Related article: Rollout of new PPC Structural Ensemble
Memo from the CEO
The purpose of this advice is to provide you with information on the manikin tests conducted some time ago on both PBI Gold and Nomex outer shell material for structural PPC.
The manikin test method has been designed to provide information on the flammability 
and heat transfer properties of clothing systems when subjected to flame envelopment that might only reasonably be expected to occur under “emergency” conditions. Manikin testing does not purport to provide information in terms of the “survivability” of a given event.
CFA, together with MFB, engaged BTTG Fire Technology Services to conduct additional ensemble testing on ensemble types evaluated during the Wollongong, Fiskville and on-station trials.
Dressed manikins were subjected to full flame envelopment at a mean heat flux of 84 kW/m2 for 8 seconds and data collected from a total of 135 sensors for a total of 120 seconds. This testing process enables both agencies and manufacturers to evaluate actual ensemble performance under extreme conditions.
- There was no ignition of either outer shell fabric (PBI or Nomex) of the coat or trouser apart from 2-3 seconds of general surface afterflame immediately following the burners being switched off.
- There was no “break open” of the outer shell fabric of either garment during the test, however the Nomex material broke open after the test was completed when the garment cooled.
- There was no indication of any ensemble design faults being present.
- PBI Gold returned a lower predicted combination of 2nd and 3rd degree burn injury body percentage than Nomex 3D.
- Nomex 3D, however, returned a lower predicted pain response rating body percentage than PBI Gold.
- The tests confirmed that both ensemble designs comply with the performance requirements of Australian Standard 4967:2006 and are capable of receiving independent product certification.
You can watch the tests below. Note: there is no sound on this video.
File size: 10.1 MB Running time: 6 mins 0 sec (Broadband recommended)
5 comments:
Whilst I applaud the CFA for finally getting around to posting some results of the testing, it is still only half the information required to make a properly informed decision. What is needed is the posting of the written reports from BTTG and Wollongong University outlining the differences in performance of the two ensenbles.
It is not good enough to say that "Both ensembles meet the relevant Standard, now go pick which one you like the look of better."
We need to know exactly how each ensemble performed in order to be able to make a choice between the two.
You also need to point out to members that the ensembles that were tested at Wollongong, as well as the ones trialled in the field, are different in design and construction to the ones being rolled out. These were originally made with different moisture barriers and liners, which means that the current ensembles will have different results to those tested previously.
You cannot make a decision about something if you are not given the correct information. It's like being shown a bunch of bananas and a bunch of grapes and being asked to pick which apples you would like.
It is interesting that one of the conclusions was "There was no ignition of either outer shell fabric (PBI or Nomex) of the coat or trouser apart from 2-3 seconds of general surface afterflame immediately following the burners being switched off"
From the video it appears that one of the emsembles tested had to be extinguished at a stage where the after flaming was increasing
In response to:
'anonymous said...
It is interesting that one of the conclusions was "There was no ignition of either outer shell fabric (PBI or Nomex) of the coat or trouser apart from 2-3 seconds of general surface afterflame immediately following the burners being switched off"
From the video it appears that one of the emsembles tested had to be extinguished at a stage where the after flaming was increasing.'
Hi there. In the case to which you refer, the after flame was a result of the inner knee pad material burning after the outer shell material had self extinguished.
In response to: fire flyer said...
n the case to which you refer, the after flame was a result of the inner knee pad material burning after the outer shell material had self extinguished.
My apologies for I do not fully understand. If there was no “break open” of the outer shell fabric during the test, or no ensemble design faults being present, how did the inner knee pad material burn?
I have to agree with the comments posted on 'Fire Flyer', on Friday 17/10/08.
This video and results are only one part of the overall results. What about results from those who've used or where involved in the testing stages?
What about the weight?
Are the sets of gear like our Fire Pro gloves that when they've been wet enough they stain your hands yellow?
We've tested and compared these two sets of gear but if these tests are carried out by scientist I think they've forgotten a major step in any experiment. Where is the control?? No one has compared this to the current gear used by CFA or MFB. That's quite disappointing and is miss leading to many members.
Post a Comment