If complete combustion of the propane fuel is consumed. adiabatic flame temperatures varying between 2270K and 2400K are presented [71]. the flame temperatures are expected to be cooler due to heat losses to environment and incomplete combustion. and the effect of heat shrinkage on the distribution of the air gaps on manikin body. The second study required measurement of the changes in the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of the selected protective fabrics as result of the intense heat exposure. The first study involved characterizing the flash fire generated the Pyroman® chamber. Adiabatic flame temperature is the maximum possible temperature for this flame. The Pyroman® flash fire exposure was characterized by measuring the flame temperature and corresponding heat flux alone each of the one hundred twenty-two 62 .

legs. These measured temperature and corresponding heat flux history are used to determine overall heat transfer coefficient. Specially designed thermal sensors were used to measure flame temperature alone the manikin surface (Figure 4-1). Data from these thermocouples were recorded using a LabVIEW Data Acquisition System (Figure 4-2) Figure 4-1. The flash fire generated in the manikin chamber was adjusted to produce an average heat flux 2. the temperature of the flame incident on the manikin was determined to range between 1100K and 1800K in a 4 second exposure. a type T thermocouple was used to measure copper disc temperature of Pyrocal sensor (Details of these devices can found in Appendix 1).00 cal/cm2sec all over the manikin body. arms. 63 . and because of the complex and dynamic nature of the flame column surrounded the manikin. Specially Designed Sensor Used to Measure Flame Temperature and Heat Flux Using these flame measurements methods. sensors located in different positions on manikin body will have different heat flux values with respect to the flash fire. Therefore. A Pyrocal sensor was adopted to include type B or type R thermocouple with diameter 0.005 inch. Variations in heat fluxes are expected due to the three dimensional shape of the manikin surface.sensors distributed over the manikin body. Figure 4-4 shows the distribution of heat flux values of the one hundred twenty-two sensors in Pyroman®. shoulders). depending on the location on the manikin body (e.g.

1.1 Heat Flux Distribution An example of calibration burn values before garment test in manikin is given in Appendix 3 shows the heat flux of 122 sensors and their normal scores. Figure 4-4 shows a heat flux distribution observed in the manikin flash fire is a normal or bell shaped 64 .Figure 4-2. LabVIEW Data Acquisition System and Software Figure 4-3. Sensor Numbers and Distribution over Manikin Body 4.

Red color represents extremely high values and blue represents extremely low. Details of this statistical analysis can be found in Appendix 5. A heat flux distribution in a manikin with average of 2.0% 10 40. 65 .25 and 0.0% 15 60.0% 5 20. Figure 4-6 shows the heat flux distributions with different standard deviation for a 4 second exposures. an average heat flux of 2.distribution. A different standard deviation of heat flux distribution will impact the burn predictions. and the standard deviation of these heat fluxes distribution is between 0.154 2. The larger standard deviation indicates more extreme high and low flux values occurred during the exposure.5.0% More Heat Flux (cal/cm sec) Figure 4-4. Histogram and Cumulative Curve of Heat Fluxes of 122 Sensors around Pyroman in 4 second Exposure In the manikin test.93 2.378 2 .706 1.00 cal/cm2sec is illustrated in Figure 4-7.sec measured from 122 sensors of the manikin is used to simulate flash fire conditions. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to conform distribution normality. A parametric study in Chapter 6 will discuss this in detail.818 1.00 cal/cm2sec during 4 second exposure exhibits a approximate normal distribution.37 1.00 cal/cm2.482 1. 25 120.594 1.0% 80.0% 0 1.0% 20 Sensor Percentage (%) Frequency Cumulative % 100. In order to further access this distribution normality [113].266 2.042 2. a normal scores plot is made as shown in Figure 4-5 which demonstrated that the heat flux distribution of 122 sensors with an average of 2.

4 0.50 1.55 1. The Scatterplot of Heat Fluxes vs.95 1.00 3. Normal Scores for Pyroman 122 Sensors 2.50 3.50 4.35 1.75 2. Normal Scores From a Calibration 4 Second Exposure Normal Distribution with Different Standard Deviation.4 Nomal Density (f(x)) 1.2 0 0.00 Figure 4-6.50 2.2 1 0.00 SD=0.00 cal/cm2 sec 1.55 Figure 4-5.00 Heat Flux 2. Heat Flux Distribution with Different Standard Deviation 66 .35 2.8 1.75 1.5 0.6 0.00 1.6 1.55 2. Average Heat Flux 2.35 2.95 2.55 1.The Scatterplot of Heat Flux vs.15 2.75 1.38 SD=0.25 SD=0.8 0.35 1.15 1.

Heat Flux Distribution in a Manikin for a 4 second Exposure 2 with Average 2.Front N010626H ARM BACK FRONT HEAD LEG 199 196 202 233 195 Rear Legend Flux Levels: 160 170 Avg S.00 cal/cm .1 180 190 210 220 230 240 No In.D. %CV 200 28 14. Figure 4-7.sec 67 .

For these experiments. A type T thermocouple was used to measure the sensor surface temperature (Figure 4-8). an overall heat transfer coefficient is needed for each of 122 sensors.002" diameter were used to measure the flame temperature. For the Pyrocal sensor it is treated as a lumped body – that is.4. profile Flame Sensor Figure 4-8. The estimation of the heat transfer coefficient.00 cal/cm2. Pyroman® was equipped with specially designed sensor to measure the flame temperature above the sensor in a flash fire exposure (2. Tf(t) qM surface heat flux Calculated from temp. A function specification procedure with constant h 68 . h. from transient temperature measurements and heat flux calculation has aspects of both the inverse heat conduction problem and parameter estimation [114]. Type B and R thermocouples with 0.1. Thermocouple measures surface temperature TOM Thermocouple measures flame temp.2 Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination In order to calculate the heat transfer from the generated flash fire to the manikin or dressed manikin in the burn chamber. (Figure 4-8). Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimation from Temperature Measurement and Heat Flux Calculation In this section. The heat transfer coefficient is estimated by sensor surface temperature measurement Tom and its flame temperature Tf. One is Pyrocal sensor and the other is skin simulant sensor. one in which the temperature is a function of time only.sec). two kinds of sensors are used in Pyroman® to examine the heat transfer coefficient.

that is defined as follows is minimized with respect to hM. 69 . S. This sensor can be treated as a lumped body. which the temperature is uniform but varies with time only.34 J/kg·ºC) Ls = thickness of a copper disc sensor (1. The sum of squares. 5 ( TˆOM + TˆOM −1 ) (4-1) where hM estimated heat transfer coefficient qM calculated heat flux Tf Flame temperature TOM estimated surface temperature at time tM The Pyrocal sensor is basically made of thin copper disc.is chosen to estimate the heat transfer coefficient [114. The temporary constant. hM.524 mm) T = the temperature of a copper disc sensor (ºC) KL = the total heat loss coefficient of a copper disc sensor (200 W/m2·ºC) T0 = the initial temperature of a copper disc (ºC) h = the heat transfer coefficient between flame and sensor (W/m2) T∞ = the flame temperature (ºC) The method is based on the function specification procedure with the h = constant assumption. The estimation equation is as following. ˆ hM = ˆ qM T f ( t ) − 0 . is assumed for direct sequential estimation procedure for h. 115].63 kg/m3) cp = the specific heat of a copper disc sensor (389. The differential energy equation for a copper disc sensor can be written as: ρc p Ls dT + K L (T − T 0 ) = h (T − T ∞ ) dt (4-2) where ρ = the density of a copper disc sensor (8682.

By taking partial derivative of S with respect to hM. Z. the equation can be rewritten as: r ∑ (Y i =1 M + i −1 − T M + i −1 ) ∂ T M + i −1 =0 ∂hM (4-4) The analytical expression for temperature is approximately given by: T M + i −1 = h M T ∞ M + K L T M −1 hM + K L  h T + K L T M −1 +  T M −1 − M ∞ M  hM + K L   (h + K L )    exp  − M ( t M + i −1 − t M − 1 )   ρc p Ls      (4-5) The sensitivity coefficient.S = ∑ (YM + i −1 − TM +i −1 ) 2 i =1 r (4-3) where Y = the measured temperature from experiment T = the calculated temperature from theoretical analysis r = the number of future times over which hM is temporarily constant. and setting the equation equal to zero. is defined as: Z M + i −1 = ∂ T M + i −1 ∂hM From the temperature expression. the sensitivity is rewritten as: 70 .

the approximation of the heat transfer coefficient is: r (ν (ν h M ) = h M −1 ) + ∑ (Y i =1 M + i −1 r ( (ν − ) − T Mν+−i1−)1 ) Z M + 1−1 i ∑ (Z i =1 (4-7) (ν − 1 ) M + i −1 ) 2 By using two-term Taylor series expansion and neglecting higher order terms. the approximation of temperature is explicitly calculated by: ( ( (ν − ) (ν (ν TMν+)i −1 = TMν+−i1−)1 + Z M +1−1 (hM ) − hM −1) ) i The iteration keeps repeating until the changes in hM(ν) are less than some small amount or criterion. Then we search for new hM(ν) at the current iteration. the transient heat transfer coefficients between the flame and sensor will be obtained. By solving for hM(ν). First. we assume that the estimation of hM(ν-1) is known at the previous iteration. M is increased by one. 71 . Finally.Z M + i −1 = K L ( T ∞ M − T M − 1 )  K L ( T ∞ M − T M −1 )  h T + K L T M −1 − +  T M −1 − M ∞ M 2 2  (hM + K L ) hM + K L   (hM + K L )      (hM + K L )  ( t M + i −1 − t M −1 )   ( t M + i −1 − t M −1 )   exp  − ρc p Ls ρc p Ls       (4-6) Due to nonlinearity of the problem. the Gauss iterative method is needed. then the procedure is repeated for the new hM(ν). such as: (ν (ν h M ) − h M −1 ) < 10 − 6 (ν ) hM After the value of hM(ν) converges.

of Sensor 70 Flame Temp. 250 1200 200 Sensor Temperature ( C) Flame Temperature ( C) 1000 0 800 150 600 100 400 50 200 0 1.5 9.5 8. These data are used to estimate heat transfer coefficient of each sensor. Sensor Flame Temperature and Sensor Temperature During 4 Second Pyroman Exposure 1400 Flame Temp. of Sensor 91 Sensor 75 Temp.5 5.5 Figure 4-9. of Sensor 75 Flame Temp. The dynamic fire situation is observed from these flame temperature profiles. Sensor 70 Temp.An example of three Pyrocal sensors’ flame temperature profiles and their sensor surface temperature responses is shown in Figure 4-9. Figure 4-10 shows an example of an estimated heat transfer coefficient from the Pyrocal temperature measurements during 4 second exposure.5 4.5 2.5 6.5 Time (Sec) 0 10. Sensor 91 Temp. Pyrocal Sensor Flame Temperatures and Copper Temperatures During 4 second Exposure 0 72 .5 7.5 3.

5 Time (sec) 0 Temperature ( C) 0 400 300 100 Figure 4-10. respectively. 73 . The higher temperature tends to produce large heat transfer coefficient. Estimated Heat Transfer Coefficient Using Pyrocal Sensor The flash fire generated in Pyroman® chamber is turbulent jet flames generated using eight propane torches around manikin body. T. The location factor influence on heat transfer coefficient mainly attribute to how well the sensor surface parallel to vertical direction. that the embedded sensor surface is not always parallel to flame direction. Coefficient Sensor Temperature Flame Temperature 600 500 400 200 300 200 100 0 3 3.0C) 800 700 Estimated H. it was found that the heat transfer coefficient is temperature and location dependent because of the dynamic fire and the complicated manikin body geometry.Pyroman Sensor Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination ( Pyrocal Sensor) 600 1000 900 500 Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m2. From the heat transfer coefficient determination.5 7 7. which is also the flame direction.5 5 5. The location factor was used to represent the influence of human body.5 4 4. In a 4 second exposure. Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12 demonstrated the relation of heat transfer coefficient with temperature and location factor.5 6 6. a dynamic burning process is observed as shown in previous fire temperature measurements.

T.0 Flame Temperature ( C) 0 74 . Coefficient 1100 300 1050 1000 200 950 150 900 100 850 50 800 Sen68 Sen77 Sensor Number Sen45 0 Figure 4-11.T. H. Flame Temperature and Heat Transfer Coefficient Sensor Location and H.Coefficient (W/m C) Heat Transfer Coefficient (w/m C) Temp.6 1.4 0.8 1.0 80 1 0.4 1. Coefficient Location Factor 2.T.T. Sensor Location Factor and Its Heat Transfer Coefficient Location Factor (sensor surface direction) 100 H.8 0.2 40 20 0 Sen1 Sen97 Sen115 Sensor Number Sen119 Sen6 0 Figure 4-12. Coefficient 120 2 1.T.2 60 H.Sensor Flame Temperature and H.6 0.Coefficient 250 2.

One is normal condition in which the thermal conductivity is constant while temperature changes. 75 . Thermal conductivity in absolute dry conditions can be calculated by a simplified model which uses a weighted sum of the contributions from the solid fibers and the air. Because of the significant radiant heat capacity. Advancing the accuracy of the model used to predict heat transfer in fabric exposed to intense heat required a knowledge of heat induced change in fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. the other is high temperature range in which the thermal conductivity is a function of temperature. This can be divided into two regions. This research used a parameter estimation approach to quantify fabric thermal properties in dynamic heat exposure. Guarded hot plate and the Thermal Properties Test Fixture (TPTF) are the methods used in normal conditions (comfort conditions). In high temperature conditions. the optical properties of the fabric can markedly affect heat absorption. Treatment of fabric optical properties during the burning process is crucial to modeling garment thermal protective performance in the Pyroman® system. a significant amount of thermal energy is transferred by radiation. the differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) and model calculation are often used to determine these fabric properties.2 Characterizing Heat Induced Change in Fabric Properties Fabric optical properties play an important role in the garment protective performance. Thermal Conductivity can be determined by using a variety of methods. especially in exposures to intense fire environments. The propane burning torches used to produce a flash fire in the manikin chamber is turbulent jets of flame. Fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity is the main factors governing heat transfer in fabrics. The calculation results of this model introduced in Chapter 2. Although these flames usually constitute a convective heat.4. as well as the contribution of radiation heat transfer between fibers.

Dynamic methods present attractive choice because the experiments required to generate needed data are reasonably short while producing a significant amount of information on the thermal behavior of the material. owing to the intrinsic illposedness of any inverse problem. the unavoidable presence of errors in the measured data may have a detrimental effect in the final estimates. However. Thermocouple is employed to measure fabric surface temperature change during short exposure. To optimize the estimation process. Therefore. and continuously adjusted to improve the accuracy of the estimates [116]. which are as important as the unknown properties. dynamic techniques require more complex modeling of physical phenomenon and a sophisticated capacity to process signal. This study conducted experiments to estimate heat induced change in thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA fabrics in short duration (4 second) and high flux exposures. In these experiments. parameter estimation theory is considered to be the best way to estimate thermophysical properties from dynamic experiments [116]. the key to a reliable estimation of fabric thermophysical properties is the choice of the algorithm used. in addition to precision measurements. The parameter estimation approach uses experimental measurement and model errors in a statistical context and provides useful information to optimize the experiment. Measured data must be analyzed in a statistical context in order to estimate not only the thermophysical properties. Since estimation process embodied by the technical typically use inverse solution (analytical or numerical). 76 . the design of the dynamic experiment and of the estimation algorithm must be integrated. the skin simulant sensor was used to measure heat flux coming through the test fabric and fabric surface temperature.1 Parameter Estimation Method Although fabric thermal properties can be measured using DSC and TGA [91].2.4. These temperature and heat flux were an input to a parameter estimation code [117] (Figure 4-13). but also the related variances.

S=∑ j1 jt ∑ (Y i =1 n ji − T ( β ) ji ) 2 J T is the number of the thermocouples. that involves the measured and the calculated from the model. Y ji represents the measured temperature at location X j . S. T ( β ) ji is a function of the estimated thermal parameters. the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity.Figure 4-13. Schematic Diagram of the Transient Experiment for Parameter Estimation The parameter estimation technique involves minimizing a weighted sum of squares criterion. The vector β contains the “true” parameter values. 77 . and the estimated values of the parameters are found by minimizing S through the use of a modified Gauss method.

This agrees with the research work of Barker and Shalev [21] about weight loss and density change during bench top exposures.00 3. The estimated transient thermal properties of these two protective fabrics are used as one of the input of the model.000 45. The experiments measured data are presented in Figure 4-14.2. the effective thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity of the fabric are simultaneously reconstructed.00 2. Temperatures and Heat Flux Profiles during Exposure Experiment 78 Heat Flux (w/m2) 250 Temp (0C) . The results show a tendency of decrease for both thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity during exposure. 65% RH. The transient heat flux behind the fabric is measured by skin simulant sensor using Duhamel’s theorem.00 6.00 350 300 200 150 0 0. Fabric Temperature and Skin Simulant Sensor Flux and Temperature vs.00 Time (sec) Figure 4-14.00 1.00 4.2 Estimation of Protective Fabrics Thermal Properties In the experiment. as a function of time.000 50 5.000 35.4.000 40. The Fabric is Kevlar/PBI® with a weight of 254g/m2. An example of this estimation of fabric transient thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity is shown in Figure 4-15.00 5.000 15.000 30. the desired thermal exposure is imposed. by solving the associated inverse non-linear heat conduction problem. the heat intensity is set at the order of 70-85 kW/m2 and the duration is around 4-6 second. and from the measured response of the specimen in temperature and heat flux.000 25. Starting from a uniform temperature. Time 400 Fabric Surface Temp Skin Simulant Sensor Temp Heat Flux 50. normally at 250C.000 20.000 100 10.000 0 7.

0.3 Thermal Conductivity Volumetric Heat Capacity Power (Volumetric Heat Capacity) Power (Thermal Conductivity) 2.2 1.5 0.K*10 ) 0. Different weight fabrics have different volumetric heat capacity due to their different densities. The estimated values here during high heating rate and temperature are not the real thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity based on assumed pure conductive model.05 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature (0C) 0 400 Figure 4-15.1 0. Different weight Volumetric Heat Capacity (J/m . These changes along with the weight loss contribute to change of thermal properties. Estimated Transient Thermal Properties of Kevlar/PBI during 4 Second Exposure The difference between the thermal conductivities of the Nomex IIIA and Kevlar/PBI® are expected to be very small [37].5 Thermal Conductivity (W/m.25 3 6 79 .15 1 0. the residual moisture causes sudden process of evaporation. These effective estimated values only represent the heat transfer process in this specific exposure condition including all the phenomena occurred.Following considerations are suggested by practical experience in transient measurements on fabric material. So the estimated properties can be used to represent the effective thermal conductivity of both materials.K) 2 0. migration and condensation. It is known that the fabrics contain moisture and large amount of trapped air.5 0. During sudden exposure to intense heat.

First data collected from the nude Pyroman® which all the 122 sensors are highlighted by colored dots. 4. 4.of fabrics’ volumetric heat capacity can be obtained by applying density to the results shown in Figure 4-17. The arms are 80 . and the software automatically extracts dozens of measurements.2. Detailed information about this scanning system is attached in Appendix 6. 4.1 Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology Three-dimensional body scanning technology [118] developed by [TC]² includes a white light-based scanner and proprietary measurement extraction software.3. To understand its sizes and distribution is also very important to improve garment thermal protective performance. Different air gaps between the fabric and skin will impact the burn predictions as shown in section 4. These air gap sizes are one of input of the model. The determination of air gap’s distribution and quantification of air gap size at each sensor location of different garments is very crucial to model Pyroman®.3.2 Air Gaps Determination of Protective Garments in Pyroman® The principal of this air gap determination is superimposing the extracted data from the nude and dressed Pyroman® (Figure 4-16). The scanner captures hundreds of thousands of data points of an individual's image.3 Protective Garments Air Gap Distribution in Pyroman® Body Air gaps entrapped between protective garments and human body are considered as one the major factors that slow down the heat transfer to skin when exposed to intense heat conditions.

The “Deluxe” style is a typical. The size of dressed garments is 42 (chest measurement in inches) coverall in the VF Corporation “Deluxe” style.carefully positioned to make maximum surface exposure. Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19. The differences between the nude and dressed at some typical measurement points are given in Figure 4-21. This nude manikin scanning data will used as a base data. A data alignment and color management are carried out for air gap measurement both local (specific sensor) and global (contour along specific position horizontally or vertically). Then the dressed Pyroman® scanning is performed with the exactly same manikin position. The next step is superimposing the dressed manikin data to the base data (nude scanning data) using Geomagic software. 81 . Figure 4-16. Air Gap Determinations by Superimposing Dressed and Nude Body Scanning Data A nude and dressed Pyroman® automatically extracted measurements are shown in Figure 4-20. high quality industrial coverall with standard pocketing. These whole measuring processes are illustrated in Figure 4-17.

Figure 4-17. Superimposed 3D Body Scanning Data Showing the Sensor Positions 82 . Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Scanning Image Figure 4-18.

Nude and Dressed Pyroman 3D Body Measurements Image 83 . Slicing the ‘Body’ at Specific Sensor Position. Measuring Air Gap Figure 4-20.Figure 4-19.

leg. BackofNecktoWaist CrotchLengthFull AcrossBack FtNecktoWaist collar 84 .s. Some areas like shoulder. The Figure 4-22 shows the average of air gaps in arm. knee and upper back do not hold much air gap. size 42. legs front and back area of these different garment sizes. and size 40 are scanned in Pyroman® body. These different air gap sizes of different sized garment could change the skin burn damage pattern in the exposures because of the role of air gap in heat transfer process in protective system. In garment size 42 which fits the Pyroman® body shows the front area holds more air gaps than back and arm area. Dressed 50 45 40 Measurements (inches) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 ThighMax Dressed Nude 0 NeckCirc HipsCir ChestCircumference WaisCir maxbicep AbdomenFT waistheight Ftwaist18 Bkwaist19 bkwaistheight39 KneeMax maxwrist ShoulderLengthRt BkShoulderSlope VerticalRiseRight shirtsleevelength AcrossChest FtShoulderSlope Backneck10 KneeHeight Shoulder14 OutseamLt InseamLt hipheight Typical Positons Figure 4-21. while other areas such as waist. This is also can be seen in Figure 4-22 which shows the average of arm. In garment size 44 large air gaps are observed in the back.The data of Figure 4-20 show that the air gaps of the coveralls dressed in manikin do not evenly distributed. the coverall Kevlar/PBI® with size 44. It does not show much difference in garment size 40 among arms. Air Gap Distribution between Garment and Manikin at the Typical Positions In order to determine the air gap distributions of different garment and size. front and back. thigh show a lot of air gaps between. The air gaps are not evenly distributed along the Pyroman® body. front and back of different sizes of Kevlar/PBI coverall. 3D Image Measurements of Pyroman Body v. It is as expected that among all these three sizes legs hold the largest air gaps and arms hold the least.

85 .Figure 4-22. The reduced air gap will increase the heat transfer and a worse skin damage is anticipated. Different Sized Garments and Their Air Gaps in Pyroman Body The different coverall (Nomex and Kevlar/PBI) with the same garment size 42 and pattern are examined and their air gap distributions are illustrated in Figure 4-23. This is mainly attributable to the different fabric drapability and stiffness. It is shown that Kevlar/PBI® protective coverall holds larger average air gap than Nomex®ШA protective coverall. It is known that Nomex garment shrinks when fabric temperature reaches 4000C degrees during 4 second exposure [48]. In order to examine the air gap change. The overall garment shrinkage for 4 second exposure is more than 50% on average. a 4 second exposed Nomex®ШA coverall with size 42 is scanned using three-dimensional body scanning system and the measurement results are given in Figure 4-24. A sharp decrease in average air gap is observed. especially in legs. The shrinkage during exposure reduces the air gap and increases heat transfer rate. which more than 90% air gap is reduced.

Comparisons of Air Gaps Before and After 4sec Exposure To summarize the air gap distribution of the different sized protective coveralls between the manikin in this study using the three-dimensional body scanning technology. 86 .Figure 4-23. Different Garments with Same Size and Pattern Shows Different Air Gap Figure 4-24.

different garment size shows different air gap size distribution over the Pyroman body. These air gap measurements include Kevlar/PBI® coverall with three sizes (size 44. First.11 23.00 2.12 20.93 6. third.00 22. size 42.28 7. second.26 6.5oz/yd2) garment shrinkage after a 4 second exposure reduces more than 50% air gaps on average and as much as 90% in the manikin leg. ® ® 25.06 18.92 Leg Back Front 0.50 6.77 6. and size 40) and Nomex 42 coverall before and after 4 second heat exposure.46 Arm Front Back Leg Air Gap Size (mm) 15.96 10.00 Nomex®42 Burned Kevlar®/PBI® 40 Arm Nomex®42 Kevlar®/PBI® 42 Kevlar®/PBI® 44 Figure 4-25. and finally Nomex®ШA (6.00 15.a 3D chart is drawn shown in Figure 4-25. The knowledge gained through these results is very crucial in building this model.31 5.21 4.00 5. Air Gap Distribution of Different Sized Coveralls Dressed in Pyroman The air gaps of these coveralls at the sensor locations are listed in Appendix 7.58 10.50 18.35 3.23 10. 87 .00 13.87 11.88 6. in all the garments leg area hold the largest average air gaps and arm area hold least.59 5. the garment fabric drapability and stiffness change the air gap distribution between the coverall and Pyroman body.

This method measures the excess fabric at specific points on garment from dressed manikin.3. Detailed information can be found in Appendix 8. ease measurements were performed before and after manikin burning test to measure the changes before and after exposure as a supplement for air gap determination.3 Ease Measurement Method In this research. 88 .4.

Skin burn damages and integral value (Ω) change during exposure and cooling period are illustrated at these specific sensor locations on the manikin. 5. This will be similar to ASTM 1449-92 but temperature and detergents will be modified to AATCC 135. Garments Used in This Study Two protective garments are selected in this research: Kevlar/PBI® coverall and Nomex®ШA coverall. In order to validate the established numerical model. numerical model predictions are given at several sensor locations to show temperature distribution in the protective fabric. Garments Fabric Thickness Fabric thickness is a complex textile property since it is known to depend on the pressure on local applied in the measurement [18]. Pressure sensitive thermal effective 89 . air gaps between the coverall and the manikin. 65 ± 5% relative humidity.1. The garments are conditioned at 21 ± 30C. These coveralls are typical. 5.1.1 Garments Preparation All garments used in this research are laundering 5 times by Cintas Laboratory using their standard industrial laundering procedure before manikin test. 5. and also in human skins. high quality industrial coverall with standard pocketing made by VF cooperation in “Deluxe” style [Figure 6-9].2. configurations (with and without underwear) and different kinds of coveralls (Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA).CHAPTER 5 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND MODEL EVALUATION In this section. more than 40 manikin burn tests ( including calibration burn) were performed to cover varying exposure times (from 3 second to 5 second).1.

especially the effective thermal thickness.2 1 0.3480 RC = 26.2 mm to 0.4 0. Therefore. These data show that the thickness of these fabrics (laundering 5 times ) varies significantly as shown in the figures: from approximately 1.thickness must be carefully considered to assess the thermal protective performance of fabric.5786 Pressure 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pressure (gf/cm ) 2 2 1.6 0. Most of the thickness change occurs at relatively low applied loads (< 10g/cm2).8 0.93% WC = 0.5 oz/yd2) and Nomex®ШA garment thickness varies as a function of the pressure of the measurement. Kevlar/PBI Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load (Measured on KES compression test) 90 .6 mm from low to high pressure.6 1.2 0 Garment Fabric thickness (mm) Figure 5-1.4 1. fabric thickness.41% LC = 0.8 1. are expected to be important determinants of thermal protective performance Garment Fabric Kevlar/PBI 4.5 oz/yd KES-FB3 Compression Test 50 45 2 EMC = 59. Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show how the fabrics of Kevlar/PBI® garment (4. This is an important consideration since fabric thickness is known to be clearly correlative with entrapped air.

6 1.3.2 0 Fabric Thickness (mm) Figure 5-2.82% WC = 0.Nomex 6.2 1 0.3509 RC = 28.2).9 and transmissivity of 0.5 oz/yd2 Garment Fabric KES-FB3 Compression Test 50 Pressure 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pressure (gf/cm2) EMC = 53. Nomex®ШA Garment Fabric Thickness as a Function of Applied Load (Measured on KES compression test) 5.1. Table 5-2 shows the cotton underwear thermal properties used in this research.4 0. 5.4 1. The emissivity of 0.6 0.8 0.5754 2 1.01 of these two fabrics were chosen for each of these two fabrics [91].4. Garment Fabric Thermal Properties The two kinds of protective fabrics thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity were estimated using parameter estimation method (see 4. Summary of Garments and Fabric Properties Used in the Model The garments type and fabric thermal properties used in present model are summarized in Table 5-1.8 1.33% LC = 0.2. 91 .1.

K) Transient See Figure 4-16 Range 1.81 (J/m3.07 Volumetric heat capacity ρ Cpunderwea (J/ m3K) 2.76 (J/m3.53 . 5% para-aramid and 2% anti-static fiber 0.K*106) γ Nomex®ШA Coverall 93% meta-aramid.5 oz/yd2 (153g/m2) Transient From 0.06 (W/m.Table 5-1.0.73X105 Thickness Emissivity 0.0oz/yd2 (203g/m2) Transient From 0.15-0.95 0.K*106) 0. Test Garments Style and Fabric Property Garment Kevlar/PBI® Coverall 60% para-aramid and 40% PBI 0.15-0.7 mm 4.K) Transient See Figure 4-16 Range 1.89-0.8mm 6.90 εunderwear 92 . Thermal Properties of Cotton Underwear Property Weight Thermal conductivity Symbol W(g/m2) k underwear Lunderwear (mm) Value 146 0.06 (W/m.8 Garment Fabric Fabric thickness: Weight Fabric Thermal Conductivity Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity Extinction Coefficient Garment type and size Manufacturer “Deluxe” style coverall size 42 (see Figure 6-12) VF Corporation “Deluxe” style coverall Size 42 (see Figure 6-12) VF Corporation Table 5-2.

01 * 2. Fire Boundary Conditions Usually several calibration burns are required to perform before and after manikin garment tests to confirm the average heat flux of one hundred twenty-two sensors and their standard deviation are within the range.02 2. Flame temperature profiles at some selected sensor positions are listed in Appendix 10.02 2.03 2.02 2.97 2.00 2.01 * 2. Not only good consistency on the average heat flux is observed among these calibration burns.00 2. but also the individual sensors in Pyroman® show excellent consistency (Figure 5-3). The average values are listed in Appendix 2. Calibrated Heat Flux Values for Pyroman Before and After Burns Day Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Before (cal/cm2 sec) After (cal/cm2 sec) 2.03 2.03 2.02 1.99 * No calibration data collected after day of exposure 93 .2.03 2.02 2. Table 5-3. An average heat flux values of each individual sensor among these calibrations are used as the fire boundary conditions for the model.03 * 1.01 2. Table 5-3 shows the average heat flux of the 11 days before and after garment manikin tests.5.02 * 2.

The values of Kevlar/PBI® coverall size 42. Nomex®ШA coverall size 42. two sensor positions (sensor #60 and #sensor 56) in the Pyroman ® body are selected with measured air gap and flame boundary conditions. 5.3. Garments Air Gap Size Determination The air gap sizes between the garment and the manikin at each sensor location are determined using 3D Body Scanning Technology. Some other parameters used in model prediction are given in Table 5-4.00 cal/cm2sec. and burned Nomex®ШA coverall size 42 (exposed in 4 sec exposure manikin test) are given in Appendix 7. 94 . The predictions were made in 4 second exposure with average flux 2. Sensor Flux Values on Different Calibration Days 5.4. Model Results and Predictions In this section.Sensor Heat Flux vs Different Days 300 280 260 Heat Flux (cal/cm sec *10 ) -2 Sensor (Arm)4 Sensor (Back)99 Sensor (Front) 89 Sensor (Leg) 53 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 Day 6 7 8 9 10 2 Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-5 respectively. it shows almost 300 0C temperature differences and the temperature distribution in the fabric is not linear because of the fabric transient thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity.0 1000 95 . of ambient air Emissivity of hot gases View factor between fabric and ambient View factor between fabric and human skin Total time Time step Error Relaxation factor Maximum iteration εg Ffabric-ambient Ffabric-skin 0.2mm) are illustrated in Figure 5-4.The temperature distributions in fabric.02 0. and skin in different time for a 4 second exposure for sensor #60 (air gap: 3.89 1.0 4. as well as the in-depth radiation. Comparing the temperature of the front and back of the fabric in 4 second exposure. Parameters Used in Model Predictions Conditions Symbol Tamb Value 300.0 K Temp.0 sec 0. Table 5-4. air gap.64mm) and sensor #56 (air gap 1. About 2500C temperature drop in the air gap is also demonstrated in these two cases.0x10-6 α 1.05 sec 1.

5 sec Time 2.0 sec Time 3.5 1.64mm Air-gap (Sensor #60 location) 700 Fabric 0.5 2.0 4.00 3.0 1.2mm Air-gap (Sensor #56 location) 96 .5 sec Time 3.0 sec Time 4.0 Sec Air Gap 1.0 sec Time 4.00 4.00 5.5 3.7mm Time 1 sec Time 2.5 sec Time 2. Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second Exposure with 3.5 sec Time 3.5 5.2mm Time 1.0 3.600 Fabric 0.5 4. Temperature Distribution in Fabric Air-gap Skin Model during 4 Second Exposure with 1.00 1.0 0.00 Distance (mm) Figure 5-5.7mm Time 1 sec Time 2.0 Distance (mm) Figure 5-4.5 Sec 600 500 Temperature ( C) 0 400 300 Skin Layers 200 100 0 0.0 sec Time 3.5 Sec 500 Temperature ( C) 400 Air gap: 3.00 2.64mm Skin layers 0 300 200 100 0 0.0 Sec Time 1.0 2.

58 second. 70 65 60 Temperature ( C) 55 50 45 40 35 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Time (sec) 4 second exposure Skin 2nd for Sensor 56 Skin 3rd for Sensor 56 Skin 2nd for Sensor 60 Skin 3rd for Sensor 60 0 Figure 5-6. as shown by their Omega values (Figure 58). In this case the second burn time occurs at 7.58 second and third degree burn occurred at relatively longer time. Consequently. the temperature for second degree burn rises above 650C and 500C for the third degree burn.The temperature histories in the skin model for these two sensor locations are shown in Figure 5-6 and the corresponding integral values (Ω) are given in Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8. The peaks of these temperature profiles for second and third degree burn all appear behind 4 second. respectively. For the case of sensor 60. Temperature Profiles in Skin Model for a 4 Second Exposure 97 . the temperatures for second degree burn rises above 500C while the temperature for third degree burn never reaches 500C.168 second and no third degree burn which is shown by their Omega values in Figure 5-7. In the case of sensor 56. 27. however. This indicates that the energy stored energy in fabric goes on transferring to skin after exposure. the second degree burn occurs at 4.

17 sec Second degree burn occurs at time = 7.02 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Time (sec) 34 Figure 5-7.2 0 Figure 5-8. Omega Integral Value ( Sensor #60) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure 80 70 60 50 40 Second degree burn occurs at time 4.00 1.00 0.60 sec No third degree burn occurs.4 Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd Burn Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd Burn 0. 0.58 sec Third degree burn occurs at time 27.58 sec 4 second exposure 1.50 Integral value for 2nd burn Integral value for 3rd burn 4 second exposure 0.50 For second degree burn.14 0.06 0.16 Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd Burn Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd burn 3. Temperature = 44 C at time = 3.50 0. Omega Integral Value after (Sensor #56) in Pyroman for a 4 Second Exposure 98 .08 0.8 0.04 0.168 sec For Third degree burn.12 0.4 Henriques Integral Value for 2nd Degree Burn 1.18 0.20 0.00 2.00 1.10 2.6 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time (sec) 40 45 50 55 60 65 0. Temperature = 44 C at time = 7.2 Henriques Integra Value for 3rd Burn 1 0.3.50 0.

while with underwear the time moves to 7.58 sec With Underwear: 2nd degree burn occurs at 7. Temperature History in Skin with Underwear in 4 second Exposure 99 . Without underwear the time to second degree burn is 4.The added one layer cotton underwear reduces the heat transfer to skin and lowers the temperature rising in skin layers. The results are given in Figure 5-9. This is mainly attributed to the extra insulation layer slowing down heat transfer to skin and reduced temperature rising in skin. In order to compare the temperature change in the skin model. sensor 56.35 sec No 3rd degree burn 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec) Figure 5-9. a comparison is made by adding one layer to previous sensor case.58 second. Figure 5-10 shows the lowered Henriques’ integral value for third degree burn which indicates no burn happened. Skin 2nd for Sensor 56 Skin 2nd for Sensor 56 with underwear Skin 3rd for Sensor 56 Skin 3rd for Sensor 56 with underwear 70 65 60 Temperature (0C) 55 50 45 40 35 Without Underwear: 2nd degree burn occurs at 4.35 second and no third degree burn occurs.58 sec 3rd degree burn occurs at 27.

third degree burn and total burn percentage. Omega Value with and without Underwear in 4 second Exposure 5. Three replicates are conducted for each garment test conditions.8 1. Model Evaluation The numerical model developed by this research was used to estimate the burn injuries expected to the Pyroman® manikin clothed with one layer protective coveralls made with Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA. These garment manikin tests results are compared with the numerical model in terms of predictions of second degree burn.8 0.90 80 Integral Value for 2nd Burn 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec) Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd Burn Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd Burn 2 1.4 0.2 1 0. The garment type and fabric thermal properties are shown in Table 5-1.6 0.2 0 Integral Value for 3rd Burn Henriques' Integral Value for 2nd Burn with underwear Henriques' Integral Value for 3rd with underwear Figure 5-10. In order to validate the established numerical model. configuration (with and without underwear) and different kinds garments (Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA). 100 . more than 40 manikin burn tests ( including calibration burn) are performed to cover varying exposure time (from 3 second to 5 second).4 1.6 1. with or without cotton underwear.5. Cotton underwear thermal properties are given in Table 5-2.

These garments manikin tests covered 11 days.0 Burn Prediction (%) 3rd % 2nd % Total % 58.5.3 7.0 Mankikin Three Second Model Three Second Mankikin Four Second Model Four Second 3rd % Figure 5-11.83 48.36 30. 5.0 6.93 2n d To ta l % % 0.0 50.77 60.0 10.0 24. An average of each individual sensor of these calibrations is used as input of the model for fire boundary conditions. 70.60 9. One Layer Garments without Underwear Figure 5-11 shows the comparison of manikin test results and numerical model predictions of Kevlar/PBI® coverall after three and four second exposure.0 50.02 12.1. The burn location distribution of manikin test and model prediction are also compared in Figure 512 and Figure 5-13 for three second and Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 for four second exposure. Comparison between Kevlar/PBI® Garment Manikin Test and Numerical Model Prediction without Underwear 101 .33 21.29 12.31 17. Table 5-2 shows the average heat flux of the 11 days before and after tests.0 60.73 20. From these data and location distributions it is clear that this numerical mode did a good job in predicting burn injuries of protective coveralls exposed in three and four second intense heat condition.66 40.

Second and Third Degree Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for Kevlar/PBI® Coverall in 3sec Exposure 102 .Figure 5-12. Second and Third Degree Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Kevlar/PBI® Coverall in 3 sec Exposure Figure 5-13.

Figure 5-14. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for Kevlar/PBI® Coverall in 4sec Exposure 103 . Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Kevlar/PBI® Coverall in 4 sec Exposure Figure 5-15.

66 12.0 44. for three second exposure.75 10.67 63.6 10.30 18. 70.11 50.0 104 .0 3rd % 2nd % Total % 60.0 24 14. it shows a little difference in both 2nd degree burn and 3rd degree burn.0 30.85 Model Four Second Figure 5-16 .0 Burn Prediction (%) 40.0 60. The burn location for three second is listed in Figure 5-17 (manikin) and Figure 5-18 (model). the comparison of manikin test results and model predictions are shown in Figure 5-16. however.0 6. Comparison between Nomex®ШA Garment Manikin Test and Numerical Model Prediction without Underwear 3rd % Mankikin Three Second Model Three Second Mankikin Four Second 2nd % Total % 0.37 20. The test data and model predictions are very close for four second exposure.41 48. For four second exposure it is given in Figure 5-19 (manikin) and Figure 5-20 (model).For Nomex®ШA coverall. This is expected because the fire boundary conditions used in this model are from four second calibration burns and the difference in heat transfer coefficients for three second duration may be a factor to this deviation. These burn locations of manikin test and model prediction show a similar pattern.26 30.6 25.

Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for Nomex®ШA Coverall in 3 sec Exposure 105 .Figure 5-17. Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Nomex®ШA Coverall in 3 sec Exposure Figure 5-18.

Second and Third Burn Location of Pyroman Test for Nomex®ШA Coverall in 4 sec Exposure Figure 5-20.Figure 5-19. Second and Third Burn Location Predicted by Numerical Model for Nomex®ШA Coverall in 4sec Exposure 106 .

33 41. These comparisons indicate that the numerical model is able to predict burn damage under one layer protective garments with underwear.83 11.77 11.38 40.0 Burn Prediction (%) 3rd % 2nd % Total % 53. Recalling the assumptions we made for this additional cotton underwear in chapter 3 that no air gap between the underwear and skin.2.0 7.80 29.40 9. One Layer Garments with Underwear The comparison of manikin test and model prediction for Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA coverall with cotton underwear are illustrated in Figure 5-21 and Figure 522.5 20.77 54. The burned sensor locations of these with underwear are listed in Appendix 9.0 43. this may be the main factor cause the difference in five second exposure.47 Total % 0.0 60.0 Model Five Second 3rd % Mankikin Four Second Model Four Second Mankikin Five Second Figure 5-21.0 35. Comparison between Kevlar/PBI® Garment Manikin Test and Numerical Model Prediction with Underwear 2nd % 107 .5.0 10.5. 70.20 39.53 66.0 50.91 30.

4 58. Garment shrinkage during exposure can be taken into account by considering the changes of air gap size between garment and manikin body. Other shrinkage parameters such as shrinkage time and rate can also be involved into model.93 41.0 38.00 cal/cm2sec ) at varying exposure time.40 23.20 40. Comparison between Nomex®ШA Garment Manikin Test and Numerical Model Prediction with Underwear 5.80 42.0 Burn Prediction (%) 3rd % 2nd % Total % 66.8 30. 108 3rd % Mankikin Four Second Model Four Second Mankikin Five Second 2nd % Total % 0.78 20.0 35.67 14. The success of modeling these Nomex®ШA and Kevlar/PBI® protective garments at varying exposure time provides us a very useful tool to understand and explore protective garment systems and manikin thermal protective evaluation system.62 22.0 60.27 45.05 10.75 Model Five Second Figure 5-22.0 27.0 7.5. These results lead us to believe that this numerical 1D model successfully predict thermal protective performance in terms of burn injury of Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA protective coveralls exposed to intense flash fire conditions (2.70. Model Evaluation Summary Figure 5-23 and Figure 5-24 show the summary results of these manikin test results and model predictions.0 .0 50. This model can differentiate varying exposure time and the clothing configuration of with and without cotton underwear.3.

Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Nomex®ШA 109 .Figure 5-23. Manikin Tests and Numerical Model Results for Kevlar/PBI® Figure 5-24.

garment factors. A serious of parametric studies were performed to determine the effects of varying fabric thermal properties on the thermal protective performance predicted by this model. factors associated with manikin test itself and skin model. The main thermophysical properties govern heat transfer through the fabrics are thickness. These manikin test parameters can be categorized into four groups: fabric thermophysical properties. thermal conductivity (k) and volumetric heat capacity (ρCp). It can even be used to understand complicated skin and burn evaluation models. while the results of the model numerical results are discussed below. Fabric optical properties including emissivity (є) and transmissivity (τ) also influence heat transfer.CHAPTER 6 PARAMETRIC STUDY The primary motivation for developing the model is to engineer better protective garments.1 Influence of Fabric Thermophysical Properties The thermophysical properties of the garment are of importance to thermal protective performance. Range of Values of Thermophysical Properties of Garment Fabric 110 . especially exposed in intense flash fire environments. Table 6-1. The range of values for each of the properties used in the parametric studies is given in Table 6-1. 6. a series of parametric studies are performed. This can be accomplished by using the model to perceive the effects of fabric material and manikin test in predicting a potential burn injury.

Fabric Thickness As mentioned in 5. Skin model.28 203g/m2 Transient.2-1 0. In order to examine the effect of thickness on garment protective performance.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.001-0. see Figure 4-16 And Table 5-1 Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 111 .Fabric Thermophysical Properties Property Thickness (mm) Thermal Conductivity (W/m0C) Volumetric Heat Capacity (J/m K * 10 ) Emissivity Transmissivity 3 6 Range 0.2 0.D.1.4mm with the input into numerical model. the thickness values varied from 0.3-2.2.1.2-2 0. burn evaluation model and others relate to this model are the same as used in chapter 5. The commonly used protective fabric thickness is about 0.5 – 0. Fabric Weight Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2. fabric thickness is simple nominal values and will change after laundering and during exposure.3 to 2. Table 6-2.9 6. Model Parameters for Garment Thickness Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S.4 0. Figure 6-1 shows predicted relationship between the fabric thickness and garment protective performance.8mm.02-0.1. The main parameters for this prediction are given in Table 6-2.

9mm. When fabric thickness is below 0.5 1 1. the total burn does not show much change.5 3 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Burn Prediction (%) Fabric Thickness (mm) Figure 6-1.6 to 0. It is interesting to note that the analytical model permits the 112 . Relationship between Burn Damage Predicted by Model and Fabric Thickness Figure 6-1 shows the expected decrease in total burn with fabric thickness. thus leads to lower fabric back side temperature and a decrease in the rate of energy transfer across the layers of the fabric and the skin.9mm at this exposure condition. In the range from 0.90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5 2 2. This may explain the sharp drop in predicted burns between 0. Three regimes can be distinguished.5mm-0. Increasing the fabric thickness increases fabric thermal resistance.6 and 0.8mm.9. In such a case some second degree burn gets worse and change to third degree burn although total burn does not change significantly. This is expected since the radiation heat transmission is the 4th power of absolute temperature at the back of the fabric. Little addition burn injury protection is gained with single layer fabrics greater than 0.6 mm the second degree burn trades off with third degree burns. Commercial available single layer protective fabric thickness typically varies between 0.9mm.6 mm and lager than 0. a sharp drop is observed. Below 0. it can be expected to increase the temperature difference of back side of garment material and the side exposed to the flash fire.

Moisture content in fabric changes both the thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. Thermal conductivity is a heat transport property. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.24 W/m. such as pockets and bands that increase thickness.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.2. Table 6-3.02 and 0. Skin model.D.1. Additional garment components. The main model parameters are given in Table 6-3.28 203g/m2 0. the thermal conductivity is allowed to vary between 0. will also change the protective performance. see Figure 4-16 and Table 5-1 Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 113 . The predicted second.0C. Increases in fabric thickness in this range can be expected to increase the thermal protective performance. Thermal Conductivity Thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity are the main parameters governing heat transfer in fabrics. burn evaluation model and others relate to this model are same as used in chapter 5. third and total body burn are shown in Figure 6-2. 6. Therefore. For the parametric study. Model Parameters for Fabric Conductivity Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S.7mm Transient.greatest influence of changes with this thickness change. while volumetric heat capacity is considered as thermodynamic properties.

15 0 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Burn Prediction (%) 0. the more chances to increase the rate of heat transfer.8 W/m0C. although third degree burn is predicted to increase as the fabric conductivity increase.2 0. this will cause the temperature of the back of the garment rising faster. At specific exposures. hence increasing the energy transfer between the fabric and skin. Beyond 0.3. 6. which is referred to as a transport property. Garment Fabric Thermal Conductivity and Predicted Pyroman Burn Estimate Fabric thermal conductivity.1 0. For this parametric study.1. The larger thermal conductivity. The influence of fabric thermal conductivity on manikin estimated burn injury is shown in Figure 6-2. the model predicts the total burn relatively constant.2 x 106 114 .05 0.90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0. The model predicts a sharp increase in total burn as well as in second and third degree burn when the fabric thermal conductivity ranges from 0.8 W/m0C.25 Thermal Conductivity (W/m C) Figure 6-2.02-0. Volumetric Heat Capacity Volumetric heat capacity is the product of fabric density (ρ) and specific heat (Cp) which it is a measure of the ability of a material to store thermal energy. the fabric volumetric heat capacity is allowed to vary between 0. provides an indication of the rate at which energy is transferred by the diffusion process.

7 x 106J/m3K. Model Parameters for Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S. Skin model. 115 . while second and third degree burn trade off each other. Table 6-4. Between 0.D. a markedly decrease in estimated body burn is observed.8 x 106 and 1. Total burn prediction is predicted to hold relatively constant below volumetric heat capacity of 0.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.4 x 106 J/m3K. backside temperature of fabric decrease as the result of less energy transferred through the fabric. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal conductivity Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2. The main parameters for this prediction are listed in Table 6-4. see Figure 4-16 Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 The analytical model prediction indicates and inverse connection between fabric volumetric heat capacity and the estimated body burn (Figure 6-3).2 x 106 J/m3K.. Moisture content in fabrics can significantly change volumetric heat capacity. As the capacity of the fabric to store energy increases. burn evaluation model and others relate to this model are the same as used in chapter 5.7mm Transient.28 203g/m2 0. hence it can significantly influence thermal protective performance.

5 1 1.5 Volumetric Heat Capacity (J/m K * 10 ) Figure 6-3. thermal cycling. finishing.90 80 70 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Burn Prediction (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0. which is influence by the method of fabrication.9 is chosen.4. The main parameters in the model are given in Table 6-5. [31] who measured values between 0. In figure 64 an emissivity change from 0.2 to 1 is studied in term of burn prediction by this model.1. Fabric emissivity depends strongly on the nature of surface.88 and 0. especially in intense thermal environments where the dominate mode of heat transfer is by radiation in the air gap. In this model for fabric Kevlar/PBI and Nomex. Effect of Fabric Volumetric Heat Capacity and Predicted Thermal Protection 6.5 3 6 2 2. 116 . This optical parameter is very important in heat transfer in air gaps between fabric surface and skin. and chemical reactions with the environment [120].91 for virgin and charred Nomex and Kevlar/PBI fabrics. Emissivity Emissivity is the ratio of the radiant energy emitted by a surface to the radiant energy emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature. an emissivity of 0. et al. This agrees with Morse.

The reason for this is that the dominated heat transfer mode in the air gap between the fabric and skin is radiation. Lower emissivity value will decrease the rate of heat transfer between fabric and skin. Effect of Fabric Emissivity on Garment Protective Predictions Fabric emissivity plays an important role in garment protective performance in flash fire environments. Garment Thermal Protective Performance 80 70 60 Burn Prediction (%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0. Numerical Model Setup Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S.28 203g/m2 0. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 Fabric Emissivity vs.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.8 1 1.6 Emissivity 0.2 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Figure 6-4.4 0. The energy transferred through this mode is proportional to the fabric emissivity. dyeing process may 117 .D.2 0. Fabric finishing.Table 6-5.

Transmissivity measured from these two kinds of protective fabrics are used to calculate the extinction coefficient. As illustrated in Figure 6-4.01 is chosen for each of the two fabrics. The main parameters associated with the model are given in Table 6-6. It is a property of fabric structure dependent. A range from 0.D. the fabric emissivity change mainly increase the second burn prediction.5. coating with aluminized or some metal material may reduce fabric emissivity from 0.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 118 .5.dramatically change its emissivity. Model Parameters for Fabric Transmissivity Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2. however. for example. The fabric transmissivity here represents the ability of absorption of incident radiation.28 203g/m2 0.1. Transmissivity In this model.9 to 0. an extinction coefficient is introduced to represent in-depth absorption of incident radiation as discussed in chapter 3. The results indicate that fabric transmissivity does not obviously change the burn prediction.001 to 0. influence the time to second and third degree burn (Table 6-7) Table 6-6. 6. It does. For this model a transmissivity of 0.5 is used to study its influence on garment protective performance predicted using this model.

61 2. Numerical Model Setup Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2. Initial.64 0. The main parameters for this model are in Table 6-8.37 0.94 4.5 no no no 8. all these parameters are examined using this model.28 203g/m2 0.8 39.001 no no no 8. Fabric Transmissivity Influence on Time to Body Burn Predicted by Model Fabric Transmissivity Influence on Time to 2nd and 3rd Degree Burn Time to 2nd degree burn Time to 3rd degree burn Fabric Tran.94 4.95 25.33 6.49 20.95 4. Ambient and Fire Distribution Influence Garment initial temperatures.15 27.49 0.Table 6-7.08 17.00 cal/cm2sec.5 9.51 20. the garment should be conditioned at least 24 hours in 200C and 65% relative humidity and the calculated heat flux standard deviation is less or equal to 0.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.36 2. In ASTM F1930-00. ambient temperature of the chamber and generated flash fire heat flux distribution along the manikin body have large effect on thermal protective performance prediction.01 17.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 119 .1 No No No 8.99 16.D.5 20.5 cal/cm2sec of average 2.65 0. Table 6-8.2.64 Transmissivity 0. The standard test method for evaluation of flame resistant clothing for protective against flash fire simulations using an instrumented manikin.1 10.001 10. In this parametric study.8 2. Sensor Number Sensor 75 Sensor 2 Sensor 119 Sensor 3 Sensor 62 Transmissivity 0.

The data from model prediction indicate that garment initial temperature shows a significant influence on thermal protective performance predictions.450C. Garment Initial Temperature vs Burn Prediction 80 70 60 Burn Prediction (%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (0C) 30 35 40 45 50 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Figure 6-5. Large fabric volumetric heat capacity is considered to be the main factor for this influence.2. The temperature of the back of the garment with a lower initial temperature is rising slower than the higher one during the same exposure. Fabric Initial Temperature The garment temperature range is varied between 00C and 450C to simulate in winter situation (temperature at 00C) and warm-up conditions at which temperature is about 35 .1. This decreased temperature rising in the back of the fabric slows down the heat transfer to skin.6. The fabric initial temperature primary leads to second degree burn prediction changes while the third degree prediction keeps relatively unchanged (Figure 6-5). The prediction results are shown in Figure 6-5. Effect of Garment Initial Temperature on Body Burn Predictions 120 .

The results from model predictions show that the ambient temperature has a relative small effect on protection prediction offered by the garments (Figure 6-6). while the relative high temperature is to simulate the warmed up garment in 121 Burn Prediction (3rd %) 59 Burn Prediction (%) . The low garment and ambient temperature is selected to simulate the severe winter conditions.6. Same Garment and Ambient Temperature This is a case that combines garment initial temperature and ambient temperature effect.2. It should be noted that this effect is mainly on third degree burn prediction.2.450C ambient temperature is used in model parametric study. and consequently. Normally the ambient temperature of the test chamber is around 250C for conditioned chamber. This is mainly because the higher ambient temperature slows down the cooling rate after burn. the slower cooling process increase the heat transfer to skin. Ambient Temperature Effect on Garment Thermal Protective Prediction 6.3. especially when ambient temperature exceeds 350C. Ambient Temperature A range of 00C . Ambient Temperature vs Burn Prediction 65 63 61 14 13 12 11 10 49 47 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2nd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% 3rd Burn % 16 15 57 55 53 51 9 8 35 40 45 50 Ambient Temperature ( C) Figure 6-6.2.

hot environments. a series of calibration burns are performed to examine its average heat flux and heat flux standard deviation.2. This influence is primary on second degree burn prediction. The ranges of these temperatures are between -300C – 450C. Garment Fabric and Ambient Temperature vs. The main parameters used in numerical model are listed in Table 6-8. Before the Pyroman® tests. Garments and Ambient Temperature Influence on Body Burn Prediction 6. it decreases the heat transfer between the fabric and skin. some graphical methods are used to demonstrate the heat flux of 122 sensors in 4 second exposure exhibits a bell-shaped distribution – normal distribution. The model predictions indicate that the effects of initial garment and ambient temperature on burn prediction are significant (Figure 6-7). therefore. Burn Prediction 80 70 60 Burn Prediction (%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Temperature (0C) 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Figure 6-7.4. Fire Distribution influence In chapter 5. Lower fabric and initial temperatures slow down the back side temperature rise of the fabric. Only two factors involve in normal distribution: the mean and standard deviation. The total average of 122 sensors should be 122 .

D.65 and the average value is 2.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.5.14-0.00 cal/cm2sec and standard deviation is required to be lower than 0. a series of different standard deviation normal distribution data with same mean are generated to simulate different fire distribution.within 5% of 2. The range of standard deviation is between 0. In this parametric study. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 123 .00 cal/cm2sec. The main parameters for numerical model are given in Table 6-9. The skin model and burn evaluation model is given in chapter 5.65 203g/m2 0. Table 6-9.14 and 0. Model Parameters for Heat Flux Distribution Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S.

air ventilation.6 0.8 1 1. visibility and reinforcement in some parts. and therefore changes the protective 124 .Pyroman Sensor Heat Flux Standard Deviation vs.4 0. The second degree burn prediction. Different garment size changes the air gap size distribution (relative to the same body size). however. Burn Prediction 70 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% 60 50 Burn Prediction (%) 40 30 20 10 0 0 0. Garment Design and fit Factors Protective garment design involves a lot of consideration in many respects such as maintenance.2 0. Some components are added to the garment to fulfill these functions. The air gaps between garment and skin plays an important role in protective performance. Pyroman Heat Flux Standard Deviation Effect on Burn Prediction The standard deviation of total 122 sensors’ heat flux of Pyroman® predicted by this model does not show a significant influence on third degree burn prediction. decrease as the standard deviation increasing as illustrated in Figure 6-8.3. 6.2 Standard Deviation Figure 6-8. and also these components add extra thermal protection to the garments.

In this chapter. Concealed. double tool pocket Elastic waist inserts Bi-swing action back The coveralls with and without these components are modeled. two breast pockets Two patch hip pockets (left has concealed snap).performance in specific exposures. lay flat collar Two-piece cuff. two-way NOMEX® taped brass zipper.1. these parameters are examined using this analytical model. hence the odd of the local area to get burn is reduced. and damage the protective performance.3. zipper. snap at top of zipper One-piece. The results predicted using this model are shown in Figure 6-12. The components of these coveralls are listed in following (Figure 6-9). topstitched. high quality industrial coverall with standard pocketing made by VF cooperation in “Deluxe” style. concealed snap closure Two set-in front pockets. sleeve vent. 6. collar and waist inserts etc. Garment shrinkage during the exposure changes the air gap size distribution along the body. As these components add extra layer or layers to the local area and decrease the heat transfer. Garment Components The garment components include pockets. 125 . The coveralls used in this research are typical.

double –needle lockstitch set. Left pocket has pen/pencil slot Generously cut sleeve with forearm pleat Double-needle lockstitch set tool pocket on right leg Elastic waist inserts Two set-in front pockets. double tool pocket Front fly closure covers zipper with hidden snap closures at neck and waist so no metal exposed inside or outside Figure 6-9. two breast pockets Two patch hip pockets (left has concealed snap).Bi-swing action back Large spade-style breast pockets. Nomex Deluxe Protective Coverall 126 .

38 48. Shrinkage and Its Temperature Effect on Protective Performance Fabrics made of Nomex fibers shrink about 50% when exposed to flash-fire temperature [48].38 12. This can be improved by blending with amounts of Kevlar. Abbott’s data show that Nomex shrinks dramatically when heated to temperature above 3000C.3 PBI without Components 57.67 Different Garment Figure 6-10.The garment with these components mainly reduced the second degree burn prediction for both Nomex and Kevlar/PBI compared with garment without these components as shown in Figure 6-12.3 Nomex with Components 44.26 18. In order to examine garment shrinkage influence. Garment shrinkage during exposure reduces the air gap and increases the heat transfer rate.26 53. hence increase the burn prediction.2. 127 .3.28 19.86 19. Effects of Garments Components and Body Burn Prediction 6.3 12. The main parameters associated with this numerical model are shown in Table 6-10. a Nomex®ШA Coverall without and with shrinkage is modeled. Garment Components Effect on Thermal Protective Performance 100 90 80 Burn Prediction (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PBI with Components 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % 48.67 57.28 12.3 18.36 44.86 Nomex without Components 53.36 12.

26 19.12 57.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.7mm see Table 5-1 in Nomex®ШA Coverall “Deluxe” Style Nomex®ШA Coverall size 42 in Appendix 7 42 4 The model prediction results about effects of garment shrinkage on burn prediction during 4 second exposure are demonstrated in Figure 6-11.95 60 Burn Prediction (%) 61.67 13.28 203g/m2 0.86 44.28 47. The decreased air gap increases the heat transfer between the fabric and skin. Numerical Model Setup Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S. This air gap change mainly impact three degree burn prediction.44 63.9 3rd Burn % Nomex with Components without shrinkage Nomex with Components with shrinkage Nomex without Components without shrinkage Nomex without Components with shrinkage 3rd Burn % 2nd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% Figure 6-11. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2. Influence of Shrinkage during Exposure on Burn Prediction The garment shrinkage during exposure decreases the air gaps which function as a thermal insulation layer.38 53.Table 6-10. Garment Shrinkage Influence on Burn Prediction 80 70 71. In this 128 .54 50 40 30 20 18.D.9 Total Burn Prediction% 10 0 13.28 72.

In order to study garment size effect on protective performance prediction. In figure 6-12. size 42 and size 44 of Kevlar/PBI® Coverall) are determined using 3D Body Scanning technology (see Appendix 7). garment fabric shrinkage temperatures are plotted against burn predictions using this model. Garment Size Different garment size changes the air gap distribution. Fabric Shrinkage Temperature vs. which shows a significant improvement in protective performance. If we can raise protective fabric shrinkage temperature.3. this can improve the garment thermal protective performance. The air gap distributions of different garment size (size 40. Protective Prediction 80 2nd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% 3rd Burn % 60 70 Total and Second Burn Prediction (%) 50 Third Degree Burn Prediction (%) 60 40 50 30 40 20 30 10 20 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 0 400 450 500 550 Shrinkage Temperature ( C) Figure 6-12. Fabric Shrinkage Temperatures and Protective Prediction 6.case some second degree burns are getting even worse while garment shrinks and transformed to third degree burn. these air gap distributions of 129 .3.

44 40. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.9 14.56 PBI Size 40 45.9 48.3 Garment Size PBI Size 44 46. 42. 42.36 12.D.56 Figure 6-13.28 203g/m2 0.00 cal/cm2 sec 0. Table 6-11. Effect of Garment Size and Thermal Protective Prediction The numerical model results of different garment size effect demonstrate a significant influence on third degree burn.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 40.75 PBI Size 42 48.different garment size are modeled in this research.36 46. The Table 6-11 shows main parameters used in the model for prediction. Numerical Model Setup Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S. especially between size 42 and 44 (Figure 6- 130 . 44 4 Garment Size Effect on Protective Performance 80 70 60 Burn Prediction (%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % 2nd Burn % 3rd Burn % 45.72 6.72 14.75 12.3 6.

are expected to change heat transfer mode which subsequently increases the heat transfer rate. 6. The primary goal of this skin model parametric study is to investigate the influence of different skin models and its parameters on predicted skin damage. provide different insulation layer thickness and therefore. because the longer time allows the blood an opportunity to carry away some of the energy before damage is sustained. Blood Perfusion The blood perfusion is important in longer thermal exposures of low heat fluxes and it should be included in skin model because of the ability of the body to react. especially when this time is longer than 10 second. Skin Model Influence From literature review. The model results lead us to believe that the effect of blood perfusion on burn prediction is minor. The differences in air gap size of different garment size. They are different in layers. in layer thermal properties.1. a lot of skin models proposed to model human skin exposed to thermal hazard. it changes the time to second and third degree burn. The model parameters used in prediction are shown in Table 6-12 and the model prediction results of some selected sensor are listed in Table 6-13. In order to study its influence to burn prediction in flash fire conditions. 131 . 6. This is anticipated.4.15). a skin model with and without blood perfusion is used to predict burn damage. when exposed in intense heat conditions. It does not practically influence the burn prediction in terms of second and third body burn. From shown in Table 6-13.4. The increased heat transfer rate causes some 2nd body burn to 3rd body burn. initial temperature distribution and blood perfusion.

5 0C to 34 0C. The core temperature of the body must be maintained within a small range around 370C in order to keep biochemical reactions proceeding at required rates. or 370C [86].00 cal/cm2 sec 0. Model Parameters for Blood Perfusion Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S.18 no 32. 32.58 11.D.48 4.43 4.58 23.64 19. Blood Perfusion Influence on Time to 2nd and 3rd Burn With Blood Perfusion Time to 2nd Time to 3rd (Sec) (Sec) 4.28 203g/m2 0. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.50C [88]. 340C [119]. Some skin models proposed a constant initial skin temperatures of. the skin surface temperature is about 32. In this parametric study.2.06 no Without Blood Perfusion Time to 2nd Time to 3rd (Sec) (Sec) 4.4. Under normal ambient conditions.06 no 23.65 20.85 no Sensor No. the other is linear distribution 132 .58 27. The first is constant at 370C from surface to subcutaneous base. 62 56 19 119 6.Table 6-12. Temperature Distribution in the skin One of the functions of human skin is to help regulate body’s core temperature. three initial temperature distributions are used.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 Table 6-13.92 11. Some other models suggest linear initial or higher order initial temperature distribution.

Table 6-14. The linear and quadratic distributions give a lower initial temperature than constant distribution and therefore at the same exposure it needs more energy to get second degree burn. Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S. This is expected because the temperature difference of these three distributions is very small at interface of dermis and subcutaneous.00 cal/cm2 sec 0. while constant temperature (370C) distribution comparing to the linear and quadratic indicates a large influence on second body burn prediction ( Figure 6-14).7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 The linear and quadratic temperature distributions show little effect on burn predictions. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.D.50C surface to 370C subcutaneous and the third is quadratic distribution from 32.28 203g/m2 0. 3rd and the total burns predicted by the model are illustrated in Figure 614. 133 . The main parameters associated with these model predictions are shown in Table 6-14 and the 2nd.from 32.50C surface to subcutaneous base. The changes of these temperature distribution show little influence on third degree burn.

4.21 0 Constant Linear Temperature Distribution Quadratic Figure 6-14. Effects of Skin Model Initial Temperature Distribution and Body Burn Prediction 6.66 9.3.Skin Model Initial Temperature Distribution Influence 70 60 12. Single Layer and Multi Layers Skin Model Comparison Skin models used to predict burn damage can be divided into single layer skin model and three-layer skin model in which the thermal properties of each layer are different.83 20 10 14. The thermal properties of these models are outlined in Table 6-16 and the main parameters used in this model are listed in Table 6-15. 134 . different skin models are used to compare the burn prediction.36 10.3 3rd Burn % 2nd Burn % 50 Burn Prediction (%) 40 30 48. In this study.75 17.

Numerical Model Parameters for Skin Model Study Model Parameters Average Heat Flux S.7mm see Table 5-1 in Kevlar/PBI Coverall “Deluxe” Style The same as Kevlar/PBI® Coverall size 42 42 4 Table 6-16. Fabric Weight Fabric Thickness Fabric Thermal Properties Garment Garment Air Gap Sizes Garment Size Burning Time (sec) 2.28 203g/m2 0.87 0.76 135 .32 0. Thermal Properties of Skin Models Single Layer Models Tissue Multi-layer Model Epidermis Dermis Subcutaneous Properties Thermal Conductivity (W/m0C) Volumetric Heat Capacity (J/m3.Table 6-15.335 3.225 4.167 2.00 cal/cm2 sec 0.D.87 0.K *106) 0.523 3.

15 40 30 20 48.66 81. which leads to a higher third degree burn in multi-layer model.31 81. This is expected because in multi-layer skin model the lower thermal conductivity and higher volumetric heat capacity of epidermis than the one in single layer skin model.31 12. However.3 9.66 71.15 Figure 6-15.3 Single Layer Multi-layer 3rd Burn % Total Burn Prediction% 3rd Burn % 12. These difference in thermal properties leads to a slower temperature rising in the base of epidermis. this cause the heat transfer in dermis with a relatively higher rate. multi-layer skin model is given a lower second degree burn prediction under the same exposures.84 Total Burn Prediction% 60. Single Layer and Multi-layer Skin Model and Burn Predictions The single layer skin model indicates a higher prediction in second degree burn and lower third degree burn.36 9. while a higher total burn prediction (Figure 6-15). Hence.84 10 0 2nd Burn % 2nd Burn % Multi-layer Single Layer 48. the dermis layer in multi-layer model has a higher thermal conductivity than single layer model. 136 .Skin Models vs Brun Prediction 90 80 70 Burn Prediction (%) 60 50 60.36 71.

137 . back. thigh. 7.1. A parametric study was performed using this model to study the effects of garment fabric thermophysical properties. and initial temperature of the test garment and ambient environment.CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This research developed a numerical model for the Pyroman® Instrumented Manikin Protective Garment Evaluation System.00 cal/cm2sec. and middle of leg. are expected to show a high heat transfer coefficients. This model successfully predicted burn injures. garment design and fit. Flame temperatures measured in the Pyroman® chamber range between 800 and 14000C. such as chest. Summary The simulated flash fires generated in Pyroman® chamber produce a dynamic. depending also on the directions with which the flame impingement. garment shrinkage. and upper arm locations always exhibit a lower heat transfer coefficients. Higher flame temperature above each sensor is expected to generate large heat transfer coefficient. The estimated overall heat transfer coefficients of 122 sensors for the manikin range of 80-110 W/m2 0C during 4 second exposure. This is largely determined by the alignment of the eight fire producing torches. Manikin body locations. while shoulder. The values of the manikin heat transfer coefficient at 122 sensor locations depend on flame temperature and sensor location. The model has been demonstrated using actual Pyroman® tests with different garment materials. The heat fluxes measured by 122 sensors embedded in Pyroman® body during 4 second exposure were found to be normally distributed with average heat intensity of 2. clothing configuration and flash fire exposure conditions. The parametric study also explored the effects of different skin models on burn injury predictions. turbulent flame exposure. The complex geometry of Pyroman® manikin create different conditions over the manikin.

This research demonstrated that thermophysical properties of Kevlar/PBI® and Nomex®ШA protective fabrics are not constant in these flash fire conditions. while shrinkage in leg area was shown to reduce the air layer as much as 90%. Garment protective performance was shown to be particularly affected by fabric thickness variations in a range of 0. This can be partially attributed to the 138 . This fabric shrinkage lowers the air gap by more than 50% on average. knee and upper back locations are close to the manikin body.0oz/yd2) shrinks significantly in a 4 second exposure to an average heat flux of 2. Nomex®ШA Coverall (size 42. Because of the inherent compressibility of the protective fabrics. The garment drapability and stiffness also affect the size of air gap. ‘deluxe’ style. This research shows the specific manner in which fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity change in these exposures decreases. For a 4 second exposure to heat intensity of 2.6-0. but not the distribution.00 cal/cm2 sec. Some positions including shoulder. The clothing-manikin air gaps were found not evenly distributed in protective coveralls dressed in Pyroman® manikin. Fabric thickness plays an important role in garment protective performance. Three-dimensional Body Scanning Technology was used to determine the local and overall air gap of the clothing-skin and variations on the manikin torso. such as the waist and thigh indicate a large air gap area.9mm. Leg holds the largest air gap. in order to predict thermal protective performance. other locations. Arms and back location retain the least space between the manikin and coverall. Higher pressure thickness measurements override the effect of fibers extruding form the surface of the fabric which can affect thermal protective insulation. 6. Using different garment size changes the size of air gap.00 cal/cm2sec. it is necessary to measure the ‘effective’ thickness or the thickness measured at low applied pressure.

This research showed that. Increasing the air volume fraction in fabric while lowering moisture content reduces the fabric thermal conductivity and slows down rate of heat transfer. At the same time. Significantly. Which thermophysical property dominates the heat transfer in the fabrics is shown to depend on the specific conditions of thermal exposures. moisture in fabric also reduces volumetric heat capacity. Changing these thermophysical properties can dramatically alter protective performance: Lowering thermal conductivity and increasing volumetric heat capacity improves protective performance of the garment. Lowering the fabric emissivity will obviously improve thermal protection performance. for volumetric heat capacity. However. only change a fraction of second time to second degree burn and a few second to third degree burn. for thermal conductivity and 0. Fabric emissivity is the factors solely relative to the radiation mode of heat transfer. The effects of change in these parameters are especially critical in the range of 0.8 W/m0C. Therefore careful choose protective fabric thickness is an important considering in providing thermal protection. Fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity are the most important factors governing heat transfer in protective garments. especially in short time exposure with intense heat conditions. Both of these properties are affected by 139 . the fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity are important parameters controlling heat transfer. thus reducing the capability to store energy.03-0. The influence of fabric transmissivity on thermal prediction performance in this study are minor.4 x 106 J/m3K. improves the heat transfer rate.dominating mode of radiant in air gaps existing between fabric and skin. Fabric emissivity is shown to have large influence on thermal protective performance. fabric thickness is the major factor influencing thermal protective performance.8 x 106 – 1. for single layer garments exposed to intense fire conditions. fabric moisture content has a large influence on both thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity.

the moisture content in the fabric. This can be attributed to large volumetric heat capacity of fabric. A Bell-shape distribution is found in the 122 heat flux values measured by 122 sensors in Pyroman® in 4 second exposure. a lower predicted burn. This has been statistically proved to be normal distribution. 140 . but with different sizes of air gap. garment made with more flexible fabrics show a small air gap between the clothing fabric and the surface of manikin body. Lower the initial garment temperature and ambient temperature. Air gap between the garment and manikin body have a significant effect on burn protection in flash fire exposure. The influences are more pronounced for the test conditions where garment and ambient are at same temperature and exposure duration is short. The initial temperature of the test garment as well as test ambient temperature shows influence on thermal protective predictions. especially on third body burns. especially on the effect of predicted second burn. increasing standard deviation are expected to reduce the burn prediction. This effect mainly influences the second degree burn. Different sizes of the same style garment develop the same air gap distribution. Fabric emissivity can not be neglected since the radiant heat transfer occurs across the air gap existing between the “skin” side of heated fabric. however. The research shows that garment components originally designed for other respects of considerations significantly enhances the garment thermal protective performance. too large air gap sizes may increase the possibility of forming natural convection which will increase heat transfer rate between the fabric and skin.00 cal/cm2sec. It should be noted that. With average heat flux 2. For same size garments.

With blood perfusion. Therefore. Different temperature distributions in skin model demonstrate a large effect on burn predictions. Maintain dimensional stable during flash fire exposure and add functional components provide additional protection. especially the time to get 2nd or 3rd degree burn exceeds 20 second. a precise skin model selection and its standardization would be beneficial for manikin testing for thermal protective performance. medium or low level heat conditions. This research focused on short time intense flash fire conditions. Therefore.3. 141 .Garment shrinkage during exposure reduces air gap and thereby increases the heat transfer rate. and for an even greater understanding of thermal protective mechanisms. The garment shrinkage leads to high prediction level of third degree burn in 4 second flash fire exposures. A large second degree burn prediction and low third degree burn prediction are observed in one layer skin model relative to the multi-layer skin model. The effect is pronounced in constant temperature distribution comparing to linear and quadratic. The assumption of blood perfusion in skin model has minimal effect on predicted body burns in these exposures. This study suggests that the use of different skin models and their temperature can greatly affect burn predictions of garment testing in instrumented manikin. Other research may be extended to long time. Recommendations A two or three dimensional model will be required to more precisely model manikin fire testing. 7. Hence powerful computation facilities are required. choosing of the garment proper size can significantly improve garment protective performance. it slightly reduces the time to 2nd or 3rd degree burn. Such models can account the heat transfer in all directions.

The successful modeling of one layer protective garment system providing evidence that extension to multi layer fire fighter suits is feasible. Author’s Note Caution should be taken in drawing conclusions about the safety benefits from these results. The numerical model established in this research solely considers heat transfer in these materials based on the assumptions that no mass transfer and thermal degradation between specific temperatures range. The thermal properties of multi layer protective garments systems required to be determined. For multi layer protective garments. Sensors used in manikin testing play an important role in precisely predicting burn injury. The parametric study described in this thesis independently varied individual parameters. The effect of moisture on thermal protective performance of one layer and multi layer can be further explored using the model. while there will actually be some of interdependence of the individual 142 .3. These data described in the thesis are from laboratory tests and controlled exposures. Standardization is required of the burn translation algorithm and its parameters. 7. It is only focused on two common protective fabrics. The manner in which thermal sensor cools following heat exposure is another area for further investigation. Varying exposure time at different energy level can be modeled to understand heat transfer and moisture transfer in multi-layer protective system. the modeling will be even more complex since the air gaps existing in between different layers which function differently. This research indicates that different skin models and their temperature distributions can greatly affect predicted garments thermal protective performance. An additional modeling study of different types of sensors and analysis of the responses of different sensors exposed to a variety of heat levels are required on manikin scale.

Therefore. the results which are obtained by using this numerical model should not be used as an estimation of the protection which these or other material can provide in a real flash fire or other accident. 143 .parameters. which can be physically complicated and unqualified. The test conditions may not represent actual field conditions. The conclusions drawn from this research are based on Pyroman® Thermal Evaluation System located in NCSU and the limited quantities of fabrics and garments available to the author. this model is only intended to gain an appreciation of manikin testing and garment thermal protective mechanism. for use in thermal protective garments. In addition. The intention of this work is not to recommend either of the fabrics. or any other particular fabric.

43 144 . Prod. L. Technical. Shalev. 1988... Edmonton. Barker. May.References 1. Rev. 23-24 May. W. Hamouda. L. Industr. “Analyzing the Performance of Protective Garments in Manikin Fire Tests. No. J. W. “Analyzing the Transient Thermophysical Properties of Heat-Resistant Fabrics in TPP Exposures.. and Engineering Textiles Group conference. and Barker. R. Buyers’ Guide. “Protective Clothing. 7. Shalev. McIntyre. “Predicting the Thermal Protective Performance of Heat-Protective Fabrics from Basic Properties. Manchester. 8. Behnke. 2.” presented at DuPont Nomex Protective Apparel Seminar. and Sengupta. Vol. P.” Special Technical Testing Publication 900. Center for Research on Textile 4. J. June 1987. 1992 6. 57. R.13. “Thermal Protective Clothing. in Proceedings of Industrial.. M. L.. E. American Society for Testing and Materials. Pawar. H. P. Barker. No. Behnke.. ? Number ? 1992 5.. 1988. paper 7. Soroka. R. 6. Bajaj.. P. I. 1986. A. The Textile Institute. Alberta.” Textile Progress. A. 1986.P.” Textile Research Journal. and Miner.K.. Y.. M. and Lee. H.. and Bender. 10..” College of Textiles. I. L. Textile Horizons. Fabr. Vol. 3. M.

"Analysis of Heat Transfer Characteristics of Fabrics in an Open Flame Exposure. Vol.1984 15. 1992 10. 54.. West Conshohocken.” Textile Research Journal. 123-132 145 . “Thermal Protective Performance of Heat-Resistant Fabrics in Various High Intensity Heat Exposures. 1978. 57. 53. American Society for Testing and Materials. Barker. pp. "A Comparison of Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Thermal Protective Performance in Convective/Radiant Exposures.. J. I. 48. Shalev.. R. Conn.8. and Barker. American Society for Testing and Materials. Y.” Department of National Defense Research Establishment Ottawa Contractor Report. pp. M. J... R... I. West Conshohocken.L. PA 13. ASTM D 3659 Standard Test Method for Flammability of Apparel Textiles by semi-Restraint Method. Vol. Vol. 475-482. G.” Textile Research Journal... ASTM D 1230 – 94: Standard Test Method for Flammability of Apparel Textiles. Barker. Aug.1983 16. H. and Grant. “Review of Test Methods for Material Flammability. L. R. PA 1994 12.” Textile Research Journal. 1987. “PBI Fiber and Fabric – Properties and Performance..” Textile Research Journal. Lee. 314-319 9.L. American Society for Testing and Materials. March 1991 11. Jackson. Oct. Tomasino. PA 14. North Carolina State University. Vol. Shalev. Charles. A.. R. 648-654. Chemistry & Technology of Fabric Preparation & Finishing. West Conshohocken. ASTM D 2863 Measuring the Minimum Oxygen Concentration to Support Candle-like Combustion of Plastics (Oxygen Index).

17. Lee, Y. M., and Barker, R. L., “Effect of Moisture on the Thermal Protective Performance of Heat-Resistant Fabrics,” Journal of Fire Science, Vol. 4, 1986, pp. 315-331 18. Barker, R. L. and Lee, Y. M., "Evaluating the Thermal Protective Insulation Properties of Advanced Heat Resistant Fabrics,” 32nd International SAMPE Symposium, April 6-9, pp 1156- 1163, 1987 19. Stoll, A. M., Chianta M. A., and Munroe, L. R., "Flame contact studies,” Journal of Heat Transfer, Transaction of the ASME, Vol. **, Aug., pp 449-456, 1964 20. Freeston, W.D., "Flammability and heat Transfer Characteristics of Cotton, Nomex and PBI Fabric," J. Fire & Flammability, Vol. 2, Jan., 57-76, 1971 21. Shalev, I., "Transient Thermo-Physical Properties Thermally Degrading Fabrics and Their Effect on Thermal Protection,” Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1984 22. Norton, M. J. T., Kadolph, S. J., Johnson, R. F., and Jordan, K. A., “Design, Construction, and Use of Minnesota Women, A Thermal Instrumented Mannequin,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 55, 1985, pp. 5-12 23. Stoll, A. M., and Chianta, M. A., “Heat Transfer Through Fabrics as Related to Thermal Injury,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 33, 1971, pp. 649-669 24. Barker, R.L., Hamouda, H. and Behnke, W. P. “Applying Instrumented Manikin Technology for Testing the Fire Resistance of Protective Clothing,” College of Textiles, Center for Research on Textile Protection & Comfort, North Carolina State University.

146

25. Dale, J.D., Crown, E.M., Ackerman, M.Y., Leung, E. and Rigakis, K.B. "Instrumented Manikin Evaluation of Thermal Protective Clothing," Performance of Protective Clothing: 4th Volume, ASTM STP 1133, J. P. McBriarty and N.W. Henry, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 717-734, 1992 26. Behnke, W.P., Amotz, J. G. and Barker, R.L., "Thermo-Man and Thermo-Leg: Large Scale Test Methods for Evaluating Thermal Protective Performance," Performance of Protective Clothing: 4th Volume, ASTM STP 1133, J. P. McBriarty and N.W. Henry, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992 27. Crown, E.M., Ackerman, M.Y., Dale, J.D. and Rigakis, K.B., "Thermal Protective Performance and Instrumented Mannequin Evaluation of Multi-Layer Garment Systems," Performance of Protective Clothing: 5th Volume, 1993 28. Pawar, M. “Analyzing the Thermal Protective Performance of Single Layer Garment Materials in Bench Scale and Manikin Tests,” PhD Thesis, College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, 1995 29. Stoll, A. M. et al, “Heat Transfer Through Fabrics,” Naval Air development Center, Johsville, Pennsylvania, 1970 30. Coskren, R. J., and Kaswell, E. R., “Development of PBI Fabric for Flight Suit Wear Test,” Technical Report, AFML-TR-71-195, Air Force Materials Laboratory, 1971 31. Morse, H L., Thompson, J.G., Clark, K.J., Green, K.A., and Moyer, C.B., “Analysis of the thermal Response of Protective Fabrics,” Technical report, AFML-RT-73-17, Air Force Materials Information Service, Springfield, VA.

147

32. Ross, J. H., “Thermal Conductivity of Fabrics as Related to Skin Burn Damage,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science: Applied Polymer Symposia, Vol. 31, 1977, pp. 293-312 33. Backer, S., Tesoro, G. C., and Toong, T.Y., Textile Fabric Flammability, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1976 34. Ordinanz, W., “Personal Adaptation and Protective Measures,” Work in Hot Environments and Protection Against Heat, The Iron and Steel Institute, London, England, 1970 35. Shalev, I., and Barker, R. L., “Protective Fabrics: A Comparison of Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Thermal Protective Performance in Convective/Radiant Exposures,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 54, 1984 36. Shalev, I., and Barker, R. L., “Analysis of the Heat Transfer Characteristics of Fabrics in an Open Flame Exposure,” Textile Research Journal, Vol. 53, 1983, pp. 475-483 37. David A. Torvi, J. Douglas Dale, “Heat Transfer in Protective Fabrics Under Flash Fire Conditions,” Second International Conference on Fire Research and Engineering, 1997 38. Bomberg, M., “Application of Three ASTM Test Methods to Measure Thermal Resistance of Clothing,” Performance of Protective Clothing: Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1133, J.P. McBriarty and N. W. Henry, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1992, pp. 399 – 417 39. Gagnon, B. D., “Evaluation of New Test Methods for Fire Fighting Clothing,” A thesis of Master of Science of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2000

148

40. Stoll, A. M., Chianta, M. A., and Munroe, L.R., “Flame Contact Studies,” Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol 86, 1964, pp. 449-456 41. Baker, D.L., Wool, M.R., and Schaefer, J.W., “A Dynamic Technique for Determining the Thermal Conductivity of Charring Materials,” Thermal Conductivity-Proceedings of the Eighth Conference-1968, C.Y. Ho, and R.E. Taylor, eds., Plenum Press, New York, 1969, pp. 832-836 42. Shalev, I. “Transient Thermophysical properties of Thermally Degrading Fabrics and Their Effect on Thermal Protection,” Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1984 43. Morse, H L., Thompson, J.G., Clark, K.J., Green, K.A., and Moyer, C.B., “Analysis of the thermal Response of Protective Fabrics,” Technical report, AFML-RT-73-17, Air Force Materials Information Service, Springfield, VA 44. Torvi, David Andrew, “Heat Transfer in Thin Fibrous Materials under High Heat Flux Conditions,” Doctor Thesis, University of Alberta. Canada, 1997 45. Willians, S. D., and Curry, D. M., Thermal Protection Materials: Thermophysical Property Data, NASA Reference Publication 1289, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Program, 1992 46. Futschik, M. W., and Witte, L. C., “Effective Thermal Conductivity of fibrous Materials,” General Papers in Heat and Mass Transfer, Insulation, and Turbonmachinery, HTD-Vol. 271, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1994, pp. 123-134 47. Holman, J.P., Heat Transfer, Six Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1986

149

B. Amsterdam. f. “Measurement of the Decomposition Kinetics of a Polymer Composite Using a High-Temperature. “Comparison of Thermal Characteristics of Materials Examined by Thermogravimetry and Flammability Tests”. 103-109 54. C. and Shashkov. Backer... Hoechst Celanese. and Hill.. Vol.. J. Mraw. Ed. B. PBI Products Division Technical Literature. Seklton. S.. M.. Bingham. Henderson.. G.. 19. pp. F. Y. “Heat Transfer in Thin Fibrous Materials under High Heat Flux Conditions. G.” Elsevier Science Publishers. MA. R. A.. Shlensky.” Textile Research Journal. C. 1987.” High Temperature-High Pressures.48. and Toong.” Chapter 11 in Specific Heat of Solids. pp. 62-66 52.. 47. A. Journal of Thermal Analysis. Tesoro. J. G. Schoppee. “The Transient thermomechanical response of Protective Fabrics to Radiant Heat. High-Heating-rate Simultaneous Thermal Analyzer. pp. 1997 51.. 1976.M.. CINDAS Data Series on Material Properties Vol. “Thermal Analysis of Nomex and Kevlar Fibers. Charlotte. S. 1991 56. AFML TR-77-72.. Textile Fabric Flammability. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Brown. 71-81 55. E. L. New York.. 1988 150 .” Technical Report. 1976 50. and O’Brien. University of Alberta. Ho. Vol.. M. 1989 53. N. C. and Ennis. “Differential Scanning Calorimetry. Y. Vol. J.N. T. Properties of Polybenzimidazole High-Performance Fiber. J. I-2. Aksenov. Air Force Materials Laboratory (1976) 49. 1977. “Thermal Decomposition of Materials: Effect of Highly Intensive Heating. Canada. David Andrew Torvi. Abbott. B. O. C. J. Cambridge. J. and Donovan..” Doctor Thesis.. MIT Press. 9.

Sousa. Scientific and Technical Information Program. Thesis. J.” Final Research Project Report for Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Heritage Grant Program. S. and Barker. M. A. I. 1992 62. B. Crown. Westport... F. 416-421 60. “Analytical Predictions of the Thermal Response of Decomposing Materials in Fire Environments. N. Vol. March 30. and Explosions of Gases. G.D. Heat Transfer in Flames. Shalev.. L.. E.. 1983. NASA Reference Publication 1289. H. Technomic. 475-483 59.. Afgan. Cambridge..” Ph. L. “Analysis of the Heat Transfer Characteristics of fabrics in an Open Flame Exposure. J. J. 1.. G. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Williams. New York.. Y. Dale. Massachusetts. “Evaluation of Flash Fire Protective Clothing Using an Instrumented Mannequin..57. and Curry. 53. G. J.” Journal of Testing and Evaluation. M. CEMEL-203 1979 65. A. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tempesta. Chen. Vol. “Transient Heat and Moisture Transfer Through Thermally Irradiated Cloth. K. and Reer. and Levasseur. 1992 58. Flames. Natick/TR-80/003. D.” Technical Report. J. and Belason.. Alexander. D. C.. Castle. Flammability Handbook for Plastics. and von Elbe. Orlando. B. G. E. 1959 61. D... Remy. pp. Academic Press. 1987 151 . Hilado.” Textile Research Journal... J. Caldarella. Lewis. “Thermal Degradation Products of THPOH-NH3 Treated Cottons.. M.. 1973. N. RI 1982 64. NY 1974 63. Combustion. L. R. E. pp. Inc.. Thermal Protection Materials: Thermophysical Property Data.. D. Wiley and Sons.. Third Edition.

Textbook of Anatomy and Physiology..” Journal of Applied Physiology. pp. Chianta... and Huang. Chichester. M. Brian David Gagnon. Mosby Co. The C. AFML TR-77-72.. Krasny. 10th ed. 1979. R.C. Holcombe.. “Evaluation of New Test Methods for Fire Fighting Clothing. “Analysis of Tissue and Arterial Blood Temperatures in Resting Human Forearm.P.. B.M. Pennes.” Transactions of the ASME. pp. N. Louis.. 1964.. J. J.66. Vol. Vol. J. Seklton. C. “An Introduction to Fire Dynamics.. 5-19 68. Barker and G.. eds. Abbott.. L. St. Schoppee. G. pp. 1998.” Technical Report. L. R.” Performance of Protective Clothing: First Volume ASTM STP 900. 290-294. 1985 72. “The Transient thermomechanical response of Protective Fabrics to Radiant Heat.” A thesis of Master of Science of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. A. Coletta. M. Stoll. and Thibodeau. V.. and Hoschle. 2000 70.. 1948. 1. Rockett. and Donovan. A. pp. H.. A. West Conshohocken. 449-456 71. 530-533 73. “Do Test Methods Yield Meaningful Performance Specifications?. “Flame Contact Studies. J. pp.. Journal of Heat Transfer.” John Wiley and Sons. H. B. D. PA. 1986.. N..” Fire Technology. Anthony. Air Force Materials Laboratory (1976) 69.. and Munroe. M. A. G. American Society for Testing and Materials.. “Protecting Fire Fighters Exposed in Room Fires: Comparison of Results of Bench Scale Test for Thermal Protection and Conditions During Room Flashover. J. 327-339 67. 24. D. V. 93-122 152 . 86. Drysdale. Vol. 70-73.

Klinger.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 403-415. HTD-Vol. the Weinbaum-Jiji Bioheat Transfer Models in the Pig Cortex.E. pp.R. 78. Eason. J.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. Cambridge. 1984.K. M.” ASME WAM. “The Energy Conservation Equation for Living Tissue. pp.R. 79.M.D. 36. K. Vol. BME-21. Full Report from Fuels Research Laboratory. Xu. “Heat Transfer in Perfused Biological Tissue – I: General Theory. and Lemos.. 1991. Mehta. A. Wulff. 77.74.. 1991. M. 183-188 76.X. 1973 75. Xu. 494-495. 189. Chen. H. 1986. 1980..” IEEE Transactions of Biomedical Engineering. 15-21.. L. Vol.” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering. pp. D. L. 1974.” Transaction of the ASME.. W. 137-150. “Modeling Transient Heat Transfer Through the Skin and Superficial Tissues – I: Surface Insulation. “The Evaluation of Heat Transfer Equations in the Pig Renal Cortex. D. 321-330.” Ph. Massachusetts. pp. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.C.. and Holmes.M. the Chen-Holmes. Jiji...M.. Vol. “Theory and Experiment for the Effect of Vascular Temperature on Surface Tissue Heat Transfer – Part I: Anatomical Foundation and Model Conceptualization. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Holmes. “Microvascular Contributions in Tissue Heat Transfer. and Wong. K. Barbennel. A. S. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dissertation. Univ. Weinbaum. 153 . “The Evaluation of the Pennes.. Hodson. H. pp..G. 1974. and Arkin. 80. August. 106.X. 81. G. Vol. pp.. F. Chen.... Vol. Measurement of Flammability and Burn Potential of Fabrics. L. 108. 335.

Weinbaum. W.. Vol. pp. 106. 72-78.” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering.. Vol. L. 1951. Henriques.I. 1986. C. J.” Archives of Pathology.82. Rouse. Weinbaum. 108. 331-341. Parametric Study of the Three-Layer Microcirculatory Model for Surface Tissue Energy Exchange. M.. and Stanley. 110. Stoll. “Theory and Experiment for the Effect of Vascular Temperature on Surface Tissue Heat Transfer – Part II: Model Formulation and Solution. 703-713 88. S.” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering. Buetter. Jiji. D. and Greene. S.M. Dagan. K.” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 1973 154 . S. pp.. Song.J. Pain and Heat Conductivity in Experiments with Radiant Heat. 1987. 83.M. T. and Jiji. A.. pp. L. I. 84. C. "A Theoretical Model for Peripheral Heat Transfer Using the Bioheat Equation of Weinbaum and Jiji. Vol. The Predictability and the Significance of Thermally Induced Rate Processes Leading to Irreversible Epidermal Injury.J. Surface Temperature. Thermal Analysis Program.. “A Combined Macro and Microvascular Model for Whole Limb Heat Transfer.T. and Lemos... and Jiji.” ASME Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 1959... N... Vol. Vol. 1947. Takata. 14. L. Weinbaum. A. “Relationship Between Pain and Tissue Damage Due to Thermal Radiation. pp. Jr. “Studies of Thermal Injuries V.. W. 43. pp.M. 1988 86. 259-267. Weinbaum.E. “L. pp. L. IITRI-J6286..” Journal of Applied Physiology. Z. 1984.M. Research Institute Report. 373-382 89.. Vol. S. “Effects of Extreme Heat and Cold on Human Skin II.” Journal of Applied Physiology... and Jiji. 85.. 109. 489-502 87.. 89-96. Song. pp. Vol. F.. Chicago. 3.

Math. New York. 1386-1393. 1992 98. and Lawson. University of Alberta. 1977 95. and Davis. “Traveling Wave Solutions of the Stefan and the Ablation Problems.D. pp. M. E.” Lasers in Med. R. M.” Aerospace Medicine. Ricci. 357-368. and Chen. 292-307. GA.” Comb. Dowden. Kapadia.. 1994 93.. P.D. Stoll. Nov. 1990 97. S. 92.” Technical Report Natick/TR-95/004. Thesis.90. “Asymptotic. P.. and Charmchi. and Flame. P. “A Theory of Drying in Porous Media. Vol. Whitaker. A.M.” presented at the 1996 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exhibition. “A Heat Transfer Model for Fire Fighter's Protective Clothing.. Ph. Anal. Torvi. “Integration of a Human Thermal Physiology Control model with a Numerical Model for Coupled Heat and Mass Transfer through Hygroscopic Porous Textiles. P. pp.. Y. Mell. January 1999 94.P. “A One-Dimensional Mathematical Model of Laser Induced Thermal Ablation of Biological Tissue. Gibson. R.. pp. Gibson.” SIAM J. and Chianta. A. 1993 155 . Vol. 7. pp.” National Institute of Standards and Technology. 21. Vol. W. 17-22. Sci.. W. Delichatsios. 1997 92. 1996 96.. M. J. NISTIR 6299. Atlanta. Whiting.” Advances in Heat Transfer 13.. “Governing Equations for Multiphase Heat and Mass Transfer in Hygroscopic Porous Media with Applications to Clothing Materials.. M.A.1232-1238 91. Academic Press... Approximate and Numerical Solutions for the Heatup and Pyrolisis of Materials Including Reradiation Losses. J. 40 1969. “Method and Rating System for Evaluation of Thermal Protection. David A. Vol. M.

and Atreya. Sci. ASTM STP 1237. The Combustion Institute. and Barker. 123. pp. Di Blasi.624.C. 187-201. C. 25th Int. 28. pp.West Conshohocken. Staggs. 1995 103.. Kashiwagi. 607 . and Wichman.. pp. J. Vovelle.” Performance of Protective Clothing: Fifth Volume. Hamouda. R. 231-247. 229-240.. PA. and Flame. and Tech. “A Simplified Model for the Pyrolisis of Charring Materials. 261-285.E. J.” Combust. 1987 101.. “Experimental and Numerical Study of Thermal Degradation of PMMA. “A Theoretical Investigation into Modeling Thermal Degradation of Solids Incorporating Finite-Rate Kinetics. “The Design of a Surface Heat Flux Transducer for Use in Fabric Thermal Protection Testing. M. vol. Grimes. pp. pp.” Comb.. 156 . 1994 104.” Proc.S.. J.. Vol.. Staggs. James S. American Society for Testing and Materials..E. R. Vol.Z Mansdorf. Mulligan. “A Discussion of Modeling Idealized Ablative Materials with Particular Reference to Fire Testing.. Symp.J. Eds. Vol. A. “Polymer Combustion and Flammability.J. 47-66. and Flame.” Comb. 68. Vol. J.Role of the Condensed Phase. T. 53.” Comb.. pp. and Tech. and Reuillon.S. “Effects of Solid-Phase Properties on Flames Spreading over Composite Materials. 1966. H. 1997b 105.. Delfau. I.Johnson and S. pp. 1987 102. C.” Fire Safety Journal. 102. Wichman. 1997a 100. 14231431. on Combustion..99. Sci. I.

H.. R. “Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Vol.106. M. Grimes. “Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer.. V. J.. Patankar. “The Design and Calibration of a Surface Heat Flux Transducer for Use in Fabric Thermal Protection Testing. D. V.” Taylor & Francis.. “Probability and Statistics Models for Research. Journal of Computational Physics. 98. S. 95.. B.. C. K.” John Wiley & Sons Inc. Anderson D. 543545. T. Clair. Hollands. “Natural Convection in Enclosures. V.. pp. Inc.” John Wiley & Sons. 107. 13-31. T.. E. L. P. R. R. 115. 1976. E.” Taylor & Francis. pp. Unny.A. E.. G. University. Vol. H. Toronto. Bailey. 113.” 2nd Ed. 2000. Özisik. 1997. pp. No. D. and Catton. and Clever. 16.. “Inverse Heat Conduction: IllPosed Problems. 2. N. B. 271-284. NC. I. Journal of Heat Transfer. 109.. Taylor & Francis. North Carolina State 157 .. C. M. Denny. 1993.. 189-193.. and Pletcher R.. pp. 111. Beck. and Orlande. 1971 114.. I. Raithby. Ayyaswamy. G. R. 1980.” Proceedings of the 6th International Heat Transfer Conference. 1978. 1974.. Blackwell. Jr..” MS Thesis. 108. and St. Vol. “Inverse Heat Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications. 112. 1973. 1985. S. Catton. Tannehill J. 6.. 110.. Vol.. Raleigh. Journal of Heat Transfer. and Konicek...

pp. J. J. North Carolina State University..0. May 2000 119.116. K. J. R.” John Wiley & Sons. P. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 118. P.” published by Wiley. MI 48864. 300-307 120. “Parameter Estimation in Engineering and Science.” Version 7. and Dewitt. V. and McMasters. l. “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. Incropera. 1977 117. K. and Arnold. 1983. V. “Application of Body Scanning Technology. Diller. David. Fourth Edition.” Transactions of the ASME. “Users Manual for Prop1D—Program for Estimating Thermal Properties from Transient Temperature and Heat Flux Measurements. Okemos. 105.” Presentation in College of Textiles. . Vol. and Hayes. Bruner. 1996 158 . Beck. Beck Engineering Consultants Company. F... “A finite Element Model of Burn Injury in Blood Perfused Skin. Beck.. D.

APPENDICES 159 .

used in protective testing field and their heat flux calculation algorithm are introduced. The major two kinds of sensors. the copper disk sensor and skin simulant sensor.Appendix 1 Experimental Apparatus Used in This Research The main objective of these experimental apparatus is to get thermal response data from fabric or heat source of the interest. However. In order to measure the yarns temperature on the front and back surface of the fabric. In order to determine how fine a gauge of thermocouple wire should be used. In this chapter. Its accurate measurement is essential in calculate or estimate other parameters. Depending on the measured temperature range and the necessary responding time. The apparatus in heat transfer coefficient determination as well as fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity estimation are discussed. finer gauge wires will be more difficult to use. The Medtherm sensor is used in this research to calibrate all the bench top test heat sources and to determine calibration factor of the sensors. the experimental work is described. the thermocouple gauge and type need to be selected. some specific tests are designed to compare the influence of thermocouple wire gauge. The data acquisition system and software used in all the experimental apparatus are also discussed. In some setups the responses are crucial to the quality of estimation and determination. The transient flame and fabric surface temperature were measured using thermocouples and infrared thermometer. Larger wires will be more rugged and is easy to handle. as well as fabric surface temperature exposed to intense heat conditions. Temperature Measurement Device Temperature is one of the most widely measured physical quantities. fine gauge thermocouples are used. but this would have a slower time response. These are including the type of thermocouples and their gauge selection in order to precisely measure flame temperature in both bench top test and Pyroman® test. 160 .

The following figure 1 shows different response and measurement of the same flame. so thermocouples with 36 and 40 A. Therefore Type R and Type B with diameter 0. chromel-alume (type K) thermocouple is used.15 Diameter:0. are chosen to measure fabric surface temperature.005 inch are chosen to measure the flame temperature. as this type K can be used to measure temperature up to 1300 0C for short duration (3-10 seconds). The flame temperature is in a range of 1000 -1800 0C. Therefore. The maximum temperature of fabric surface in this research is among 25-1000 0C. The Flame Measurement with Different Thermocouple Gauge (type R) Temperature (0C) 161 . The diameters of the yarns are of the order of 250 to 400 µm.including comparing with the infrared thermometer to measure fabric surface temperature. The thermocouple response time is important in heat transfer coefficient estimation and fabric thermophysical property estimation. As the junction of the thermocouple where the temperature is measured will be at least twice the diameter of the separate thermocouple wires.005 Figure 1. The temperature range of type R is 0-14500C and type B is 0-17000C.W.G. Flame Temperature Measurement with Different Thermocoupl Gauge 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 Time (sec) 8 10 12 Diameter:0.

K. Data Acquisition System 162 . LabVIEW programming system is used to control the data acquisition system. The capability of the data acquisition to receive data is crucial in determination of heat transfer coefficient and in fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity estimation. R. 12-bit Multifunction I/O Signal conditioning Module: 5B47 (from B. The LabVIEW program in the computer converted these voltages into temperature data according to different type thermocouples. The data then saved in a datafile for data analysis (Figure 2). 500ks/s. and infrared thermometer. Isolated Linearized Figure 2. T). The specifications for data acquisition system: Computer: Laptop CPU 1GB with RAM 512 DAQ board: DAQCard-AL-16E-4 16 inputs. These inputs are recorded 1000 reading per second. The outputs from the thermocouples and sensors is fed into signal condition 5B47 module and amplified. thermocouples. The DAQ board is used to control and operate these voltage signals.Data Acquisition System A laptop computer is used in conjunction with LabVIEW data acquisition system to record the response of the sensors.

Basically. positioned at 120 degree intervals and at the center. So emissivity is an essay here in order to get near 100% incident heat flux. the two thermopile junction layers will be at different temperatures and will therefore register a voltage. Sensors are typically coated black to improve emissivity so the absorbed radiation is nearly equal to the incident radiation. radiation. The thermal sensor itself consists of a 1. the heat transfer coefficient is a function the flow’s thermal conductivity and its characteristics. One is slug type copper sensor. the other is skin simulant sensor. For convective heat flux. which are the most consistently repeatable sources for this purpose.57x 0. The three modes of heat transfer. A good thermal contact is necessary. Four J-type (iron constantan) thermocouples are secured in the disk. Most heat flux sensors are calibrated using radiation heat source.Heat Flux Sensors A heat flux sensor typically consists of a thermopile or sometimes just a pair of thermocouples in which the elements are separated by a thin layer of thermal resistance material. Heat flux is calculated from 163 . This procedure assumes that the heat transfer coefficient for the heat flux sensor and the surrounding system are the same. the sensor is in direct contact with a heated material. which can seriously alter the sensor reading. The heat flux is proportional to this differential voltage. The TPP sensor and Pyrocal sensor are slug copper sensor. there will effectively be a high thermal resistance between the sensor and the material interest. and Thermoman sensor and Alberta sensor are skin simulant sensor TPP Sensor The TPP sensor (Figure 3) is a copper disk sensor which is widely used for bench top testing of thermally protective clothing materials.06 inch copper disk. Under a temperature gradient. conduction and convection can be measured by heat flux sensors. For the conductive heat flux. The heat transfer coefficient is usually determined by measuring the surface heat flux. If the contact is poor. two kinds of sensor are used in thermal protective testing field.

the copper disk temperature rise is linear to time. TPP sensor Pyrocal Sensor This sensor is developed by North Carolina State University for use in instrumented manikin fire testing systems[105]. 164 . an insulating air cavity is maintained and a T-type (copper-constantan) thermocouple is attached to the lower side of the disk (Figure 4). It is insulated slug type sensor with 0. Heat flux is calculated from temperature rise and the known properties of the copper slug using a procedure that increases the accuracy of the heat flux estimate by compensating for heat losses [106]. q = mC A cu ε p cu cu dT ( t ) dt Insulating Block Copper Disk Lock Nut Thermocouple Tube Thermocouples Figure 3. Beneath the surface of the copper disk. This sensor is highly reliable and rugged. indicated by the thermocouple output. and from the mass and specific heat capacity of the copper disk [105].06 inch copper disk. surrounded radially by a thin copper ring thermal guard. There is no loss management in its heat flux calculation. Both the disk and the ring are supported by an insulating holder to minimize heat transfer to and from the body of the calorimeter thus approximating one-dimensional heat flow.50x 0.the temperature rise. When exposed to a constant heat flux. The entire assembly is encapsulated within a protective shell.

Pyrocal Sensor Used for Fabric Thermal Protective Testing [107] Alberta Sensor Alberta sensor is a skin simulant sensor developed by the University of Aberta for use in their instrumented fire test manikin (Figure 5). This sensor material is reported to have thermal properties such that heat transfer will be similar to human skin which suddenly exposed to heat flux. aluminum. a mixture of inorganic materials including calcium. A Ttype thermocouple is mounted on the surface of the sensor. The surface heat flux is calculated using Duhamel’s theorem. Details of this sensor and procedures used to calculate heat flux can be found in reference [91].  n −1  Ts (tn ) − Ts (ti ) Ts (tn ) − Ts (ti −1 )  Ts (ti ) − Ts (ti −1 )  − +2 ∑  kρC p  i =1  (tn − ti )1 2 (tn − ti −1 )1 2 (tn − ti )1 2 + (tn − ti −1 )1 2    qn (t ) =  π  Ts (tn ) Ts (tn ) − Ts (tn −1 ) + 1 2 +  (∆t )1 2  tn    165 .q = CL ρ cuC pcu d cu dT (t ) + K L (T (t ) − Ti ) dt Figure 4. and silicate with asbestos fibers and a binder. The sensor is made of colorceran. The thermocouple wire runs through a hole drilled inside the sensor.

then other sensors exposed to this known heat source for certain length of time and record their reading. The resin plug is made of a thermoset polymer that reportedly exhibits a thermal inertia similar to undamaged human skin [106]. Alberta Sensor Thermoman Sensor This sensor is a polymeric skin model sensor developed by DuPont for use in the Thermo-Man fire test manikin. Heat transfer is calculated using an inverse heat transfer model that relies on an accurate location of the thermocouple bead. This sensor employs a thin-skin calorimeter that incorporates a Type T thermocouple buried below the exposed surface of a cast resin plug. 166 . Sensor Calibration A MEDTHERM sensor is used as referee to calibrate the above sensors. First the radiation heat source is adjusted to 84kW/m2 using MEDTHERM sensor. Calibration factor can be calculated based on these calibration data for each specific sensor.Figure 5. The figure 6 is one of calibration examples to get calibration factor for the different sensors.

Sensor Mounting Configuration Sensors Insulating Block 1 3 2 LabView/ Data Acquisition Analog Backplane Device System Spacer Quartz Lamps Figure 7. Radiation Heat Source 167 . Sensor Calibration Using Medtherm Sensor Heat Source Two heat sources are used in this research. This apparatus is also called RPP tests (Figure 8 and Figure 9). One is pure radiation heat source using eight quartz lamps.Senser Calibriation Chart 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 W/m2 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 2 4 6 Time (sec) 8 10 12 Medtherm Pyrocal TPP Dupont Alberta Figure 6. which are the most consistently repeatable sources for this purpose (Figure 7). Most heat flux sensors are calibrated using radiation heat source.

Figure 9. This heat source is used in fabric parameter estimation setup.Figure 8. Gas Burner and Radiation Heat Source 168 . Two Meker burners using a methane gas flame in combination with a bank of quartz tubes to provide convective and radiant heat source. to estimate fabric thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity. Radiation Heat Source The other heat source used in this research is a typical TPP heat source using two Meker burner and eight quartzs heaters (Figure 9).

76 2.60 1.91 1.96 1.97 1.82 1.03 1.51 1.33 1.05 2.96 2.22 1.15 1.61 2.97 2.96 1.92 1.34 2.96 2.84 2.73 1.25 2.07 2.84 2.43 2.59 2.21 1.64 1.13 1.80 1.97 1.39 2.11 1.23 2.99 1.25 1.24 2.12 2.Flux 2.89 2.28 1.03 2.83 1.98 2. Sensor 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 1.43 1.Appendix 2 Average Heat Flux Values as Model Input (heat flux: cal/cm2 sec) Sensor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 H.21 1.04 1.02 2.90 2.15 0.72 1.23 2.21 1.32 2.64 2.77 1.23 2. Sensor 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 105 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 H.95 2.61 1.Flux 1.07 1.59 1.23 2.12 2.00 1.00 2.92 1.26 2.91 1.73 1.28 2.71 2.75 1.86 2.92 2.68 1.98 H.93 1.61 1.83 2.D.19 2.80 1.87 1.41 2.09 1.24 169 .03 1.10 1.87 1.05 1.18 2.94 2.61 S.46 1.01 2.14 1.57 2.24 2.86 2.03 1.32 1.Flux 1.09 2.34 2.08 2.93 2.50 2.18 2.52 1.13 Avg.78 2.35 2.05 1.01 2.30 2.23 2.80 2.00 2.44 1.

84 1.21 2.3 2.02 2.62 1.97 1.22 2.85 1.39 2.8 1.93 1.25 2.69 1.95 1.05 2.24 2.98 1.41 1.08 2.74 1.75 1.01 2.16 2.81 1.98 1.68 1.36 2.47 1.49 1.83 1.04 2.95 1.38 2.69 Sensor Number 115 88 123 44 4 121 82 45 7 90 40 1 95 29 81 89 91 87 2 86 85 97 113 33 100 73 15 14 117 80 111 93 114 75 9 98 92 36 18 47 69 Heat Flux 1.84 1.15 2.73 1.93 1.37 2.17 2.81 1.99 2 2 2.22 2.2 2.16 Sensor Number 76 119 103 35 109 107 102 37 58 124 53 39 34 17 65 19 38 57 64 32 66 67 27 25 41 52 78 23 10 61 70 13 56 20 108 12 68 28 72 26 Heat Flux 2.79 1.48 1.24 2.35 2.56 1.83 1.13 2.96 1.02 2.07 2.45 1.23 2.49 2.41 1.58 1.34 2.19 2.42 1.7 1.32 2.39 2.61 2.05 2.33 2.09 2.61 1.5 2.71 1.61 1.06 2.86 1.99 1.29 2.64 1.25 2.96 1.36 2.72 1.85 1.59 1.34 2.05 2.85 1.5 1.57 1.07 2.05 2.93 1.06 2.21 2.33 2.26 2.07 2.98 1.97 1.87 1.98 1.35 2.51 2.93 1.74 1.39 2.7 1.23 2.38 2.25 2.25 2.33 2.35 2.79 1.67 1.93 1.75 1.97 1.32 2.91 1.87 1.19 2.59 1.22 2.21 2.54 3 Normal Scores 2.2 2.77 1.14 2.92 1.51 1.65 1.36 2.86 1.47 1.56 2.99 2 2.7 1.18 2.37 2.24 2.15 2.14 Normal Scores 1.2 2.92 1.69 1.96 1.2 2.89 1.24 2.35 1.77 1.36 2.78 1.87 1.58 1.92 1.05 2.92 1.06 2.5 1.99 1.17 2.14 2.09 2.1 2.96 1.99 1.03 2.46 2.31 2.64 1.93 1.64 1.89 1.46 2.57 1.69 1.Appendix 3 Sorted Fluxes and Their Normal Scores of Pyroman 4sec Exposure Normal Scores 1.53 2.07 2.15 2.15 2.17 2.49 2.68 1.2 2.06 2.82 1.96 1.68 1.96 1.95 1.34 2.92 1.84 1.17 2.28 2.11 2.21 2.09 2.35 2.98 1.9 170 .87 1.22 2.88 1.09 2.64 1.42 2.14 2.13 2.95 1.45 2.79 1.35 2.83 1.74 1.38 2.41 2.14 2.51 1.91 1.93 1.82 1.37 2.73 1.58 1.05 2.79 1.08 2.94 1.87 1.89 Sensor Number 42 96 74 31 24 59 55 11 120 77 122 60 51 46 49 5 110 112 99 83 116 118 62 16 30 21 6 84 79 50 8 94 71 54 22 43 63 3 105 48 101 Heat Flux 1.94 1.97 1.27 2.18 2.78 1.72 1.

Appendix 4. only two parameters are used to determine the distribution: the mean (µ) and the standard deviation (σ) as shown in following normal density equation. Y = 1 − i σ 2π e (X i − µ )2 2σ 2 Where Yi is normal density. 171 . Normal Distribution For a normal distribution. σ is standard deviation and µ is sample mean.

3148 0.6893 0.0476 25. Garment Fabric Compression Test Nomex®ШA Coverall Compression Test Garment ( 6.135 Thick (mm) 1.00 Gap Dial SActual Gap Distance: 1.1558 0.7474 0.5786 0.6708 0.5883 0.4247 0.5797 0.6901 56.2505 0.3748 0.75 WC (Work) WC' Compr.728 55.1667 0.0036 RC %Resil 28.5804 0.348 0.0 Stroke Sensitivity Switch (MM) = 5 Sensitivity: 2 X 5 Fabric Width: 10 CM.5754 0.4076 0.0036 N 1 2 3 Avg +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EMC% 65.75 WC (Work) Compr.4653 0.3509 0.5592 172 .3654 LC Lnrty 0.3357 1.1001 Thick (mm) 1.0752 1. Recov 0.1526 0.0oz/yd2 ) Fabric Compression Report Pure Compression Test Request#: Garment N Size 42 Company Name: Mr Song Date Tested: 03/19/02 Technician: Jon Porter SAMPLE: GN 42 SPEED (mm/sec): 1.0 Stroke Sensitivity Switch (MM) = 5 Sensitivity: 2 X 5 Fabric Width: 10 CM.0073 RC %Resil 28.0 Compressive force (g/cm^2): 50.8847 26.1659 0.0391 1.6099 0.3251 1. Fabric Weight (g/cm^2): 2.00 Gap Dial SActual Gap Distance: 1.4608 0.161 0.9927 Kevlar/PBI® Coverall Compression Test Garment (4.5895 0.0013 N 1 2 3 Avg +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EMC% 55.4112 4.1103 1.5785 0.0107 0.Appendix 5.952 28.1659 0.8793 0.5oz/yd2) Kevlar/PBI Compression Report Pure Compression Test Request#: G 42 Company Name: Mr Song Date Tested: 03/19/02 Technician: Jon Porter SAMPLE: G 42 SPEED (mm/sec): 1.3293 3.9305 1.5295 0.5715 0.4606 0.0 Compressive force (g/cm^2): 50. 0.7357 0.6754 59.0078 WC' Recov 0.0522 Delta-T T 0.1322 Tm (mm) 0.0626 Delta-T T 0.4564 0.1698 0.8302 56.2615 0.3985 53.5759 0.8657 28.8208 0.8992 47.6446 28.1489 0.1295 LC Lnrty 0.0992 Tm (mm) 0. Fabric Weight (g/cm^2): 2.15 0.3131 0.5622 0.5748 0.5778 0.3161 1.5808 0.8592 26.

With the raw scan data acquired. The PMP method involves shifting the grating preset distances in the direction of the varying phase and capturing images at each position. The system design uses four surface sensors. [TC]² chose the white light phase measurement profilometry (PMP) approach. the phase at each pixel can be determined. The scanner captures hundreds of thousands of data points of an individual's image. A total of four images are taken from each sensor. controlling the acquisition sequence. The structured light and PMP application is well suited for body measurement because of the short acquisition time. OpenGL was utilized to create the graphics display tools. This measurement information can be electronically compared to garment specifications and other data in order to recommend the size an individual should purchase or used as a basis for made to measure clothing. and displaying graphical output. processing acquired images and calculating resulting data points. The sensors are stationary. acquiring and storing image buffers. accuracy and relatively low cost. Using the four images of the scene. 3D Body Scanning Technology 3D Body Measurement System technology [118] developed by [TC]² includes a white light-based scanner and proprietary measurement extraction software. so each must capture an area segment of the surface. a wealth of 3D geometric information is available which can be used to predict best fit ready-to-wear clothing sizes or to make clothing for the scanned individual with a level of fit that would be difficult to achieve with a manual 173 . The area segments from the sensors are combined to form an integrated surface which covers the critical areas of the body that are needed for making apparel. The phase is then used to calculate the three-dimensional data points. and the software automatically extracts dozens of measurements. each with the same amount of phase shift of the projected sinusoidal pattern. The software program was developed in the Microsoft Developer Studio Visual C++ under the Windows NT platform.Appendix 6. The software performs the following functions: graphical user interface.

Filling. which closes any small gaps in the scan data. on the order of 100:1.Compression. to achieve a very "light" yet fully defining data set 174 . which removes low level noise in the scan data. Figure 2.Data Filtering. torso) 3. a data extraction step is necessary to get the key measurements.Smoothing. 4. The automation is desirable because the time required for a computer operator to extract the information using an interactive data analysis tool can be as great as or greater than the manual process using measurement tapes.measurement process. This process is a fully automated computer process. legs. Actual Scan – Raw Data The raw scan data is further processed into a proprietary format that has several advantages over the raw form of the scan data. This proprietary format (graphically shown below in Figure 3) results from a sequence of processes including: 1. 2.Segmentation of the body into individual limbs (arms. However. which removes any stray points. The automated process developed by [TC]² is beginning with the raw scan data (Figure 2). 5.

Figure 3. that is. and accurate as compared to algorithms which operate on the data in its raw form. Processed Scan Data The primary advantage of using this "processed" scan data is that it allows for the creation of measurement extraction algorithms which are relatively more robust. repeatable. to occur without operator intervention. 175 . This in turn allows for the measurement extraction process to be automated.

38 8.14 16.90 1.9 20.53 21.93 14.49 7.22 0.55 11.25 1.61 11.9 9.97 0.77 0.24 8.27 4.02 14.27 6.7 12.39 3.54 3.72 15.74 2.02 9.57 2.76 2.12 34.04 25.56 11.19 0.66 9.24 1.52 2.81 1.28 3.17 3.13 4.29 3.49 44.53 0.79 21.71 36.51 5 27.79 PBI 44 1.86 5.81 11.06 12.63 12.05 5.85 1.51 14.82 2.79 0.85 12.36 22.16 2.62 22.07 21.77 1.05 10.52 8.26 4.98 18.45 12.56 8.5 1.2 23.31 1.13 10.08 7.83 6.13 6.59 1.02 6.6 22.42 9.84 0.42 23.37 8.67 4.96 9.36 10.11 1.84 47.97 3.89 27.64 47.69 9.04 15.7 59.00 0.55 16.46 0.34 1.3 25. 3D Body Scanning Measurements Data (air gaps in mm) Points Measurements Sen# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Nomex 3.55 17.08 4.Appendix 7.03 13.08 7.27 1.73 0.01 3.59 0.3 16.89 53.46 6.52 27.07 31.56 open 0pen 3.15 13.13 15.66 Nomex B 0.52 10.9 4.07 16.33 3.27 2.86 23.44 1.49 10.9 27.42 6.42 10.96 PBI 42 0.27 25.31 7.76 3.45 2.77 1.11 1.63 15.3 1.69 176 .52 35.26 11.77 5.92 5.70 10.94 22.86 PBI 40 3.97 14.51 2.75 35.91 0.83 0.00 14.63 8.68 5.15 10.05 3.86 0.69 3.31 3.27 1.91 5.5 1.15 6.43 15.93 7.19 3.56 1.93 8.10 0.95 1.93 1.16 0.31 5.34 15.34 29.47 5 2.72 10.95 23.78 1.63 22.23 5.13 1.91 9.99 3.64 14.9 10.3 31.88 3.9 3.51 1.24 63.78 6.48 10.25 5.72 3.02 20.45 30.96 6.88 24.21 13.47 0.66 5.

68 28.75 12.56 1.45 17.84 1.41 9.97 1.38 7.49 6.41 12.38 4.87 13 12.66 62.96 1.71 1.38 4.12 27.83 0.73 17.16 0.26 2.35 1.12 2.09 16.12 15.63 4.32 11.55 19.86 2.18 17.47 7.13 2.45 3.11 5.37 15.71 13.39 10.89 27.35 18.72 2.37 1.5 23.56 14.02 8.18 13.93 PBI 40 1.47 0.99 4.93 2.11 5.23 4.53 0.96 3.42 1.21 4.13 45.28 14 15.09 54.04 45.86 3.45 9.86 8.31 10.63 5.89 11.35 15.59 3.77 12.7 3.55 24.59 3.12 7.74 4.36 1.84 47.74 6.72 20.2 9.98 0.69 1.82 4.77 10.86 4.89 9.9 8.88 33.99 1.19 2.33 12.9 32.74 3.14 17.22 20.92 17.24 7.86 PBI 44 19.67 23.18 0.74 2.39 7.23 17.15 2.5 6.25 27.73 11.26 2.88 5.94 16.16 13.59 0.64 1.25 0.32 7.36 177 .68 18.51 20.17 3.42 24.06 8.6 25.68 1.83 18.07 1.66 10.53 12.53 6.77 3.09 2.68 14.55 17.77 0.58 21.51 4.15 10.2 25.55 3.41 2.01 30 40.43 9.69 21.06 5.29 21.59 19.08 1.57 2.91 6.15 25.57 2.99 3.07 5.28 16.27 0.63 open open 9.49 25.34 4.86 4.17 57.20 20.59 4.98 11.58 4.32 5.47 30.42 17.Sen# 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Nomex 26.26 12.11 7.5 2.4 1.9 3.15 6.14 6.72 15.7 0.3 9.8 20.2 8.55 7.72 0.45 4.45 3.25 18.09 12.35 5.58 28.71 4.66 12.46 26.38 28.72 15.58 7.09 21.17 2.42 15.66 7.2 24.72 10.78 2.52 3.41 39.36 2.93 2.10 7.36 30.85 6.05 11.53 16.85 29.13 8.35 2.17 3.38 12.72 5.4 1.56 6.15 8.78 8.84 5.29 14.71 PBI 42 42.01 9.49 8.68 11.05 Nomex B 1.32 21.12 22.

25 6.16 8.2 9.72 2.1 12.68 29.57 10.35 8.7 1.34 42.79 2.47 PBI 40 1 7.54 8.42 0.5 5.51 2.63 23.07 7.91 4.16 12.19 5.83 0.2 1.72 20.16 2.68 6.58 11.62 4.72 10.56 11.99 1.9 10.12 7.42 3.37 3.1 4.6 25.83 6.33 8.23 3.10 48.80 16.74 9.37 1.97 21.08 29.83 0.92 14.67 10.48 12.05 31.29 1.08 1.41 49.99 32.78 5.78 33.30 5.64 1.28 7.52 6.94 5.47 8.63 3.52 14.00 cal/cm2sec.65 2.70 Nomex B 0.62 26.14 1.Sen# 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 105 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Nomex 3.16 9.11 2.56 13.34 7.71 1.04 55.53 8.18 6.15 7. this garment has been experienced in a 4 second exposure with average heat flux of 2.51 27.16 5.45 3.84 10.64 2.68 2.77 16.19 3.62 6.81 0.9 9.00 1.90 16.88 57.11 2.74 63.61 61. 178 .57 0.88 0.81 5.08 28.89 8.62 0.69 5.90 14.90 2.38 1.82 14.15 0.92 2.68 16 PBI 44 9.97 14.68 58.40 3.09 7.71 2.87 4.65 1.31 Note: Nomex B.45 11.96 6.1 23.84 14.86 2.43 8.3 10.51 7.14 0.41 15.23 33 42.87 3.5 PBI 42 4.77 2.47 27.25 1.86 7.50 3.34 4.

APPENDIX 8.

Garment Ease Measurements

Garment Ease Measurements are performed to each type of coveralls before and after exposures both on table and on manikin dressed in garment. Two garments of each type are to be measured flat on a table before and after exposure. The garment is smoothed flat and the edge to edge measurements taken (NOT SEAM TO SEAM). The procedures of Ease determined while mannequin dressed in garment: Manikin dressed in underwear and garment (or without underwear if applicable), excess fabric at specific points on garment measured with a metal ruler - two layers of fabric measured at once (each measurement needs to be multiplied by 2 to get total ease). Measurements are taken at 2 sides when 2 seams to the garment component (eg. torso). In this case, equal amounts of fabric held at each side at same time. Measurements are taken on one side when one seam to garment component (eg. arms/legs). Fabric distance are from mannequin body to seam measured. Ease calculated as total amount of extra fabric in the garment circumference at the area measured For example, torso measurement on one side = 2 inches, on the other side = 2 inches 4 inches of extra garment at this point, however, two layers of fabric at each measurement: total ease = (2 inches + 2 inches) x 2 layers of fabric = 8 inches ease An example of arm measurement, 2 inches of 2 layers of fabric at one point of measurement = 4 inches ease.

179

Ease Measurements of Kevlar/PBI® Coverall (4sec exposure)
Garment Identification: A024 Garment Description manufacturer Bulwark type one-piece coverall colour tan Type fibre/polymer 4sec, without UN 60/40 Kevlar/PBI Identifying numbers cut#1771LOT#xce2nxc Garment size reported 42 Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test flat "ease" flat "ease" garment location (3+3.5)x2= (3+3.5)x2= Chest - width at underarm 25 13.0 25 13.0 circumference (width x2) 50 n/a 50 n/a 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= Waist - width (elastic relaxed) circumference (width x2) 38 6.0 38 6.0 Hips - width front halfway between crotch and (2+2.3)x2= (2+2)x2= bottom of waistband 21.5 8.6 22 8 circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 44 n/a Arm width - R arm halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 2.5x2= bottom of sleeve 7.8 5.0 8 5.0 circumference (width x2) 15.6 n/a 16 n/a Sleeve Length - R arm inside - underarm to bottom 18.5 n/a 18 n/a outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23.5 23 Leg width - R leg btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem one third (in line with crotch) 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 13 3.5x2=7 two thirds down (74 cm) 11 3.5x2=7 11 3.5x2=7 bottom 10.3 na 10 na Total Garment Length from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a at back 62 61.5 Torso length from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a at center back 19 19 Pant length - R leg bottom of waistband to bottom of hem side seam 40 n/a 40 n/a centre front of pant leg 40 n/a 41 n/a Back rise base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a centre back 34.3 35 Waistband width centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a * ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)

180

Ease Measurements of Kevlar/PBI® Coverall (3sec exposure)
Garment Identification: A024 Garment Description manufacturer Bulwark type one-piece coverall colour tan design features Type fibre/polymer 60/40 Kevlar/PBI 3sec, without UN Identifying numbers cut#1771LOT#xce2nxc Garment size reported 42 Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test garment location flat "ease" flat "ease" Chest - width (3+3.5)x2= (3.5+3.5)x2= at underarm 25 13.0 25 14.0 circumference (width x2) 50 n/a 50 n/a 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= Waist - width (elastic relaxed) circumference (width x2) 38 6.0 38 6.0 Hips - width front halfway between crotch and (2+2.3)x2= (2+2)x2= bottom of waistband 21.5 8.6 22 8 circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 44 n/a Arm width - R arm halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 2.5x2= bottom of sleeve 7.8 5.0 7.8 5.0 circumference (width x2) 15.6 n/a 15.6 n/a Sleeve Length - R arm inside - underarm to bottom 18.5 n/a 19 n/a outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23.5 23 Leg width - R leg btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem one third (in line with crotch) 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 two thirds down (74 cm) 11 3.5x2=7 10.5 3.5x2=7 bottom 10.3 na 10 na Total Garment Length from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a at back 62 61 Torso length from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a at center back 19 19 Pant length - R leg bottom of waistband to bottom of hem side seam 40 n/a 40 n/a centre front of pant leg 40 n/a 41 n/a Back rise base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a centre back 34.3 35 Waistband width centre back 1.5 n/a 1.58 n/a * ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)

181

Ease Measurements of Kevlar/PBI® Coverall (5sec exposure)
Garment Identification: A024 Garment Description manufacturer Bulwark type one-piece coverall colour tan design features Type fibre/polymer 60/40 Kevlar/PBI 5sec, with UN Identifying numbers cut#1771LOT#xce2nxc Garment size reported 42 Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test garment location flat "ease" flat "ease" Chest - width (3+3.5)x2= (3+3)x2 = at underarm 25 13.0 25 12 circumference (width x2) 50 n/a 50 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= 19 (1.5+1.5)x2= Waist - width (elastic relaxed) circumference (width x2) 38 6.0 38 6 Hips - width front halfway between crotch and (2+2.3)x2= (2+2)x2= bottom of waistband 21.5 8.6 22 8 circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 44 Arm width - R arm halfway between shoulder and 2.5x2= 2x2= bottom of sleeve 7.8 5.0 7.5 4 circumference (width x2) 15.6 n/a 15 Sleeve Length - R arm inside - underarm to bottom 18.5 n/a 18 n/a outside - sleeve cap to bottom 23.5 23 Leg width - R leg btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem one third (in line with crotch) 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 12.5 3.3x2=6.6 two thirds down (74 cm) 11 3.5x2=7 11 3.5x2=7 bottom 10.3 na 10 na Total Garment Length from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a at back 62 61 Torso length from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a at center back 19 18.5 Pant length - R leg bottom of waistband to bottom of hem side seam 40 n/a 41 n/a centre front of pant leg 40 n/a 40.5 n/a Back rise base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a centre back 34.3 35.5 Waistband width centre back 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a * ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements)

182

6 10 two thirds down (74 cm) 11 4.Ease Measurements of Nomex®ШA Coverall (4sec exposure) Garment Identification: A024 Garment Description manufacturer Bulwark type one-piece coverall colour tan design features "Deluxe" style Type fibre/polymer 4sec.5x2= bottom of sleeve 8 5.0 n/a 13 fit Sleeve Length .5 Waistband width centre back 1.8x2=5.R arm inside .0 6.5 circumference (width x2) 16.5 n/a 32 n/a centre front of pant leg 40.underarm to bottom 18 n/a 14 outside .sleeve cap to bottom 23 20 fit Leg width .0 21 fit circumference (width x2) 48 n/a 42 18.R leg bottom of waistband to bottom of hem side seam 40.5)x2= 18 Waist .5 n/a * ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements) 183 .R arm halfway between shoulder and 2. without UN Nomex Identifying numbers cut#176LOT#xce2nxc Garment size reported 42 Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test flat "ease" flat "ease" garment location (3+3)x2= Chest .width (elastic relaxed) circumference (width x2) 36.3 (1.5 8 20 circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 40 fit Arm width .3x2=8.6 9 bottom 10 na 8 fit Total Garment Length from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a at back 60 53 Torso length from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a at center back 18 17 Pant length .6 6.5 n/a 1.5 31.5+1.5 n/a 34 n/a Back rise base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a centre back 35.R leg btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem one third (in line with crotch) 13 2.width front halfway between crotch and (2+2)x2= fit bottom of waistband 21.0 36 fit Hips .width at underarm 24 12.

R arm halfway between shoulder and 2.5)x2= 18.Ease Measurements of Nomex®ШA Coverall (3sec exposure) Garment Identification: A024 Garment Description manufacturer Bulwark type one-piece coverall colour tan design features "Deluxe" style Type fibre/polymer Nomex 3sec.5x2=3 two thirds down (74 cm) 11 4.5 n/a 1.25+1.0 circumference (width x2) 48 n/a 47 n/a 18.6x2= bottom of sleeve 8 5. without UN Identifying numbers cut#176LOT#xce2nxc Garment size reported 42 Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test garment location flat "ease" flat "ease" Chest .6 11 1.5 n/a 38 n/a Back rise base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a centre back 35.5+1.6 6.6 10 2x2=4 bottom 10 na 10 na Total Garment Length from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a at back 60 57 Torso length from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a at center back 18 17 Pant length .5x2= 0.2 circumference (width x2) 16.5 32 Waistband width centre back 1.underarm to bottom 18 n/a 16 n/a outside .R leg btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem one third (in line with crotch) 13 2.5 1.sleeve cap to bottom 23 21 Leg width .0 23.0 6.8x2=5.25)x2= bottom of waistband 21.R arm inside .width (elastic relaxed) circumference (width x2) 36.5 (1.5 n/a 36 n/a centre front of pant leg 40.width (3+3)x2= (2+2)x2= at underarm 24 12.0 n/a 13 n/a Sleeve Length .width front halfway between crotch and (2+2)x2= (1.0 37 5.5 8.R leg bottom of waistband to bottom of hem side seam 40.3x2=8.5 n/a * ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements) 184 .3 (1.5 8 20 6 circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 40 n/a Arm width .0 Hips .5+1)x2= Waist .

0 n/a 13 fit Sleeve Length .5 8 20 circumference (width x2) 42 n/a 40 fit Arm width .R leg bottom of waistband to bottom of hem side seam 40.0 36 fit Hips .sleeve cap to bottom 23 20.underarm to bottom 18 n/a 14.5)x2= 18 Waist .5 fit Leg width .0 21 circumference (width x2) 48 n/a 42 fit 18.5 fit Total Garment Length from BASE of collar to bottom of legs n/a n/a at back 60 50 Torso length from BASE of collar to waistband top n/a n/a at center back 18 17 Pant length .6 11 two thirds down (74 cm) 11 4.width (elastic relaxed) circumference (width x2) 36.5 n/a 32 n/a centre front of pant leg 40.width front halfway between crotch and (2+2)x2= bottom of waistband 21.6 6.5 n/a 31.5 n/a 1.5 bottom 10 na 8.5x2= bottom of sleeve 8 5.5 circumference (width x2) 16.8x2=5.3x2=8.5 31.5 outside .0 6.75 n/a Back rise base of neck/collar to crotch seam n/a n/a centre back 35.R arm inside .6 9. with UN Identifying numbers cut#176LOT#xce2nxc Garment size reported 42 Measurements (cm): Before Test After Test garment location flat "ease" flat "ease" Chest .Ease Measurements of Nomex®ШA Coverall (5sec exposure) Garment Identification: A024 Garment Description manufacturer Bulwark type one-piece coverall colour tan design features "Deluxe" style Type fibre/polymer Nomex 5sec.3 (1.5 Waistband width centre back 1.width (3+3)x2= at underarm 24 12.5 n/a * ease measurement is not taken for these areas (all length and circumference measurements) 185 .R arm halfway between shoulder and 2.R leg btwn bottom of waistband and pant hem one third (in line with crotch) 13 2.5+1.

Appendix 9 manikin test burn location with underwear Manikin Test Nomex®ШA Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 4 sec Exposure 186 .

Model Prediction Nomex®ШA Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 4 sec Exposure 187 .

Manikin Test Nomex®ШA Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 5 sec Exposure 188 .

Model Prediction Nomex®ШA Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 5 sec Exposure

189

Manikin Test Kevlar/PBI® Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 4 sec Exposure

190

Model Prediction Kevlar/PBI® Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 4 sec Exposure

191

Manikin Test Kevlar/PBI® Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 5 sec Exposure

192

Model Prediction Kevlar/PBI® Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 5 sec Exposure 193 .

Manikin Test Nomex®ШA Coverall 2nd and 3rd Burn Location with Underwear for 5 sec Exposure 194 .

82 1139.14 1005.41 1148.14 5.87 124.10 1180.92 5.56 1078.42 1186.35 4.19 1086.09 4.73 7.02 5.51 5.03 4.38 188.79 957.89 6.84 4.74 112.62 5.86 7.68 1171.50 177.16 6.20 41.98 5.76 1154.66 133.02 1137.26 1141.65 1146.83 179.75 1142.45 5.25 1124.72 926.08 184.90 212.68 121.86 101.99 1163.36 6.58 107.63 7.16 1161.57 111.22 7.74 6.58 1115.30 6.93 1152.70 186.05 212.87 158.83 4.96 1161.52 142.20 144.80 206.03 174.72 123.42 4.16 961.00 7.56 6.64 280.34 5.09 7.15 4.84 1142.83 1173.89 33.10 6.86 1174.76 4.79 974.33 6.49 165.80 202.63 180.03 123.35 230.40 5.70 211.35 201.55 209.59 955.45 224.34 224.29 195.75 5.25 5.12 175.02 6.76 309.04 1140.74 1156.11 113.24 502.94 Tsen 127.14 981.69 129.91 5.63 4.90 217.69 5.45 7.20 5.20 1157.38 4.25 212.96 5.32 5.20 214.57 51.09 182.37 46.49 5.77 122.88 1133.15 1086.41 4.81 174.64 211.79 7.12 6.58 6.93 198.80 1102.35 200.37 201.82 111.88 7.73 6.88 1122.15 1182.26 1136.84 690.34 120.59 7.00 6.26 4.11 4.85 1170.20 1163.08 5.39 225.37 6.86 132.44 59.59 1120.50 6.84 1136.38 143.23 146.06 1136.52 1139.68 1147.30 7.35 7.40 6.79 219.08 4.13 4.31 206.65 6.47 5.17 201.Appendix 10 Sensor Flame Temp Sensor: 71 Flame Temperature and Sensor Temperature in 4 second exposure Time 3.54 5.52 183.44 178.68 121.76 1180.89 5.15 5.70 1170.20 222.58 5.91 7.06 185.20 4.74 1134.07 167.19 7.41 225.60 1122.06 7.17 152.71 1129.10 5.62 216.05 138.18 1082.51 76.03 7.98 6.04 186.15 1079.78 225.21 6.89 7.26 5.52 4.37 191.99 6.90 220.37 5.77 1115.25 172.99 1153.86 181.01 7.04 5.48 103.06 156.72 6.32 223.91 4.83 6.28 4.48 7.01 68.25 6.95 4.52 6.57 5.21 1164.15 183.52 1137.50 148.37 216.87 1165.12 1171.65 1146.78 1150.71 1154.55 220.44 1091.10 209.27 1172.80 5.77 34.64 1097.42 1137.52 7.65 225.59 5.60 1143.45 1129.20 6.08 6.29 6.50 168.29 202.78 7.20 7.99 1136.77 1073.32 159.43 160.02 40.21 4.67 1158.86 1124.78 121.76 1126.06 4.09 1137.26 1163.62 4.97 601.00 5.54 1177.64 6.62 1132.04 1171.44 190.25 217.17 6.87 1160.73 5.72 196.93 6.99 1117.42 1153.29 1141.03 5.49 1086.22 6.14 1138.78 225.16 4.97 1173.23 5.90 121.75 198.78 1149.84 6.26 7.46 213.80 7.38 187.53 6.04 6.04 7.66 5.99 122.71 1173.66 126.04 113.54 4.54 1156.28 5.54 7.31 1192.57 1132.05 5.14 7.45 184.70 7.40 1144.29 7.56 4.66 1129.17 122.71 1172.70 36.75 222.62 993.71 1149.47 180.24 6.87 1045.22 136.39 190.02 1120.73 189.77 982.41 7.98 1156.07 1096.80 4.57 146.35 1078.89 139.45 4.68 5.18 1153.11 789.39 210.89 128.13 121.83 1062.50 1141.09 201.84 7.71 7.56 176.78 215.48 201.71 224.61 1172.81 4.87 116.20 215.88 5.23 1115.32 1096.20 998.57 1159.33 4.73 116.83 7.40 198.38 192.08 160.85 6.92 4.96 1160.78 216.32 149.99 78.95 3.53 1053.15 123.56 7.95 212.64 1155.37 7.39 5.29 1140.40 1130.32 164.14 4.49 1125.70 172.73 1151.41 1150.91 1157.05 1145.25 72.04 131.32 1036.64 1147.32 6.23 4.51 4.91 211.61 1128.73 1144.94 Tsen 31.79 6.86 192.57 4.62 221.11 1135.42 79.94 1086.13 137.58 153.28 1156.27 1152.12 4.60 1138.55 5.97 218.88 1148.71 150.06 5.31 176.37 1079.26 174.47 216.61 160.85 1116.82 4.33 1156.72 37.32 7.67 5.89 1159.03 1152.34 6.24 218.66 222.07 4.30 204.13 7.01 177.82 195.96 4.53 Time 4.65 4.44 1129.86 166.43 4.76 220.88 1129.52 5.80 1103.51 7.29 5.32 1010.15 222.48 217.67 1085.04 1167.19 4.87 4.21 118.69 7.86 1158.68 1110.74 5.66 1128.17 5.97 3.28 119.58 157.59 225.36 194.73 185.90 7.33 5.01 1111.56 158.61 6.94 Tsen 209.31 82.72 44.99 1115.92 224.47 7.49 7.40 4.46 5.94 1140.89 193.48 6.10 75.61 4.36 135.36 7.18 4.05 198.49 1152.75 84.18 224.05 211.29 205.97 1191.66 7.39 7.27 7.71 90.22 208.71 5.92 742.40 222.79 197.91 211.72 211.81 1158.96 221.14 6.67 6.27 4.15 1125.55 6.73 1121.41 1169.34 4.46 1151.60 123.02 1123.18 1158.28 1098.50 218.11 198.97 5.53 4.16 1190.13 221.82 162.80 1088.55 225.74 207.20 1155.79 173.21 1193.09 1120.65 5.47 196.98 201.49 1127.71 225.50 1183.04 180.47 1082.16 7.64 74.63 1143.52 54.14 124.70 197.49 4.13 98.77 209.15 7.19 1146.73 1122.64 955.35 1049.99 5.36 1150.44 1149.60 4.72 182.86 191.91 159.97 169.58 4.06 123.47 4.53 215.64 197.84 211.00 1125.37 1129.83 123.19 207.38 6.65 1107.06 1163.86 993.34 125.08 7.70 5.40 123.72 5.13 102.65 7.91 211.11 213.29 1096.48 4.71 165.52 1127.25 166.68 121.64 1149.02 144.77 140.61 7.82 5.42 662.55 1161.04 1140.68 1146.16 5.60 7.59 6.92 6.53 1143.70 163.50 1169.85 5.21 201.97 6.95 164.75 1092.31 811.09 1134.06 850.55 67.95 5.87 6.86 4.64 7.57 225.91 224.11 1182.37 1179.44 6.50 1139.53 5.39 32.05 212.68 211.50 5.62 7.93 5.93 1120.34 1150.82 1160.68 1125.85 39.43 1091.72 141.88 1129.48 1132.23 7.71 6.04 1082.21 151.02 7.84 254.30 219.05 7.31 5.55 7.83 183.93 1121.22 106.07 5.05 4.29 1091.56 163.43 7.01 168.89 194.07 7.70 963.03 6.58 211.53 219.88 81.32 4.07 221.22 1148.70 1122.56 212.69 1140.00 1142.79 469.01 157.28 7.18 1159.48 1130.85 4.90 1173.18 1159.72 7.68 93.17 1129.37 131.22 91.15 6.11 1152.06 52.99 223.66 1158.75 6.41 95.24 5.58 211.03 1150.92 7.09 212.45 1161.70 217.74 1130.95 1121.66 4.07 1144.42 5.51 6.19 6.28 1127.47 1160.20 Tflame 1002.20 158.85 1166.11 370.50 1181.20 153.07 160.81 7.88 200.45 175.56 5.81 213.74 4.69 4.62 1136.77 210.40 1154.29 4.37 967.11 171.19 118.91 6.81 6.20 339.93 4.22 4.74 225.67 148.70 1117.42 1108.59 198.45 189.49 170.90 1028.64 5.36 4.05 1177.88 6.73 1140.32 954.41 1148.57 1165.09 1121.98 199.97 4.06 219.31 6.24 85.40 1129.48 5.92 907.22 1146.01 6.86 963.68 152.47 42.93 1124.32 1126.63 6.25 7.76 211.63 223.33 181.27 5.40 203.76 1156.25 4.55 1160.50 1020.48 99.15 1146.69 6.36 193.05 6.87 105.37 1132.84 71.33 197.88 1172.17 7.71 4.35 6.29 225.08 195 .19 5.49 1161.74 87.69 1130.27 6.38 1158.42 7.12 1113.93 147.82 97.02 1132.52 1128.22 1175.87 208.25 62.39 1170.50 1135.26 6.11 7.22 225.65 199.29 1167.63 1172.91 124.89 4.37 Tflame 1153.71 1144.12 7.24 4.23 201.34 7.84 205.01 148.19 1146.04 223.02 1130.37 1154.10 150.11 5.85 197.64 Time 6.24 1118.72 1103.22 1150.16 124.42 1157.70 167.32 1125.24 1054.88 4.99 1019.02 55.01 1119.82 6.82 7.30 4.27 1109.63 5.27 177.35 138.02 211.03 202.41 5.78 177.90 5.80 6.84 197.42 6.13 Tflame 110.64 1128.83 219.31 220.47 6.96 125.54 1127.58 7.68 7.35 5.40 122.79 113.68 1171.75 4.60 5.46 6.29 162.83 1150.15 163.48 148.07 6.48 1115.76 7.55 4.14 220.36 1160.31 1167.46 7.26 1070.60 202.43 Tflame 1116.21 88.41 6.22 5.95 203.78 48.89 1157.23 6.73 1142.34 154.65 1187.08 1135.50 4.38 122.18 6.86 5.40 7.95 870.99 7.57 200.99 1101.92 161.44 1036.06 6.32 1130.67 1135.00 1170.12 1154.69 35.75 7.18 5.28 1114.69 536.38 5.78 176.61 5.30 5.47 156.81 178.57 1181.87 7.43 5.74 1155.02 176.46 4.62 6.61 223.85 204.72 211.86 61.17 1126.32 1129.33 221.54 168.79 5.84 151.05 217.82 112.81 5.74 1181.78 225.56 633.77 5.29 1015.90 6.85 214.90 215.09 196.64 4.64 1163.09 5.57 1134.21 1164.38 7.16 122.01 5.61 1150.16 49.46 114.59 4.44 4.49 1144.10 4.02 1113.85 1172.50 1114.95 122.95 109.09 6.67 4.77 4.53 7.45 56.10 1128.29 121.17 4.77 7.73 976.11 32.03 1149.67 7.69 175.02 117.79 4.72 211.16 Time 5.24 7.50 134.31 716.05 188.40 199.46 1147.31 7.79 1088.95 6.54 1132.88 200.12 200.54 6.95 149.75 1114.77 6.84 1156.41 124.78 6.29 121.16 65.13 178.50 7.94 1162.93 7.22 199.93 958.43 1147.01 138.31 211.82 111.05 94.49 6.11 6.69 111.84 111.11 1114.74 200.99 4.64 201.96 1137.71 435.12 5.99 1194.66 6.94 Tsen 179.08 1125.28 198.12 402.70 4.74 7.39 4.45 6.81 145.04 45.68 6.60 6.31 4.17 201.48 182.76 5.73 1122.70 6.55 1093.90 4.83 5.41 185.59 171.01 568.93 984.39 944.44 157.16 224.72 64.72 4.28 6.13 121.54 207.35 161.98 3.68 4.86 6.74 1166.12 1154.44 7.94 1173.48 1146.52 123.44 1108.39 1117.73 154.04 225.48 208.84 5.90 190.18 7.77 114.85 7.47 130.37 186.42 69.02 4.52 1132.10 7.13 1155.00 4.96 3.10 165.36 5.71 1150.72 188.33 7.61 123.00 1125.57 7.98 4.48 197.25 131.17 216.67 1101.82 1142.73 4.34 173.01 4.78 5.21 5.87 5.78 4.21 1140.58 1151.37 4.92 155.53 214.12 888.85 1164.62 969.13 5.19 1124.09 197.07 766.69 1151.75 1168.87 1086.21 7.60 110.24 1147.13 1078.04 4.09 1146.08 210.80 1119.04 170.08 189.96 6.97 187.76 225.43 6.79 184.32 1066.04 831.66 186.76 211.43 127.14 1032.13 6.32 110.93 1152.57 6.44 5.76 6.39 6.95 58.27 1135.89 1168.46 1140.91 222.94 1092.98 216.41 1149.45 150.

54 5.55 4.95 3.54 116.54 3.00 1074.02 4.38 1106.42 113.41 1071.87 1067.02 46.23 111.88 5.92 1072.39 Tsen 84.18 1109.60 47.49 1045.16 103.23 3.72 1093.37 1082.53 3.91 2.13 47.36 127.63 53.02 3.73 2.89 1114.15 1081.46 4.96 1045.01 3.70 1091.31 1063.76 2.81 105.60 1091.75 39.14 4.17 57.16 88.67 44.62 5.47 49.88 1077.59 1076.31 120.35 80.20 3.43 4.17 1074.54 2.55 1088.74 1089.72 1090.14 6.65 109.51 129.46 2.51 1069.96 5.43 111.93 2.49 39.54 106.34 6.61 3.78 3.11 3.75 5.29 92.13 3.73 4.29 121.65 68.42 2.29 3.04 5.77 2.82 81.24 6.86 1058.86 1051.78 1049.08 3.01 1032.19 1066.47 Tflame 1094.36 57.51 3.26 3.22 73.48 2.39 1048.74 1032.15 76.17 62.74 5.17 1069.17 1070.29 116.61 4.56 118.53 1071.87 5.90 5.33 60.59 5.38 1071.55 105.82 55.60 Time 5.25 82.29 101.41 1071.21 1088.89 94.97 1064.78 2.64 996.17 112.49 1045.03 1034.40 1059.14 1088.25 5.42 1077.69 2.66 2.20 1052.26 1067.24 4.31 66.42 4.17 5.50 83.94 75.03 6.06 1063.56 58.89 1053.18 125.33 105.02 100.31 6.23 5.57 1108.58 3.28 3.13 5.69 5.08 116.73 73.34 68.09 41.49 55.48 62.95 109.02 1095.18 3.91 1058.38 3.29 1089.87 44.55 5.65 3.11 1032.21 6.41 4.58 1061.88 1072.41 1067.80 3.52 1085.58 36.83 128.31 1090.56 886.94 975.46 77.20 5.99 Time 4.34 1092.94 1086.39 912.84 2.17 1020.70 77.63 1043.27 72.12 115.38 53.79 1113.40 119.76 46.24 1064.02 55.44 3.31 5.16 58.04 3.06 95.64 4.07 1073.96 45.66 1075.01 43.19 1036.34 1070.74 56.68 5.81 4.28 98.47 1082.36 124.40 2.73 50.16 114.05 3.22 39.77 1068.39 1077.99 3.43 96.85 1068.79 3.13 97.25 86.49 130.18 109.92 100.86 130.86 1076.05 6.43 130.19 1041.85 1068.12 90.06 50.64 1110.35 3.80 121.42 1073.99 6.42 1035.37 3.67 108.70 112.22 84.72 111.30 1085.21 4.73 1072.58 103.64 117.35 1077.96 1108.59 54.48 4.23 40.14 69.80 1018.85 54.66 5.09 66.60 1067.04 105.89 3.93 97.62 1056.42 1055.94 70.00 1048.34 5.07 128.62 2.41 3.76 116.47 110.95 117.86 594.85 5.39 1096.67 74.43 75.82 1008.06 1092.19 1066.84 3.86 5.86 Tflame 381.95 5.16 5.15 1084.29 986.67 4.25 1023.55 2.33 1060.93 89.35 4.86 4.08 1086.15 48.73 78.85 3.28 4.99 1114.15 Tflame 1045.31 1019.87 1085.41 90.15 3.83 5.45 1082.53 1044.99 1114.91 48.29 1071.14 1068.60 4.59 1076.91 88.50 128.74 3.00 111.30 5.49 3.24 49.77 73.Sensor: 68 Flame Temperature and Sensor Temperature in 4 second exposure Time 2.96 2.52 86.29 6.79 1058.97 2.64 5.01 1034.70 2.01 4.26 64.92 5.65 2.28 5.71 83.04 1048.97 4.86 115.73 3.92 1040.57 2.21 5.40 1060.11 5.81 1079.88 2.61 35.61 80.96 3.93 3.82 1064.71 3.58 1094.20 6.61 2.10 60.57 3.09 1063.37 6.01 1113.05 5.29 1099.37 970.20 93.52 4.76 3.07 6.27 5.03 1053.44 4.82 1043.01 6.72 2.78 96.73 58.54 4.48 634.95 983.46 1076.42 1074.43 74.47 64.93 129.15 6.30 128.98 126.74 1056.64 1060.50 5.09 68.50 1027.04 1091.50 71.53 Time 3.87 3.45 4.52 2.53 1038.45 85.75 2.96 1051.60 122.77 5.22 466.85 1068.40 99.20 45.42 117.59 3.08 129.82 1112.43 1073.69 93.17 3.51 2.01 73.41 1066.51 1022.51 4.28 6.38 4.40 94.63 114.06 51.75 4.02 1070.91 99.68 90.27 4.04 6.89 5.30 946.37 1107.48 98.10 4.07 4.61 1056.87 4.58 66.05 92.34 97.07 1067.56 57.37 56.36 3.93 108.40 1111.48 3.81 3.36 6.13 91.77 4.02 71.30 3.31 1017.86 Tflame 1070.89 103.06 6.28 1104.68 1047.62 127.25 55.00 3.86 1077.74 106.37 1100.82 1089.27 705.72 1087.12 3.32 1074.28 1063.80 4.82 1044.75 3.38 102.50 3.21 1112.55 50.12 1070.63 2.16 1088.06 4.78 1027.07 3.27 1057.55 1087.85 53.37 5.15 38.15 1054.94 40.62 51.82 87.15 107.87 2.45 1085.61 5.16 74.81 1104.98 2.44 5.76 1079.43 76.34 4.02 5.60 67.35 1055.39 35.69 3.58 1062.09 3.89 59.32 4.30 6.85 4.16 6.23 106.50 1088.02 6.84 4.87 1068.36 103.25 6.43 1061.33 6.01 1080.74 1067.63 4.50 4.27 117.99 1039.77 3.84 1055.31 4.58 56.05 118.18 130.58 5.95 64.91 1038.98 1031.84 872.86 47.13 4.85 1070.71 1024.63 5.88 42.00 1074.86 1080.36 104.52 73.59 2.97 107.50 1111.88 80.40 5.37 4.23 77.79 1086.24 1051.64 2.60 2.69 98.37 1049.63 1074.99 1034.03 5.99 63.02 837.60 5.72 1088.48 1065.52 1053.97 3.41 89.68 65.81 2.49 5.27 1069.47 2.82 5.42 1055.51 1050.54 41.15 127.20 119.14 3.70 1090.44 42.62 1087.69 69.05 87.24 3.48 1039.98 1100.07 1098.27 3.52 101.59 1099.31 1064.38 5.97 93.33 5.82 3.33 4.96 1029.10 5.67 59.45 1033.91 1087.65 1068.42 48.69 88.21 126.52 3.90 127.36 4.34 1072.89 4.18 94.07 1052.40 114.93 4.10 54.54 46.18 113.92 2.85 1040.20 4.80 51.42 1055.80 37.44 2.15 5.51 1049.43 5.66 4.40 1089.30 4.54 121.70 4.20 110.06 3.64 3.18 1033.86 3.94 3.99 57.90 56.02 61.98 4.90 91.68 3.73 92.83 4.10 1034.32 129.90 112.89 118.17 6.84 1062.29 61.95 1076.81 95.15 56.86 66.47 5.34 1043.68 1092.91 38.77 1058.07 1068.68 2.19 1090.72 111.56 43.31 766.82 2.95 2.86 2.17 42.00 1073.88 4.94 110.48 793.58 1051.30 1084.63 3.53 60.96 1034.89 552.17 4.36 37.33 36.83 3.20 70.46 196 .42 108.60 1111.73 84.29 1071.94 2.14 44.70 85.91 114.00 1106.40 79.61 1073.33 81.00 4.58 2.16 53.26 1039.83 123.40 38.56 3.27 130.65 855.27 1073.24 1091.46 3.09 5.78 4.07 5.22 78.39 1071.86 120.45 1033.56 4.02 1101.35 5.32 67.52 92.38 6.95 1068.51 5.82 41.85 68.85 1068.53 1071.40 3.74 105.70 1065.11 1090.39 Tsen 35.35 51.42 5.27 46.66 1052.72 1061.08 1083.80 92.97 1065.45 45.72 76.29 1075.01 1113.56 2.54 1026.40 88.61 79.56 1099.45 3.92 3.11 1061.12 59.60 97.57 99.80 1042.73 1067.11 4.41 125.87 1067.09 1047.97 1063.31 95.04 1110.73 1067.41 5.07 122.16 124.50 1035.51 1066.32 5.84 5.74 61.51 1071.01 5.34 1072.08 5.83 1052.00 96.99 82.12 4.25 4.58 817.96 4.94 65.64 102.88 3.53 1065.18 5.72 55.18 4.76 5.45 100.06 130.43 3.67 1067.17 1036.83 2.82 122.62 3.56 81.59 104.12 1077.86 116.30 998.61 123.09 4.07 1043.31 41.08 104.95 77.15 1080.11 6.02 1063.97 1060.79 57.21 1083.40 4.89 1036.95 1095.30 59.16 99.60 3.80 2.52 1084.96 1056.66 130.71 4.59 4.62 1086.09 6.71 5.85 1020.94 90.04 1086.22 1008.10 3.14 1069.15 4.57 1085.80 36.60 87.27 71.04 1064.81 1104.47 3.45 2.78 1079.65 129.04 1042.99 1097.90 2.18 1082.15 1076.25 3.45 109.42 3.63 124.38 58.91 1078.46 78.40 1060.69 1082.97 58.04 1092.71 2.19 6.84 52.98 3.69 4.46 82.68 4.42 1055.05 37.95 1067.22 85.41 2.54 91.75 1076.57 4.23 1114.59 94.91 1022.12 6.72 3.41 69.45 5.86 130.86 1057.89 2.69 1109.97 49.32 3.26 5.87 1089.00 5.31 3.24 5.70 3.43 1071.92 4.67 3.43 44.32 6.79 1113.05 1047.66 100.12 5.52 5.93 1058.20 1104.42 112.73 1045.47 70.07 1046.23 102.91 4.91 5.22 6.97 74.27 100.95 79.58 4.53 2.67 48.46 5.28 63.93 113.56 5.29 1071.70 5.57 5.68 509.45 1033.95 4.33 1063.18 89.81 1079.04 121.05 123.13 6.18 1090.21 96.80 5.57 1034.11 67.99 98.97 5.65 113.16 79.90 4.70 1069.03 4.44 737.67 1036.36 87.29 91.56 72.94 1085.58 1018.47 1082.76 4.34 3.55 95.11 1055.58 1041.94 4.81 5.32 54.85 2.60 1098.99 83.74 1061.57 115.16 1088.22 1017.82 1091.06 120.72 130.50 1058.76 71.34 1073.96 1031.38 47.83 1044.99 4.84 1066.48 5.65 1037.96 900.89 1063.01 1031.53 1072.64 1055.55 3.66 52.95 1076.05 4.93 1078.49 4.77 128.40 107.37 1101.80 72.94 1087.99 5.73 5.88 101.97 1063.38 1089.47 423.40 1079.20 75.84 1063.17 1083.69 64.03 72.78 5.49 2.72 107.33 115.70 43.21 1036.36 123.04 4.97 102.09 1065.08 4.06 36.53 1064.34 52.08 6.29 5.85 104.50 2.67 2.97 39.49 1101.22 4.80 81.24 43.29 4.22 3.47 4.50 61.74 2.69 89.39 Tsen 108.66 125.93 1021.09 101.19 3.24 1066.64 126.06 5.19 935.71 38.65 4.66 3.72 1087.26 6.39 Tsen 60.30 1052.82 1061.94 5.94 76.95 62.95 119.36 1096.35 6.64 37.35 1085.79 4.31 122.73 82.91 124.31 1094.16 3.68 1046.89 69.61 1098.43 2.14 5.06 1046.19 5.06 1059.79 2.52 671.84 1083.20 83.72 4.65 1086.62 1114.74 4.98 106.98 86.23 924.77 1114.92 125.72 5.66 96.16 65.21 3.15 1069.77 97.90 3.13 52.69 1054.08 1057.10 80.66 958.28 118.50 63.82 67.43 126.18 6.58 1090.31 50.53 5.71 1031.42 1054.33 1057.67 1032.14 1018.22 5.57 40.36 5.44 93.23 4.59 119.52 1085.49 59.65 5.16 4.07 81.76 61.67 5.83 1073.77 62.03 3.10 6.11 1059.62 4.93 5.92 1062.39 65.24 1072.53 4.79 5.95 78.39 1076.68 75.99 1065.14 1066.38 1115.91 3.73 63.00 6.74 101.82 4.95 84.98 5.79 1064.27 6.19 4.23 6.92 85.05 1072.33 3.26 4.46 1100.55 120.75 118.

98 1042.02 30.71 1.78 298.38 2.89 1.17 3.07 30.94 1067.31 66.91 2.59 2.19 0.42 61.83 2.96 1.79 0.02 30.94 1085.02 83.08 1105.63 2.17 40.33 1.24 0.69 52.75 34.72 1115.94 1085.56 83.84 78.16 1118.84 77.55 3.99 1116.85 1121.32 1067.20 1033.82 0.76 885.15 934.37 1.94 40.67 68.38 0.09 1116.00 2.28 0.59 37.73 2.87 63.87 920.67 3.07 30.52 0.71 1124.18 0.06 78.45 1106.50 3.40 1036.27 82.21 927.61 3.58 1117.33 1111.14 37.48 0.26 1117.59 39.84 3.79 67.39 197 .49 78.98 70.41 75.55 538.27 2.96 148.13 1107.95 30.38 35.80 1091.14 30.77 1120.84 0.25 1036.31 1113.07 30.07 30.24 83.90 37.53 1146.92 2.98 1105.04 1111.76 907.26 0.95 43.01 1111.49 85.74 1.41 1116.68 880.42 1106.01 1.14 1.96 1113.83 1101.85 71.32 32.91 1.28 1.29 1.16 1114.77 2.97 1121.81 1107.37 37.29 833.06 1016.52 2.48 2.63 973.70 1144.97 67.12 56.24 65.45 41.02 1.29 1069.44 0.93 49.91 1108.18 50.12 1.94 47.09 1059.11 3.45 1090.29 40.94 0.25 0.15 1151.96 76.08 1.26 1113.33 0.31 1112.10 47.89 59.88 3.75 1113.63 1122.54 1.80 1116.70 3.85 84.96 0.48 1145.65 2.49 1154.54 38.27 85.03 3.68 49.80 1119.66 2.33 80.21 1.53 0.46 2.91 1038.03 35.72 847.36 1004.30 1105.23 728.49 1154.14 29.34 44.16 1092.97 66.03 33.01 0.96 2.76 3.39 3.33 870.83 3.74 3.28 3.89 3.06 3.07 29.31 2.20 32.05 1103.52 765.57 60.70 1.09 0.98 1109.82 1113.49 3.44 36.68 2.87 1148.17 2.50 0.09 64.47 74.37 1053.54 38.80 0.39 34.61 44.12 643.33 1111.36 1142.67 1115.10 3.23 2.84 57.39 1149.70 85.03 2.81 2.01 89.96 72.47 0.04 3.43 1112.81 1154.15 87.60 1112.26 81.43 1120.38 674.94 1085.05 2.42 30.11 2.82 1110.84 1085.44 1104.81 859.18 3.95 30.44 53.26 3.77 86.13 1086.95 3.71 46.81 3.22 58.49 1.33 1111.53 3.36 1.09 1.27 3.33 42.91 0.92 3.89 1107.05 87.96 1085.95 0.09 1097.64 275.75 0.07 30.07 30.27 84.03 1.10 84.56 0.06 46.07 30.31 1088.38 1.68 0.43 1114.99 1134.97 0.56 47.06 55.00 0.42 1.15 3.35 1110.32 3.29 0.50 1110.35 1107.22 69.82 Tflame 1116.27 252.04 2.06 1.79 68.57 3.07 30.Sensor: 02.40 1109.60 2.54 70.05 3.34 68.83 0.21 1116.13 1106.42 0.12 39.17 0.65 1116.63 1046.22 1097.30 77.16 57.37 1104.30 3.88 0.11 54. in the arm.02 31.47 64.87 53.38 557.68 1117.15 1.55 32.73 1118.19 3.43 0.91 45.13 2.97 1.73 1143.92 0.52 60.10 1081.02 0.31 388.53 50.68 3.54 3.58 2.51 1125.07 29.44 31.24 62.86 1110.14 1093.41 87.25 1082.07 0.12 1123.47 39.34 1118.28 1107.74 890.14 0.16 3.79 67.41 1.30 50.98 0.77 1044.61 0.45 86.59 1128.62 72.80 825.90 30.19 1117.51 0.67 59.69 1.18 1.33 3.45 1.14 57.23 1111.67 73.49 2.43 776.73 1100.19 30.89 1114.09 1107.06 2.23 85.90 2.31 30.60 1.24 3.73 33.48 1033.46 1094.64 1152.60 45.47 2.56 3.93 1150.44 1.36 64.94 1085.53 1115.40 58.66 1125.52 1152.97 34.46 52.43 433.41 77.18 89.94 1085.03 0.59 0.35 1.42 3.37 476.30 1033.74 2.44 2.11 1112.40 1038.71 576.15 71.86 36.71 70.58 1.57 2.15 81.80 62.98 83.47 1106.73 1096.32 2.24 48.53 62.12 60.42 965.41 1117.64 2.57 52.99 70.43 1086.69 74.62 81.35 3.59 1125.44 51.94 1086.84 2.67 0.54 1074.17 47.05 88.72 2.79 1136.94 1086.53 56.22 69.02 30.99 Tsen 40.46 1095.17 85.31 84.55 0.66 0.74 1108.15 74.80 1091.52 1035.17 1.75 51.50 230.62 0.43 89.80 1.87 1117.10 42.23 59.49 0.24 2.96 1112.07 30.90 1.15 715.43 1.62 1.95 807.04 0.05 1.90 3.54 2.94 81.63 1.59 1.98 3.99 1092.41 1148.42 84.95 30.53 2.89 2.86 1.76 1100.44 3.37 42.98 1102.90 0.96 1038.41 1097.98 71.75 50.32 1.52 46.63 55.19 1117.77 82.85 0.49 31.28 1113.16 73.13 1.46 66.92 1116.27 1150.51 72.91 64.47 1105.51 55.95 69.32 0.30 1154.95 1096.91 1087.72 0.69 88.66 53.64 3.87 3.29 3.91 1056.55 2.57 35.29 1091.93 2.12 3.25 79.80 1123.85 48.54 30.31 3.57 80.93 0.87 0.46 1.71 53.14 3.11 1.21 41.28 2.40 47.62 58.01 1086.19 30.33 1086.07 1098.41 1119.58 Tflame 1120.05 1133.64 1085.50 455.79 3.13 48.85 32.75 1147.85 51.02 1051.51 68.10 1100.76 498.75 89.13 75.48 1112.94 1085.37 1105.17 1123.99 Tsen 58.95 30.91 1111.69 33.52 628.45 0.30 1154.07 30.39 57.45 1106.10 51.45 3.49 70.34 3.46 366.74 1106.68 1151.73 35.04 49.49 1099.65 0.73 0.36 46.03 1086.20 1033.92 1.78 3.58 88.52 1111.43 76.82 1.61 1010.27 1.75 1113.72 1.19 30.05 0.50 30.34 1122.27 0.10 0.53 1.65 80.15 35.25 3.99 1111.85 2.85 1142.43 1091.13 65.43 3.53 56.69 3.24 981.21 70.27 54.60 78.83 43.86 3.60 3.86 787.73 1100.70 2.95 30.91 65.52 Tflame 29.23 56.91 3.63 1117.23 67.89 1113.77 996.12 39.14 30.54 1127.14 1124.84 1.98 2.90 1122.16 1.72 42.97 1094.61 1102.23 1085.94 1085.06 1039.73 3.70 39.42 61.36 2.48 82.85 3.63 32.34 1.42 30.71 3.47 1.31 30.84 82.61 1.04 1095.89 0.65 3.69 1024.64 1.65 1.70 0.57 1.68 37.30 60.95 2.11 1087.30 71.73 167.13 1086.13 0.71 0.22 0.07 30.64 0.73 1.40 1111.28 1061.62 83.70 1114.66 87.95 1.33 1114.40 0.79 33.57 65.97 36.11 1035.39 2.13 3.39 0.87 1.87 65.94 1117.14 2.22 80.38 1034.88 83.81 913.50 2.99 Tsen 30.73 31.97 3.82 78.33 1085.98 1125.94 1.39 1102.19 2.38 33.21 70.00 1003.31 48.29 46.89 1093.06 73.26 1.09 2.27 1098.09 62.23 0.38 3.44 1124.15 2.94 1086.19 Time 2.22 3.29 1125.63 1042.91 1086.17 1029.34 49.25 64.19 1144.07 30.26 30.13 1104.00 1125.07 30.96 1108.12 1153.37 88.20 840.86 61.42 2.93 1.34 2.23 1.09 31.09 901.04 1037.40 72.06 0.67 1.55 1113.88 1049.46 0.68 1.67 2.43 1112.91 1064.39 1106.67 73.90 60.18 1104.24 1.74 48.91 42.41 0.41 77.60 797.77 39.31 753.37 88.79 72.31 1.92 56.79 1034.05 82.03 53.91 1086.56 75.56 2.21 51.13 55.48 3.93 74.33 2.78 31.74 1106.10 1153.80 61.83 1.25 72.11 59.78 1.58 1095.24 1120.76 1.85 1.60 0.40 1.59 1103.71 2.95 1118.87 187.52 84.40 3.77 3.85 659.42 816.80 2.94 1035.00 1.69 81.02 31.38 73.03 38.84 1085.36 63.34 0.88 2.20 2.10 114.79 2.37 2.95 1153.77 84.20 34.15 0.10 51.15 77.14 38.43 89.05 41.21 2.24 62.36 1123.30 86.40 2.48 1026.55 85.94 1111.26 45.67 75.73 1123.07 52.33 1111.11 69.37 3.08 3.31 30.77 865.77 411.19 1116.31 63.24 63.63 3.08 2.19 60.47 79.21 Time 3.21 53.24 86.71 1077.21 1116.96 80.09 3.69 0.57 66.20 0.88 79.18 1112.47 81.29 59.69 63.02 30.38 1089.71 957.22 2.33 1110.69 2.82 1087.52 1101.07 30.37 0.98 86.11 1115.08 56.15 988.89 75.41 2.63 71.35 1110.07 29.86 35.07 2.41 71.84 75.10 58.81 1.52 1.21 0.38 1140.99 44.08 1033.57 1081.20 1.03 72.10 1.58 0.22 1.21 45.28 1113.45 2.77 0.55 1.75 2.85 85.41 1115.99 Tsen 74.35 0.48 702.84 1110.02 75.47 48.10 2.89 Tflame 1033.21 3.23 1114.29 2.07 1.06 1038.46 65.98 1033.93 3.76 0.39 1.01 2.16 0.41 3.50 1.62 2.03 79.31 0.02 30.32 688.02 30.62 1139.98 1125.26 2.01 79.37 594.75 3.16 2.95 73.41 43.42 741.12 1122.97 2.47 1105.35 1110.08 1050.82 54.58 3.51 2.87 57.09 1113.65 76.25 1108.86 1036.00 1124.94 1085.78 2.83 69.26 45.57 54.34 611.73 50.77 1119.82 2.88 58.94 1085.01 1087.63 84.28 1113.07 30.81 0.86 0.94 1085.62 1112.91 1086.91 82.79 66.38 1112.19 1119.94 2.05 1105.28 78.17 1146.94 1085.16 1117.14 518.87 77.45 1059.25 1.47 64. Flame Temperature and Sensor Temperature in 4 second exposure Time 0.92 1072.02 30.88 69.33 80.66 3.25 1034.19 61.47 3.06 46.12 2.32 76.56 1.46 3.09 1037.47 941.62 3.86 1111.50 54.98 1.43 1137.90 60.96 3.70 343.51 3.33 100.80 3.34 67.18 2.38 1114.78 0.20 3.72 3.27 1074.05 1079.36 3.31 1094.30 2.54 76.21 1088.74 0.61 2.12 0.08 0.66 1106.21 1021.41 1124.94 1109.89 52.35 2.24 1118.69 87.90 89.05 1105.00 76.86 2.73 1147.21 1115.02 66.00 86.14 79.07 3.20 Time 1.07 29.11 1116.68 41.63 59.95 43.82 896.34 67.01 88.95 29.12 68.70 1122.19 1.75 1.04 1.34 320.18 43.66 1.63 0.68 44.25 2.69 65.59 3.40 55.55 69.30 0.79 42.55 1112.69 62.72 55.52 87.08 36.12 1014.20 87.48 1.51 1.23 3.68 44.43 2.11 0.30 1.68 1120.79 1084.36 0.91 63.04 74.87 1040.07 30.88 1.36 1121.76 2.94 3.30 43.32 1131.94 88.83 80.30 1110.79 66.51 875.56 853.82 3.67 36.96 1131.84 1115.00 3.19 52.52 1083.62 33.45 1111.75 41.33 69.57 0.02 30.74 1109.72 38.77 1.02 2.80 75.83 46.87 2.61 57.50 208.02 3.52 3.56 68.13 86.79 1.97 49.48 82.45 130.54 0.89 949.01 3.09 1039.07 50.

04 49.26 964.07 2.30 50.27 1004.50 1.72 58.85 966.41 71.61 0.54 1009.75 52.21 1019.21 51.96 38.14 1017.34 0.19 3.64 81.48 0.29 87.31 1.29 1027.39 1.63 421.75 1020.26 2.35 1032.33 86.01 2.51 77.01 981.93 1.33 0.45 84.56 954.12 3.51 996.78 89.54 86.84 49.74 36.50 86.69 82.68 46.75 61.32 2.24 2.63 3.12 995.97 1062.31 995.50 2.58 939.89 1010.09 1041.45 952.83 1002.55 52.36 1.55 75.77 945.56 3.54 230.82 966.64 44.55 0.78 3.53 367.30 1035.21 2.64 904.68 55.57 3.06 69.09 3.20 2.10 46.04 88.85 0.59 90.28 72.16 51.31 3.30 1003.00 598.97 33.26 3.05 2.93 1004.31 0.14 88.38 0.73 76.66 976.48 1.37 933.81 34.24 64.45 3.55 2.63 88.69 1032.68 89.66 1027.04 2.02 3.33 78.32 934.06 40.28 34.63 898.69 0.44 58.86 977.18 1034.39 525.53 0.18 1029.59 1005.13 79.27 1.34 35.34 3.80 82.58 1011.49 1.10 2.49 45.30 56.90 62.64 0.94 1009.03 3.69 1.43 0.15 0.41 2.58 33.42 1037.15 1000. in the leg.64 1.67 1006.66 1.89 3.41 52.63 621.24 998.68 57.12 1016.91 71.69 3.77 1014.67 1.61 83.67 0.99 76.88 550.66 1054.48 1022.91 72.10 1027.70 73.66 994.76 90.26 85.72 1.80 1072.43 960.86 33.11 3.09 995.89 56.99 Tsen 62.11 947.13 0.24 62.99 Tsen 76.32 500.03 1027.10 1001.25 Time 3.50 0.52 41.64 1004.29 3.23 54.51 899.07 52.55 53.84 3.55 937.52 0.08 87.58 1024.12 995.83 77.68 41.58 1.65 3.23 942.17 47.02 1024.33 39.65 0.68 996. Flame Temperature and Sensor Temperature in 4 second exposure Time 0.13 3.20 1032.03 0.28 58.73 949.37 0.93 986.74 33.59 66.68 3.08 1054.66 49.23 1010.47 0.31 1000.99 88.95 1001.74 3.65 2.15 85.74 0.97 85.52 2.45 59.56 59.20 985.39 1005.51 2.84 0.81 3.88 1.26 82.21 56.86 1028.77 2.48 997.32 69.69 33.00 3.35 79.89 Time 2.02 63.96 980.83 2.87 2.48 198 .60 2.75 0.20 1007.19 60.01 1041.86 33.91 2.68 976.61 1003.19 0.76 1007.43 1.08 71.31 70.48 992.12 78.22 0.98 575.83 1031.32 1029.44 1.77 0.86 83.33 2.67 1012.62 3.79 63.46 79.49 62.74 33.98 3.17 80.17 968.25 990.94 1.74 35.08 66.14 963.32 961.12 945.21 3.42 1.80 996.13 1002.75 34.70 965.97 Tflame 956.15 1076.83 1026.16 78.08 1005.84 2.57 64.30 2.20 906.89 0.12 2.33 992.22 82.25 0.54 1.86 1029.31 47.79 934.79 981.53 56.54 978.96 3.80 1003.65 1.56 2.10 3.01 1038.84 48.79 2.25 1031.10 41.46 64.69 33.27 998.79 1.86 33.86 3.90 2.74 67.91 0.58 33.17 0.86 36.58 0.40 1.48 40.07 3.86 33.79 65.52 1.78 997.63 783.47 3.12 61.56 42.36 71.79 1035.65 43.80 49.72 963.94 47.86 821.85 853.29 973.05 1030.40 3.65 1021.60 1.90 949.23 66.44 88.05 1001.37 972.20 1.96 0.05 998.44 2.16 44.87 41.71 64.37 61.62 0.27 1002.48 78.47 1031.90 0.75 895.25 2.19 1.98 1.68 0.80 942.40 87.38 966.44 1028.27 3.53 2.63 1070.89 989.83 1075.32 3.13 55.05 78.69 2.78 1028.63 34.56 1074.57 941.69 33.21 1073.71 3.37 1037.61 54.83 84.58 33.68 42.06 89.14 74.06 983.87 49.48 999.86 33.38 1.88 3.03 721.39 0.48 3.27 70.45 1013.42 0.13 886.01 1.87 50.81 33.72 2.88 0.40 Time 1.21 34.91 35.90 74.88 901.77 3.18 1033.73 58.13 1.29 81.42 89.02 1.98 69.80 71.38 1010.98 0.95 90.17 3.79 0.94 938.89 52.49 2.77 980.42 128.07 1068.92 2.14 0.28 69.49 43.37 3.09 34.86 76.58 33.39 960.45 1039.53 43.69 33.74 33.86 47.78 999.67 1039.70 3.33 42.28 2.56 1.97 71.18 87.10 0.20 36.28 80.18 3.82 2.68 2.92 0.13 2.48 1064.66 2.86 1.81 33.88 1025.06 934.07 1.87 83.55 1.19 2.35 1031.80 1025.55 78.10 1.27 2.37 1.85 1017.05 34.76 2.91 43.89 996.75 80.97 2.71 1.57 962.99 Tsen 45.75 64.00 82.37 82.55 68.95 2.88 44.18 2.06 2.00 1003.28 34.24 3.84 967.43 38.02 0.98 1077.98 1057.03 1024.30 961.36 1064.04 988.37 999.54 69.73 85.04 88.70 968.04 3.62 2.54 2.46 1.93 0.40 55.51 995.72 42.35 2.83 78.05 1032.06 0.73 1.54 38.91 52.73 3.04 1.97 989.98 1026.34 1029.70 2.10 76.99 1047.21 1043.48 2.28 0.72 1032.97 3.26 1.47 1000.18 940.67 3.58 2.60 1060.69 85.51 1027.91 1009.92 78.68 74.68 1022.02 63.40 86.36 0.55 1063.06 960.94 73.91 991.94 961.20 3.62 75.03 42.89 1018.66 1003.14 2.89 1.68 75.42 3.50 3.91 1.09 2.49 1046.86 33.74 2.05 72.04 0.26 84.15 3.46 3.86 77.45 1039.54 0.25 1.25 1037.98 2.Sensor: 34.05 34.23 60.79 1010.77 935.82 3.32 862.33 83.57 44.51 81.61 980.74 33.83 0.61 979.62 50.76 1.16 1062.31 1017.57 1.62 1054.26 0.86 57.34 1.48 61.52 67.23 0.15 1027.12 0.08 978.35 1.60 0.68 394.05 85.18 1016.78 999.81 1002.71 977.86 80.16 1065.80 998.68 1.64 909.11 2.54 3.23 3.25 1023.59 39.68 88.03 2.24 0.87 1.45 1.50 1064.46 2.46 902.80 3.12 67.70 79.58 85.23 1.81 1005.16 684.98 37.33 34.98 1012.70 1.56 996.88 1004.50 990.27 202.73 1021.27 0.18 1.36 48.55 83.50 54.63 71.09 996.53 62.33 73.22 151.05 1.37 1004.41 1.36 2.35 61.15 976.59 53.66 1025.24 48.59 3.26 1037.38 340.59 45.22 45.30 1.34 898.45 1007.32 1006.62 1060.95 0.91 890.06 1059.54 997.73 39.45 66.95 1049.08 0.72 69.92 3.72 72.13 72.71 2.08 703.64 977.19 84.66 3.40 2.12 1.08 1.14 998.78 2.76 0.16 57.52 1005.43 2.41 1020.46 1064.00 1.74 60.56 176.35 3.39 58.09 0.42 1004.59 1.90 86.43 876.89 51.31 995.51 84.02 1015.70 0.10 1000.75 Tflame 1016.32 36.08 3.80 1017.03 77.46 81.18 0.44 68.95 1053.26 63.87 0.27 898.43 39.75 51.24 1.20 0.21 1018.74 89.86 33.48 40.90 1001.44 86.82 1.69 33.74 1033.42 2.68 63.97 1000.85 3.81 33.21 985.23 1012.79 3.10 1030.90 85.14 474.74 1.37 37.38 3.93 87.03 45.59 0.85 1.43 38.86 2.68 45.87 3.63 80.76 51.66 1025.42 79.87 53.98 36.88 74.62 1.81 1015.30 1015.12 61.57 0.04 1047.77 68.64 980.62 33.14 3.97 833.48 922.52 61.56 976.35 65.08 2.81 34.89 1034.09 1059.47 2.81 1007.17 47.94 2.86 64.72 1012.01 83.64 3.34 44.76 84.13 Tflame 1063.90 897.06 3.32 75.42 1031.66 981.47 74.05 3.27 1008.68 1019.36 55.30 65.27 258.92 1.18 59.12 953.25 59.04 73.10 80.78 1.41 899.82 893.97 1.97 33.51 3.67 2.63 2.93 975.24 65.91 42.23 75.41 998.46 0.79 797.74 68.61 2.00 2.33 995.02 969.00 68.94 3.49 3.73 0.68 1026.80 1.81 1060.02 2.16 0.97 33.31 39.72 3.54 80.78 0.59 2.97 0.85 56.28 1011.46 65.90 1.65 1035.28 3.96 1.34 60.17 2.82 56.97 48.35 0.10 1049.06 58.44 3.11 0.18 1062.95 3.94 70.51 0.36 3.49 769.16 70.75 1024.11 1.81 33.16 57.88 2.75 2.32 0.95 69.20 1046.96 107.31 995.38 2.11 68.83 73.83 1.22 2.07 0.60 3.68 63.13 313.61 994.56 976.23 75.21 1.53 56.27 1005.12 83.95 1051.00 0.43 3.59 47.34 2.71 0.65 1020.85 1030.48 1001.27 73.01 869.89 2.77 1015.52 1006.03 1.29 900.29 1.49 76.41 1022.81 0.25 3.56 66.76 57.38 76.90 900.30 67.71 40.97 33.66 928.25 1011.51 77.53 3.28 1.91 3.45 1063.41 1036.24 64.63 1.17 809.09 917.40 77.45 2.29 41.29 46.90 3.08 61.77 1.19 738.23 1014.95 59.10 972.30 54.46 61.99 Tsen 33.02 90.06 1.73 991.60 43.23 2.11 286.08 84.31 2.39 2.31 55.16 996.27 35.85 1025.94 1044.59 53.15 1.63 0.82 54.78 51.49 0.57 89.19 56.79 66.87 1013.38 49.55 3.13 79.85 2.80 971.28 34.66 68.00 88.62 53.56 0.41 46.94 1015.95 1.42 1028.41 3.36 987.44 0.39 448.07 664.24 40.93 2.99 75.83 899.74 66.96 984.56 34.66 0.29 77.18 1007.93 3.86 0.35 1057.15 2.84 1039.03 35.08 66.51 1.39 985.80 2.00 80.16 1013.39 643.47 1.30 0.30 1050.16 984.74 79.13 957.84 1.32 1.69 90.45 75.25 983.85 970.81 73.94 0.76 3.74 33.97 65.81 1.22 1.37 882.69 33.18 81.47 913.48 90.40 935.82 974.75 3.22 3.29 0.40 0.45 0.54 1020.81 2.34 999.06 90.79 1031.23 1022.36 74.31 995.96 977.68 65.32 1025.83 1022.61 81.86 70.72 1033.16 3.21 0.91 50.07 1002.33 3.33 1.00 49.05 0.72 45.64 2.73 37.96 2.28 36.80 1013.17 1.28 34.69 71.61 3.53 1016.83 3.05 1005.38 754.74 1035.89 82.43 1022.86 33.86 33.61 38.52 67.62 1030.61 1.82 88.30 3.80 Tflame 36.05 33.42 1008.02 1044.75 1.26 1064.98 1059.58 3.67 1054.01 0.11 843.90 995.24 1039.08 986.25 1003.68 1016.09 1.56 48.72 57.91 46.43 993.14 1.39 3.73 2.29 2.46 63.16 987.53 1.01 3.50 72.57 2.93 36.69 33.16 2.83 1000.14 51.82 0.89 1013.44 999.63 979.52 3.10 1002.80 0.80 1054.46 88.37 2.72 0.42 70.34 35.07 68.56 976.31 63.16 1.41 0.06 69.30 60.

01 402.04 39.13 3.88 3.33 219.06 527.12 304.2 32.27 206.39 40.35 160.24 360.03 3.48 611.65 2.33 3.95 297.41 323.13 42.3 356.78 48.22 357.47 618.91 41.37 291.63 581.66 40.74 342.78 2.6 202.86 47.43 45.17 41.93 2.61 39.73 3.14 49.54 33.34 35.09 3.43 45.59 34.49 290.82 38.38 32.02 275.92 50.54 52.76 822.43 3.46 32.79 53.2 347.59 415.58 683.32 39.4 638.3 37.83 52.67 42.25 408.06 38.17 179.9 46.84 3.01 37.31 169.91 157.46 497.37 338.7 2.37 46.15 352.15 3.85 2.77 209.12 45.61 46.29 51.07 817.08 51.95 171.4 Tsen 32.54 3.08 826.05 3.32 38.13 33.31 51.42 285.66 41.9 2.95 512.98 3.76 301.04 53.25 3.9 46.55 35.23 359.47 298.07 51.01 283.69 322.76 782.24 3.69 48.75 273.77 48.43 44.3 3.39 41.11 47.87 272.21 54.52 163.6 3.56 261. 250.02 3.63 2.55 265.77 H.12 55.98 3.54 36.1 40.35 345.33 350.05 3.82 2.18 437.01 38.41 3.01 326.71 2.09 Tcaltem 32.91 49.38 375.33 834.69 2.59 35.08 52.Coef.05 3.3 47.32 200 197.5 3.66 2.65 452.97 2.96 3.46 48.69 3.79 2.79 32.48 172.19 388.28 47.47 222.07 347.91 2.45 306.6 764.35 Tflame 520.96 675.8 3.28 36.68 3.1 35.82 3.44 310.54 269.62 3.82 51.36 3.04 3.18 341.5 159.66 54.16 322.84 2.59 50.34 34.73 53.97 54.74 474.38 596.6 788.38 333.28 3.43 314.5 170.26 363.12 156.66 49.38 49.48 3.2 54.07 52.15 43.27 216.92 2.01 53.43 44.51 154.75 2.19 625.06 3.17 3.87 308.56 37.13 46.13 317.71 842.68 535.05 32.75 175.67 45.88 55.52 51.5 285.28 360.88 41.41 444.92 50.81 2.15 49.4 830.18 793.89 2.02 192.64 42.48 33.99 3 3.98 2.76 573. Time 361.91 44.39 34.T.45 36.72 489.91 49.5 53.33 504.52 838.27 363.95 33.61 3.27 53.95 2.66 41.23 32.51 281.21 37.14 3.76 2.12 44.88 45.31 355.54 47.34 33.5 247.83 39.42 550.87 44.33 40.96 33.74 604.19 304.28 395.57 257.5 589.04 37.41 49.62 34.39 50.59 Tcaltem 43.13 40.97 54.94 34.91 558.06 3.62 158.66 44.6 660.82 770.92 45.89 55.45 164.32 188.9 42.87 2.85 47.54 195.32 364.28 3.01 48.07 3.56 38.4 326.86 40.19 343.24 48.7 423.48 294.97 382.44 707.3 33.92 776.23 36.63 645.62 652.65 752.02 36.14 311.37 46.3 52.7 225.71 33.03 3.99 240.03 370.T.5 53.89 43.39 330.63 237.18 745.19 3.25 363.31 52.11 301.64 2.52 277.13 182.05 32.73 2.35 39.67 3.12 50.72 2.79 35.54 52.04 3.87 177.17 334.75 53.46 48.8 52.64 32.Appendix 11 Estimated heat transfer coefficient Time 2.59 3.06 34.Coef.63 49.57 51.48 162.56 46.65 165.29 357.08 3.88 42.27 565.01 3.79 37.13 46.66 45.33 32.18 45.01 3.6 32.77 38.16 293.11 234.52 38.93 3.1 316.83 2.61 2.67 43.84 3.16 3.41 336.4 3.86 3.25 466.84 331.31 H.35 231.75 813.94 2.42 543.1 211.36 481.44 277.24 48.48 32.67 54.6 2.03 36.77 39.3 38.98 174.12 55.78 36.21 351.3 53.27 35.82 732.45 691.57 50.7 288.39 798.42 Tflame 271.13 274.18 43.85 35.03 3.8 2.05 631.93 34.13 50.46 214.79 32.65 44.58 254.68 190.81 40.36 342.43 54.07 33.58 3.1 39.72 199 .13 41.35 Tsen 43.15 317.42 319.47 3.32 352.41 42.46 3.71 53.76 37.16 42.74 2.55 47.81 36.8 808.69 723.73 358.08 47.73 33.23 281.58 228.17 276.43 54.17 167.94 313.59 39.94 204.77 2.22 667.63 40.92 43.42 41.83 279.67 2.46 161.13 311.52 37.13 758.29 155.01 48.78 157.69 48.36 50.96 2.07 3.07 430.38 42.2 184.17 186.83 51.17 44.98 166.68 2.04 35.88 2.06 3.57 715.46 302.32 699.18 243.86 2.85 803.2 739.16 34.62 2.14 459.53 273.66 43.34 347.

44 62.77 3.81 138.52 989.52 56.39 4.72 61.51 61.69 3.7 3.62 57.36 68.04 74.39 131.9 137.15 1004.23 71.1 1002.91 3.99 131.01 133.22 69.77 142.12 4.34 937.34 131.64 854.66 67.27 1002.16 75.74 3.52 902.86 3.32 873.56 73.75 130.5 58.94 3.07 68.72 3.97 62.25 74.65 996.31 4.69 69.39 152.01 4.55 140.1 131.97 62.24 135.47 62.Coef.98 59.76 59 59.64 67.6 77.11 4.69 59.98 66.88 60.29 58.23 69.27 61.07 65.58 60.55 135.42 72.12 131.86 131.37 131.75 130.5 4.82 3.79 69 69.17 67.41 918.59 Tcaltem 67.06 4.65 57.81 960.36 77.91 73.87 60.37 999.18 4.88 68.5 76.6 907.84 3.06 65.1 60.94 896.16 77.81 881.29 984.43 936.93 132.2 4.59 60.35 73.95 72.9 73.T.16 57.79 74.27 76.78 958.34 149.73 76.87 68.18 943.16 140.4 4.64 63.57 953.1 4.17 75.04 4.94 57.64 3.3 4.94 77.48 71.Coef.85 3.98 923.39 132.23 59.89 151.53 133.27 949.72 74.59 144.55 4.41 67.85 64.05 78.26 4.26 Tsen 67.67 888.99 4 4.81 3.35 4.72 56.38 956. 154.16 1002.34 144.92 3.45 59.74 76.76 3.24 71.4 72.73 61.72 71.18 133.26 870.08 76.88 131.88 131 1004.23 4.32 970.77 981.86 131.78 3.19 77.12 64.56 976.89 3.79 974.15 1003.8 56.5 131.6 3.73 58.88 877.61 3.34 131.03 61.93 3.31 65.87 3.17 4.22 4.53 131.05 61.86 76.48 139.61 75.81 74.55 911.4 63.21 4.29 56.47 66.04 972.2 134.89 70.05 131.16 63.32 866.18 992.74 995.79 71 71.17 134.2 136.77 66 66.01 1003.13 58.38 977.49 74.14 141.86 939.77 H.2 132.18 1003.12 1004 131.58 4.22 891.17 1001.28 4.88 64.03 4.8 988.18 72.57 148.09 1003.24 66.73 3.35 64.73 143.93 77.24 131.28 1000.97 63.73 Time 4.2 146.87 994.2 135.19 143.96 3.82 78.48 76.38 57.64 131.22 1000.5 131.83 69 69.99 139.36 73.5 61.53 942.54 997.56 4.34 4.2 929.97 Tsen 55.56 70.1 70.69 138.45 59.83 141.69 74.37 4.24 1002.22 1002.8 145.63 3.93 1003.96 144.36 4.08 1003.08 4.12 64.15 57.24 74.53 132.13 131.4 75.24 4.51 138.6 77.66 3.57 4.76 139.86 148.65 3.14 4.52 141.99 916.5 983.16 4.83 65.4 893.86 899.59 962.86 131.49 968.19 4.Continued Time 3.47 4.9 70.48 4.45 131.72 136.43 137.41 4.58 68.06 74.34 70.72 56.26 139.6 137.97 3.88 58.96 75.03 1003.71 3.4 57.15 67.95 63.17 150.13 4.63 63.17 63.12 1004 131.52 4.24 59.09 73.5 131.62 3.09 980.72 131.64 862.17 72.27 Tflame H.92 951.63 75.09 986.55 64.47 74.36 68.34 138.59 64.32 136.42 4.12 131.54 65.83 3.62 72.99 1003.2 62.66 59.33 990.65 72.67 69.15 4.17 137.27 65.8 61.38 67.27 4.8 71 71.05 200 .51 56.31 56.61 132.17 62.07 4.46 4.95 3.14 909.62 964.85 76.45 142.72 66.19 904.2 131.05 78.68 62.45 4.83 858.11 68.23 1002.55 70.05 153.71 133.87 58.67 3.91 934.54 4.75 3.81 78.98 134.95 Tflame 846.42 131.46 69.11 60.68 151.1 70.53 4.59 55.51 4.04 135.57 944.48 145.03 1002.44 71.01 993.71 62.97 57.01 138.68 3.86 131.45 998.06 76.17 927.11 73.98 3.19 1003.25 4.55 65.71 850.27 61.78 65.58 73.28 1002.78 147.02 4.73 131.8 3.37 77.34 60.88 3.26 940.73 131 1002.35 955.49 4.38 4.79 3.07 56.23 66.95 75.13 925.7 66.51 58.91 136.49 136.07 56.49 66.11 884.T.4 63.43 4.33 4.9 3.64 139.29 4.83 56.82 65.21 139.45 69.36 64.88 932.95 72.32 4.39 75.24 147.24 1003.78 137.33 70.59 55.28 76.26 142.44 4.84 913.44 920.09 Tcaltem 55.97 947 948. 966.31 60.81 61.58 68.86 131.32 58.7 71.27 134.09 58.21 1001.1 930.05 4.83 140.73 131.

14 5.89 128.66 129.52 127.12 94.45 1042.2 4.41 1018.09 128.81 83.02 130.84 128.3 93.53 1038.35 5.74 128.71 80.59 Tcaltem 90.54 97.57 5.12 4.27 130.08 130.29 1054.45 4.68 5.42 4.79 127.31 85.57 97.02 88.28 5.79 82.93 78.86 129.53 85.04 130.13 130.25 1055.23 95.51 89.29 129.14 4.43 1042.48 92.28 4.5 98.86 130.57 128.52 127.01 1029.91 127.6 5.09 128.58 5.28 1054.07 89.56 94.86 1026.84 79.48 4.69 92.53 1013.58 1038. Time Time 4.37 1041.26 4.77 5.1 5.96 128.51 5.15 87.63 1037.08 89.15 4.97 87.85 128.74 1016.48 81.63 1025.17 5.22 100.6 78.82 129.57 94.85 84.79 128.37 4.15 128.35 99.22 5.41 4.54 1029.19 4.55 5.54 5.58 5.87 5.84 84.37 1054.91 94.87 129.77 1029.67 127.01 98.58 88.64 95.T.36 4. 1042.2 128.95 86.36 84.29 93.12 1047.78 82.98 87.36 79.99 1041.63 79.18 1055.69 80.74 128.5 92.97 81.52 1040.81 130.86 84.75 1040.12 99.82 128.2 129.08 1027.49 5 87.78 1036.22 5.22 95.51 91.92 130.23 81.8 1036.Coef.71 1050.16 4.64 79.25 4.22 100.07 93.11 91.52 1030.5 128.34 97.35 4.98 86.4 4.59 83.26 89.44 100.36 1043.34 4.93 94.22 98.7 80.36 82.17 1018.37 130.51 129.89 92.54 5.89 1049.63 128.86 84.33 94.23 1054.39 1040.56 5.24 1054.86 129.78 95.44 5.82 5.96 86.53 130.93 86.27 98.23 90.14 5.61 1009.95 1017.72 128.9 1034.67 1019.07 128.35 1036.19 5.91 93.21 1032.68 90.59 99.56 5.55 128.91 127.91 85.17 4.17 82.01 128.33 5.27 4.5 5.63 5.61 5.81 5.95 5.47 5.34 1042.67 80.42 1042.92 85.5 1041.91 1020.3 99.39 96.32 1028.44 4.39 1022.41 1042.89 85.T.17 92.99 87.6 5.99 1048.49 1005.84 1010.58 96.29 80.94 86.81 1036.51 5.26 1030.53 5.9 91.33 97.78 1037.77 82.91 99.1 129.01 128.65 100.21 129.26 5.14 88.91 127.82 83.34 127.5 128.31 4.14 5.14 1021.22 4.65 129.22 128.66 1052.64 82.38 1053.76 82.09 91.75 89.81 100.82 128.75 95 95.76 128.07 93.92 96.89 82.31 1053.68 128.94 89.23 5.39 1009.9 99.46 90.59 1040.1 97.32 92.29 1039.8 5.13 5.63 96.03 98.51 1052.3 1012.68 87.13 96.53 80.87 Tflame H.8 83.38 4.87 97.3 1044.18 201 .54 128.71 98.66 79.31 5.52 5.8 1036.42 1039.98 127.97 86.21 4.22 90.33 4.97 5.18 5.73 93.62 78.89 1023.87 83.97 1032.12 94.13 1024.73 92.56 1040.68 1006.48 86.06 85.29 91.92 5.74 81.13 83.49 5.47 4.13 1007.39 4.19 128.84 128.72 81.9 128.03 128.32 88.45 95.23 4.92 129.61 78.79 5.21 86.04 128.32 5.59 5.22 128.83 83.79 88.08 84.46 5.01 100.55 5.65 79.37 1042.34 128.01 88.36 83.09 89.15 5.3 92.03 88.88 93.49 98.65 100.68 80.43 100.01 129.06 128.53 5.74 81.76 85.04 88.11 4.01 5.98 81.24 4.11 92.12 128.37 96.15 128.27 129.01 1014.61 84.76 128.55 129.52 1015.42 1042.16 130.88 127.69 1034.63 1022.3 91.68 1038.27 128.65 5.84 100 100.06 89.69 78.32 4.55 127.74 91.32 94.86 Tsen 90.04 80.89 87.87 84.72 128.74 1031.5 93.16 5.32 129.Coef.85 128.79 1038.72 5.45 1033.05 130.13 129.55 99.77 1050.18 4.67 1039.39 1025.86 97.76 128.56 130.11 99.06 1038.47 129.73 81.71 129.21 1045.79 98.47 128.17 127.9 85.52 91.8 98.92 92.55 129.Continued Tsen Tflame Tcaltem H.5 1039.45 127.88 85.01 95.46 129.72 91.44 87.7 98.15 96.63 5.45 90.53 127.31 1042.77 1013.45 130.08 79.3 4.9 1007.9 96.18 127.06 89.5 78.68 90.07 97.68 95.1 4.82 1038.05 89.28 128.59 130.62 129.74 86.71 93.45 95.61 79.05 5.12 127.29 4.59 1036.42 128.52 129.27 1014.13 4.37 1041.89 91.43 4.8 1037.66 129.46 4.48 93.74 80.13 1035.78 5.76 1036.75 81.06 129.07 1011.34 1041.

67 126.65 107.14 6.86 126.83 5.25 117.2 131.47 131.45 127.08 1063.13 1033.75 114.96 102.38 6.24 109.06 127.18 119.37 6.47 1018.81 119.24 126.38 103.78 5.46 111.77 103.88 110.02 1050.42 112.03 103.Coef.07 1033.82 130.73 5.17 102.32 6.55 130.66 107.32 1060.16 1032.37 127.63 1053.23 1056.15 1025.28 106.09 Tcaltem 101.25 105.82 131.07 106.79 104.91 5.06 119.9 5.4 112.46 117.42 104.29 127.95 5.68 1058.21 1030.24 6.83 131.96 1034.69 5.96 128.47 126.84 5.05 1034.9 112.08 101.88 110.8 1057.05 105.93 127.63 5.53 126.76 119.73 1042.02 104.61 103.99 128.9 119.81 1011.63 126.79 103 103.29 126.74 5.1 126.08 101.07 106.38 1060.62 112.89 119.19 1056.38 1043.24 107.65 5.36 118.38 102.37 113.27 119.2 128.39 6.82 114.42 108.29 6.44 131.61 108.18 128.4 115.8 127.57 Tcaltem 111.37 115.67 1014.15 127.92 115.01 127.42 127.65 116.07 126.27 110.2 1056.29 101.39 119.87 118.18 1028.56 118.19 131.1 110.14 119.06 6.62 5.24 1049.62 130.02 114.45 6.85 105.46 109.81 117.64 104.3 1055.75 5.71 1057.66 112.68 1060.1 6.02 120.42 108.94 1035.35 6.12 1032.75 101.42 1049.02 126.07 6.5 119.36 119.47 6.9 107.85 128.67 5.03 130.45 107.13 126.97 Tflame H.33 6.5 6.43 111.51 6.19 6.47 126.52 114.67 126.45 105.17 1056.51 Time 6.2 1031.27 117.34 1063.19 1064.77 5.05 6.21 1055.59 1048.88 1059.2 1039.Coef.68 5.97 5.63 129.74 1052.13 6. 1055.86 5.16 6.58 113.81 104.48 6.01 118.23 1061.45 117.24 105.79 1047.02 109.62 108.31 101.6 5.41 104.18 115.24 1055.62 116.08 6.83 119.67 109.59 126.74 1036.55 1042.99 202 .61 115.82 105.45 116.23 6.59 131.7 106.94 119.13 1055.26 114.48 106.93 112.87 5.94 5.06 127.66 105.8 5.21 1027.5 101.86 126.39 126.25 107.87 130.73 119.27 1055.3 114.93 127.22 108.3 1055.45 105.02 111.05 116.04 116.87 106.14 130.35 118.25 6.83 109.18 1056.04 107.41 6.44 6.92 5.95 102.79 131.29 131.06 127.15 6.74 130.31 127.53 6.49 131.01 6.65 105.21 6.17 102.03 108.54 6.74 129.74 111.38 130.83 1035.69 119.57 1058.64 5.04 128.16 115.59 1037.53 1038.T.47 116.07 127.28 130.16 1044.42 6.24 1055.98 5.67 118.06 1056.21 108.23 1056.28 119.87 1040.02 104.69 111.94 120.28 6.52 118.3 110.17 1030.01 111.53 101.58 1016.01 130.88 5.79 5.24 104.58 102.73 1037.09 1034.76 101. 1053.66 5.93 5.04 6.75 126.49 6.43 1059.26 6.23 1056.17 112.79 111.06 114.31 1022.68 106.33 131.Continued Time 5.34 6.44 107.07 1057.85 129.55 6.41 1054.06 127.06 127.49 110.22 6.05 126.89 5.97 1045.65 104.16 118.06 1034.21 1029.02 131.86 117.24 116.07 1039.74 114.21 1056.2 6.22 131.88 1057.02 1063.79 114.01 1058.05 126.08 110.75 131.76 5.57 1061.81 118.61 5.03 6.88 106.93 126.9 113.18 6.77 1059.68 109.47 106.59 102.25 116.34 113.56 6.82 116.14 113.99 6 6.86 107.93 127.48 1059.85 108.06 127.84 108.73 131.05 107.55 126.82 5.79 127.42 1021.3 1024.9 129.55 127.08 1063.25 1063.52 6.85 5.71 5.72 5.2 103.02 6.55 110.25 109.13 113.49 119.86 131.23 126.73 118.17 127.98 118.87 119 119.12 Tsen 111.7 5.09 129.25 131.63 103.96 126.39 103.4 6.2 103.9 1051.9 1035.03 109.08 105.53 126.81 5.93 127.18 126.23 104.06 127.96 5.05 108.12 1064.29 106.06 117.36 6.11 112.06 1064.85 113.4 131.32 126.06 127.27 6.06 127.16 131.79 130.27 1055.12 6.37 102.95 115.49 114.81 131.62 119.43 1038.21 Tsen 101.47 131.86 117.14 1057.42 127.21 1055.09 1062.07 117.83 116.3 1038.3 1054.11 6.52 127.93 130.3 6.5 1062.16 118.45 109.62 117.83 109.17 6.79 131.2 1062.62 115.66 111.59 113.46 6.31 6.23 Tflame H.91 1056.63 117.43 6.T.55 119.

00 s 35. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .36 s 2. 3RD burn: 8. 2ND burn: .51 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 11.10 s 7.95 s. 2ND burn: 6.00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: 8.00 s. 2ND burn: 5.00 s 31.00 s 23. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 2.00 s.00 s 40. 3RD burn: .20 s.00 s 32.00 s 24.00 s 33. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 8.00 s 34. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s.00 s 46.00 s 17.00 s.00 s.29 s.00 s.00 s 6. 3RD burn: .48 s. 2ND burn: 3. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: 10. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 17. 3RD burn: .00 s 48. 2ND burn: 7.26 s.00 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 5. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 3.00 s. 2ND burn: 7.18 s. 3RD burn: .51 s. 3RD burn: .08 s.00 s 29.00 s. 3RD burn: .91 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s.00 s 18. 2ND burn: .00 s 22. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 5.00 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6.00 s 44. 2ND burn: .00 s 37.00 s 16. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .03 s. 3RD burn: .22 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 9.00 s 43. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .67 s. 2ND burn: .39 s. 2ND burn: .96 s.00 s 47.72 s. 3RD burn: 10.00 s 3. 2ND burn: 6.00 s 38.00 s 36. 2ND burn: 2.Appendix 12 Model Results of Kevlar/PBI® Coverall for 4 second Exposure Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # 1. 2ND burn: 6.00 s 49.00 s 10.00 s.00 s 30.08 s.00 s 45. 2ND burn: 7.00 s 9. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 8.21 s.64 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 9. 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: .19 s. 2ND burn: 5.50 s 4.00 s 50.00 s. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 7.00 s 41.00 s.63 s. 2ND burn: 9.00 s 20. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 42. 3RD burn: .00 s 51.40 s.00 s 203 .21 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 39.59 s. 2ND burn: 8. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 5. 3RD burn: .00 s 19.00 s 8.25 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 15.30 s 21.

00 s 72. 3RD burn: .00 s. 2ND burn: 5.00 s. 2ND burn: 8.00 s 75. 3RD burn: .47 s.00 s 78.86 s 74. 3RD burn: .58 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: 27.90 s. 2ND burn: .91 s. 2ND burn: .00 s.00 s.Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # 52.00 s 67.00 s 54.94 s.00 s 71. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 7. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .17 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 11.00 s 90.34 s.00 s 89.00 s.00 s 68.00 s 83.00 s 65.00 s.00 s 92. 3RD burn: .00 s 95.76 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 58. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s.00 s 91. 2ND burn: 6.00 s 62. 3RD burn: 20. 3RD burn: .76 s.00 s 88. 2ND burn: .00 s 93. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .10 s. 2ND burn: .90 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 4.00 s 81. 2ND burn: 6.00 s.00 s 59.34 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 4.22 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 8.00 s 60. 3RD burn: .00 s. 2ND burn: 12. 2ND burn: 4. 3RD burn: .65 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 7.00 s 94.00 s 64. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 17. 2ND burn: 6.00 s 76.00 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 4. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 84. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 6.00 s.93 s. 2ND burn: .00 s 85.43 s 63.00 s.00 s 70. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .91 s.58 s 57.00 s.74 s.00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .65 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6. 3RD burn: .00 s 53.00 s 66. 2ND burn: 7.00 s.00 s 55. 2ND burn: .00 s 69. 3RD burn: .00 s.89 s.00 s 79.00 s 97. 2ND burn: 8. 2ND burn: 8. 3RD burn: .00 s 96.54 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: 14.00 s 77. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 6.05 s. 2ND burn: 4.00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 86.00 s 73.16 s. 2ND burn: 11.00 s 56. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s 87.00 s 80.00 s 61. 2ND burn: .00 s.00 s 82.00 s 204 .28 s. 2ND burn: 10.

00 s Sensor # 112. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 107.00 s.00 s Sensor # 106. 2ND burn: 9. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 9.38 s. 3RD burn: .89 s.88 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 5.00 s Sensor # 110. 3RD burn: .22 s. 2ND burn: 7. 2ND burn: 4.04 s.00 s.00 s Sensor # 103.00 s Sensor # 120. 3RD burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s Sensor # 118. 3RD burn: .06 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .17 s.00 s Sensor # 119. number represents the time to second or third degree body burn. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 99. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 123.00 s Sensor # 109. 205 . 2ND burn: 13.44 s.08 s. 2ND burn: 6. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 4. 2ND burn: 7.00 s Note: .00 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: 6. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 7.00 s Sensor # 124.00 s Sensor # 108. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 121. 2ND burn: 13.Sensor # 98. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 4. 2ND burn: .70 s.77 s.00 s Sensor # 100. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s Sensor # 115.40 s.00 s Sensor # 101. 3RD burn: .29 s. 2ND burn: 5.00 s Sensor # 122.30 s.56 s.00 s Sensor # 102.00 s Sensor # 114.00 s Sensor # 117. 2ND burn: 32.00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 111. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 113. 2ND burn: .50 s. 2ND burn: 6.00 s Sensor # 116. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .52 s. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: .00s represents no burn occurred.

00 s.00 s. 2ND burn: 6.34 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: 8. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 21. 2ND burn: 4.Appendix 13 Model Results of Nomex®ШA Coverall for 4 second Exposure Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # 1. 2ND burn: 7. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 5.13 s. 3RD burn: .91 s 16.26 s.00 s 38.00 s 9. 2ND burn: 7.00 s 37. 2ND burn: 4.59 s.00 s 206 . 2ND burn: 6.11 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: 5.00 s 39.03 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 20. 3RD burn: .00 s 45. 2ND burn: 10.18 s.00 s 36. 2ND burn: 5.00 s 41. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: 17. 3RD burn: .00 s 19. 3RD burn: .00 s 6. 2ND burn: 5.00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 33. 2ND burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .98 s.39 s 31. 2ND burn: 5. 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: 3.00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 24. 2ND burn: 4.00 s 18.17 s.00 s 5. 2ND burn: .00 s 40.00 s 2.00 s 22. 3RD burn: .00 s 15.45 s. 3RD burn: .67 s 49.69 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 8. 3RD burn: .00 s 23.97 s.00 s 34. 2ND burn: .00 s.00 s 42. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 3. 2ND burn: 9. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .97 s.00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 32.13 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .59 s. 3RD burn: .11 s.44 s. 2ND burn: 7. 2ND burn: 4. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 1. 3RD burn: .00 s 46.90 s. 3RD burn: .52 s.00 s. 2ND burn: .41 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .55 s.00 s.00 s.00 s 29. 3RD burn: .31 s. 3RD burn: 13.00 s 47.00 s 30. 2ND burn: 4.00 s 48. 3RD burn: .77 s.94 s.00 s. 3RD burn: 9. 2ND burn: 5.98 s. 2ND burn: 7.08 s.00 s 10.00 s 7. 3RD burn: .79 s 35. 2ND burn: 6.00 s 17.00 s.85 s. 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: .00 s 43. 2ND burn: 4.00 s 4.11 s 44. 2ND burn: 6.00 s 3.00 s 8.48 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 20.

03 s. 2ND burn: .00 s 80. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s 66. 2ND burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 5.00 s.00 s.00 s 78. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 86.41 s 95. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 4. 3RD burn: 8. 3RD burn: .00 s 90. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .13 s. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: 3.55 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .14 s.00 s 58.00 s 71.00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s 82.55 s.00 s. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 7.00 s 59. 3RD burn: .00 s.03 s.94 s 55. 3RD burn: .06 s. 2ND burn: 5.55 s 73.00 s 76.00 s 67.77 s.66 s. 3RD burn: 8.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s. 2ND burn: .77 s. 2ND burn: .00 s 65.00 s 79. 2ND burn: 4.00 s.00 s 93. 3RD burn: .51 s.00 s 91.00 s. 3RD burn: .92 s.00 s.00 s 64.00 s 74.00 s.06 s 60.00 s 69.39 s 51.00 s 72.00 s 94.75 s.00 s 77.00 s.00 s.00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 89.78 s 57. 3RD burn: 8.62 s 75. 3RD burn: .00 s. 3RD burn: .64 s 61. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6.30 s. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s 92.00 s 84. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s.00 s 63.00 s.57 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s 88. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: .Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # Sensor # 50.00 s 68.00 s 54. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s 85. 2ND burn: 2. 2ND burn: 9.88 s.61 s.00 s 56. 3RD burn: 6. 2ND burn: 11. 2ND burn: 21. 2ND burn: 2. 2ND burn: 5.37 s. 2ND burn: .00 s 207 . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s. 2ND burn: 4. 3RD burn: 6. 2ND burn: 2.00 s. 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 8.28 s. 2ND burn: 7.93 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: 8. 2ND burn: 7. 3RD burn: 20. 3RD burn: .00 s 70.00 s 53. 2ND burn: 4.00 s 81. 3RD burn: .00 s 87.00 s 83. 3RD burn: 18.00 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 9.00 s 52.86 s.00 s 62.60 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .72 s. 3RD burn: .

2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 109.00 s Sensor # 108.00 s.95 s. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 112.71 s.00 s Sensor # 117.00 s Sensor # 119. 3RD burn: .00 s.06 s. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: 5.67 s. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: .00 s Sensor # 102.00 s Sensor # 114.00 s.00 s Note: . 3RD burn: .96 s.00 s Sensor # 123. 3RD burn: .00 s.00 s Sensor # 118.95 s. 208 .31 s Sensor # 101. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 120. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: 11.00 s Sensor # 124.00 s Sensor # 99. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: 5.76 s. 2ND burn: 10. 2ND burn: .00 s Sensor # 107.00 s Sensor # 103. 2ND burn: 5. 2ND burn: 3. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .65 s Sensor # 113. 2ND burn: 5. 2ND burn: 13. 2ND burn: 4. 2ND burn: 6.96 s.00 s Sensor # 106. 2ND burn: .00s represents no burn occurred. 3RD burn: . 2ND burn: . 2ND burn: 4. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 122.00 s Sensor # 100. 2ND burn: 5. 2ND burn: 7.00 s Sensor # 97. number represents the time to second or third degree body burn. 3RD burn: .55 s.00 s.00 s.14 s. 2ND burn: 6. 2ND burn: 4.51 s. 2ND burn: .91 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .42 s. 3RD burn: 31.00 s. 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 110. 2ND burn: 6.59 s.12 s.00 s.00 s Sensor # 98.Sensor # 96. 3RD burn: . 3RD burn: .00 s Sensor # 121. 2ND burn: 10.00 s Sensor # 116.00 s Sensor # 115. 2ND burn: 6.92 s. 3RD burn: .00 s.00 s.00 s Sensor # 111. 3RD burn: .47 s. 2ND burn: . 3RD burn: .

66 25.4 51.11 3 second exposure without underwear Nomex 2nd % 3rd % Total % Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.5 12.30 14.5 Model 14.4 8.67 60.6 52.6 6.6 24.7 59 62.9 6.6 30.2 22.6 6.26 18.9 46.83 48.00 26. 24. 50.2 24.7 52.31 4 second exposure without underwear Nomex 2nd % 3rd % Total % Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.9 22.Appendix 14 Model Predictions and Manikin Tests 4 second exposure without underwear PBI 2nd % 3rd % Total % Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.66 3 second exposure without underwear PBI 2nd % 3rd % Total % Pyroman Test with Pyrocal Sensor Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Avg.3 60.60 32.6 6.60 6.6 Model 12.8 60.37 45.7 Model 48.36 12.8 60.3 9.2 8.41 209 .2 22.6 6.85 63.2 58.8 59.3 Model 44.73 19.5 7. 17.8 12.5 29.8 29.93 7.60 6.77 55.75 10.6 15.02 21.6 18 6.33 26.29 9. 48.