Astm stp 1544 2012

Selected Technical Papers

STP 1544 INTERNATIONAL Standards Worldwide lustssillsav

Equipslant:

Selected Technical Papers STP1544

Performance of Protective Clothing and Equipment: Emerging Issues

and Technologies

4 INTERNATIONAL

Standards Worldwide

Editor:

Angie M. Shepherd

ASTM International

100 Barr Harbor Drive

PO Box C700

West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959

Printed in the U.S.A.

ASTM Stock #: STP1544

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: 978-0-8031-7530-3

This publication has been registered with the Library of Congress.

Library of Congress control number 2012036736

Copyright © 2012 ASTM INTERNATIONAL, West Conshohocken, PA. All rights reserved.

This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed, mechanical,

electronic, film, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of the

publisher.

Photocopy Rights

Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the

internal, personal, or educational classroom use of specific clients, is granted by ASTM

International provided that the appropriate fee is paid to ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor

Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, Tel: 610-832-9634; online:

http://www.astm.org/copyright.

The Society is not responsible, as a body, for the statements and opinions expressed in this

publication. ASTM International does not endorse any products represented in this publication.

Peer Review Policy

Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor.

The authors addressed all of the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of both the technical

editor(s) and the ASTM International Committee on Publications.

The quality of the papers in this publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors

and the technical editor(s), but also the work of the peer reviewers. In keeping with long-standing

publication practices, ASTM International maintains the anonymity of the peer reviewers. The

ASTM International Committee on Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication

and contribution of time and effort on behalf of ASTM International.

Citation of Papers

When citing papers from this publication, the appropriate citation includes the paper authors,

"paper title", J. ASTM Intl., volume and number, Paper doi, ASTM International, West

Conshohocken, PA, Paper, year listed in the footnote of the paper. A citation is provided as a footnote on page one of each paper.

Printed in Bay Shore, NY

October, 2012

Foreword

THIS COMPILATION OF Selected Technical Papers, STP1544, on Performance

of Protective Clothing and Equipment: Emerging Issues and Technologies,

9th Volume, contains 22 papers presented at the symposium with the same

name held in Anaheim, CA, June 16-17,2011. The symposium was sponsored

by the ASTM International Committee F23 on Personal Protective Clothing and

Equipment.

The Symposium Chairman and STP Editor is Angie M. Shepherd, NIOSH/

NPPTL, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Contents

Field Analysis of Arc-Flash Incidents and the Related PPE Protective Performance

D. R. Doan, E. "Hugh" Hoagland IV, and T. E. Neal 1 Evaluation of Fire-resistant Clothing Using an Instrumented Mannequin:

A Comparison of Exposure Test Conditions Set With a Cylinder Form

or Mannequin Form

M. Y. Ackerman, E. M. Crown, J. D. Dale, and S. Paskaluk 13

Translation between Heat Loss Measured Using Guarded Sweating Hot Plate,

Sweating Manikin, and Physiologically Assessed Heat Stress of Firefighter

Turnout Ensembles

K. Ross, R. Barker, and A. S. Deaton 27

Analysis of Physical and Thermal Comfort Properties of Chemical Protective

Clothing

S. Wen, G. Song, and S. Duncan 48

Chemical Protection Garment Redesign for Military Use by the Laboratory

for Engineered Human Protecton Years 2005-2011

K. L. Hultzapple, S. S. Hirsch, J. Venafro, S. Frumkin, J. Brady, C. Winterhalter,

and S. Proodian 74

Evaluation of Thermal Comfort of Fabrics Using a Controlled-Environment Chamber

J. D. Pierce, Jr., S. S. Hirsch, S. B. Kane, J. A. Venafro, and C. A. Winterhalter 108

Effects of Overgarment Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate on Human

Thermal Comfort

C. Winterhalter, Q. Truong, T. Endrusick, A. Cardello, and L. Lesher 129

Assessing User Needs and Perceptions of Firefighter PPE

J. Barker, L. M. Boorady, S.-H. Lin, Y.-A. Lee, B. Esponnette,

and S. P. Ashdown 158

Developing a Thermal Sensor for Use in the Fingers of the PyroHands Fire Test

System

A. Hummel, R. Barker, K. Lyons, A. S. Deaton, and J. Morton-Aslanis 176

Interlaboratory Study of ASTM F2731, Standard Test Method for Measuring the

Transmitted and Stored Energy of Firefighter Protective Clothing Systems

L. Deuser, R. Barker, A. S. Deaton, and A. Shepherd 188

Non-destructive Test Methods to Assess the Level of Damage to Firefighters'

Protective Clothing

M. Rezazadeh, D. A. Torvi 202

Dual-mode Analytical Permeation System for Precise Evaluation of Porous and

Nonporous Chemical Protective Materials

D. L. MacTaggart, S. 0. Farwell, Z. Cai, and P. Smith 227

Factors Influencing the Uptake Rate of Passive Adsorbent Dosimeters Used

in the Man-in-Simulant-Test R. B. Ormond, R. Barker, K. Beck, D. Thompson, and S. Deaton 247

Destructive Adsorption for Enhanced Chemical Protection

S. K. Obendorf and E. F. Spero 266

Protective Clothing for Pesticide Operators:The Past, Present, and Proposed Plans

A. Shaw 280

Garment Specifications and Mock-ups for Protection from Steam and Hot Water

S. Yu, M. Strickfaden, E. Crown, and S. Olsen 290

Development of a Test Apparatus/Method and Material Specifications for Protection

from Steam under Pressure

M. Y. Ackerman, E. M. Crown, J. D. Dale, G. Murtaza, J. Batcheller, and J. A. Gonzalez, . 308

Apparatus for Use in Evaluating Protection from Low Pressure Hot Water Jets

S. H. Jalbani, M. Y. Ackerman, E. M. Crown, M. van Keulen, and G. Song 329

Analysis of Test Parameters and Criteria for Characterizing and Comparing Puncture

Resistance of Protective Gloves to Needles

C. Gauvin, 0. Darveau, C. Robin, and J. Lara 340

Characterization of the Resistance of Protective Gloves to Pointed Blades

R I. Dolez, M. Azaiez, and T. Vu-Khanh 354

Methods for Measuring the Grip Performance of Structural Firefighting Gloves

K. Ross, R. Barker, J. Watkins, and A. S. Deaton 371

A New Test Method to Characterize the Grip Adhesion of Protective Glove Materials

C. Gauvin, A. Airoldi, S. Proulx-Croteau, P. I. Dolez, and J. Lara 392

Author Index 407

Subject Index 409

Performance of Protective Clothing and Equipment: Emerging Issues and Technologies

STP 1544, 2012

Available online at www.astm.org

D01:10.1520/STP104080

Daniel R. Doan,' Elihu "Hugh" Hoagland IV,2

and Thomas E. Neal3

Field Analysis of Arc-Flash Incidents and the

Related PPE Protective Performance

REFERENCE: Doan, Daniel R., Hoagland IV, Elihu "Hugh", and Neal,

Thomas E., "Field Analysis of Arc-Flash Incidents and the Related PPE Pro￾tective Performance," Performance of Protective Clothing and Equipment:

Emerging Issues and Technologies on April 16, 2011 in Anaheim, CA; STP

1544, Angie M. Shepherd, Editor, pp. 1-12, doi:10.1520/STP104080, ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA 2012.

ABSTRACT: This paper will provide a field analysis of the effectiveness of

personal protective clothing and equipment and the related worker burn inju￾ries in real-world electric arc-flash incidents, and a review of the ASTM test

methods used for determining the arc rating of personal protective clothing

and equipment used to protect workers from electric arc-flash hazards. New

learning and conclusions relating to the causes of arc-flash burn injuries and

personal protective clothing and equipment strategies that can be effective in

reducing burn injuries will be discussed.

KEYWORDS: arc flash, arc rated, flame resistant, burn injury, total body sur￾face area (TBSA), flash fire, personal protective equipment, arc-flash hazard

analysis

Introduction

Over the past 15 years, the ASTM Committee F18 on Electrical Protective

Equipment for Workers and Subcommittee F18.65 on Wearing Apparel

Manuscript received June 1, 2011; accepted for publication February 27, 2012; published online

September 2012.

1Principal Consultant, DuPont Engineering, P.O. Box 80723, Wilmington, DE 19880,

e-mail: [email protected]

2ArcWear/ArcStore/e-Hazard.com, 13113 Eastpoint Park Blvd., Suite E, Louisville, KY 40223,

e-mail: [email protected]

3Ph.D., Neal Associates Ltd., 24671 Canary Island Ct., Unit 202, Bonita Springs, FL 34134,

e-mail: nealassoc@earthlink net

Copyright © 2012 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA

19428-2959.

2 STP 1544 ON PERFORMANCE OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT

have developed a series of standards aimed at better protection for electri￾cians and electrical workers exposed to arc-flash hazards [1-9]. During the

same period, researchers have written a series of papers with the objective

of improving the understanding of the arc-flash phenomenon and quantify￾ing the level of personnel exposure involved in an arc-flash event [10-19].

This arc-flash research contributed to the development of the IEEE 1584

"Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations" [20] for determining

the arc-flash heat exposure based on electrical parameters, equipment

design, and the proximity of the electrician or electrical worker to the

arc-flash event. The arc ratings and other content of the ASTM standards

and IEEE 1584 were incorporated into the 2000, 2004, and 2009 editions of

the NFPA 70E "Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" [21]. This

brought together the arc rating of protective clothing and equipment and the

level of exposure to which an electrician or electrical worker would be

exposed in the event that an arc-flash incident occurred while a specific

electrical task was being performed on a specific piece of electrical

equipment. One of the basic protection principles established by the NFPA

70E standard was the need to match the arc-flash incident energy potential

of the task being performed with the arc rating of the protective clothing

and equipment worn by the worker performing the task. As long as this

match was provided, if an arc-flash incident occurred, the expected burn

injury to the worker would either be eliminated or significantly reduced. As

the use of arc-rated protective clothing and equipment grew in the late

1990s and early 2000s, and as industry adoptions of the NFPA 70E standard

increased, electrical injury studies indicated a decreasing trend of burn inju￾ries to electricians and electrical workers during the decade from 1992 and

2002 [22] . Over the past decade, many workers who were wearing arc-rated clothing

and equipment have been involved in arc-flash incidents. Although there has

been anecdotal evidence that arc-rated protective clothing and equipment pro￾tected workers in several arc-flash incidents, recent field studies [23-25] have

confirmed the protective performance and overall effectiveness of arc-rated

protective clothing and equipment in real-world arc-flash incidents; however,

many of the workers involved in these arc-flash incidents continued to receive

more serious burn injuries than expected, in spite of wearing arc-rated clothing

and equipment.

What Is an Arc Flash and How Does It Compare to a Flash Fire?

An arc flash is basically a very large short circuit that occurs across an air

gap from a conductor to ground or between two or more conductor phases.

The electric current involved is typically thousands or tens of thousands of

DOAN ETAL., doi:10.1520/STP104080 3

amps and is transmitted through a stream of plasma and ionized gases. The

temperature within the arc reaches 15,000°C, but the duration on an arc flash

is typically a fraction of a second, because the electrical equipment utilizes

fuse or relay devices that will sense and terminate the electrical fault. As an

arc flash is initiated, a blinding flash occurs followed by an explosion as the

superheated gases in the vicinity of the arc rapidly expand in a fraction of a second. This explosion creates a shock wave and hazardous noise levels

exceeding 150 dB. Because of the high temperatures involved, all metallic

materials in the vicinity of the arc flash, including copper and steel, vaporize

or melt and the molten-metal droplets are projected away from the source of

the arc by the shock wave. In some cases, larger pieces of metal or other de￾bris are also projected from the arc source by the shock wave as shrapnel.

During the event, an opaque smoke consisting of oxidized copper vapor and

other decomposition products reduces visibility to near zero. An arc flash,

when slowed down using high speed video, appears as a type of fire, but the

arc flash does not require fuel or air in the same way a fire does because elec￾trical energy continues to flow until protective circuitry stops or "clears" the

flow of current.

As shown in Table 1, a flash fire is a different phenomenon from an arc

flash in several ways. First, the temperature of a flash fire is in the range of

800°C to 1000°C, but the exposure duration can be several seconds. A worker

wearing flame-resistant clothing has a few seconds to escape from a flash-fire

incident, but because the arc flash typically has a duration of only a fraction of a second, a worker normally has no time to escape from an arc-flash exposure.

The temperature of a flash fire is lower than the melting temperature of steel,

so the molten-metal hazard that is part of an arc-flash event is not usually pres￾ent in a flash fire.

The protection approach provided in NFPA 2112 "Standard on Flame￾Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial Personnel against Flash Fire"

[26] is to provide flame-resistant clothing that will result in a total body surface

area (TBSA) burn injury of 50 % or less as determined by ASTM F1930 [27]

using an instrumented manikin and a laboratory-simulated flash fire of con￾trolled intensity for 3 s. As noted above, NFPA 70E provides protective cloth￾ing and equipment selected to eliminate most if not all burn injury for a worker. Table 1 compares the different arc-flash and flash-fire protection

approaches.

ASTM Arc-Flash Testing Standards

ASTM F1506 "Standard Specification for Flame-Resistant and Arc-Rated

Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel for Use by Electrical Workers

Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and Related Thermal Hazards" [1] was

4 STP 1544 ON PERFORMANCE OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT

TABLE 1-Comparison of arc flash and flash fire phenomena.

Arc Flash Flash Fire

Protection approach

Ignition time of flammable

clothing (s)

Protective clothing

break open

Heat flux (cal/cm2s)

Typical exposure

time (s)

Typical total exposure

(cal/cm2)

Maximum temperature

(°C)

Ignition

Re-ignition

Fuel and Air

Momentary blinding flash

Molten metal hazard

Explosion

Shock wave Hazardous noise levels

Smoke

Quantify the arc-flash hazard

and minimize burn injury by

using PPE with arc rating

equal to the exposure level

0.1 to 0.2

Frequently observed in

outer layers 1 to 200

0.1 to 1

1 to 100

15,000

Requires reduced

insulation

Frequent based on equipment settings

Not required, but can increase hazard

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Select PPE to limit burn injury

equal to or less than 50 % TBSA

to increase the probability of

survival 3 to 5 Seldom observed

1 to 3 1 to 5

1 to 15 800 to 1000

Requires ignition source Can occur Requires specific fuel/air

mixture

Infrequent

No

In some cases When explosion occurs When explosion occurs Yes

issued in 1994 as the first ASTM Committee F18 standard relating to the

arc-flash hazard. This initial version of F1506 provided basic guidance on

protective clothing and introduced the use of flame-resistant clothing to pre￾vent clothing ignition in an arc-flash exposure. Preliminary test methods for

ignition of flammable clothing and the determination of arc rating for flame￾resistant clothing followed in the late 1990s and were formalized as F1958

[2] and F1959 [3] in 1999. Subsequent standards, including F1891 [4] for

rating arc- and flame-resistant rainwear, F2178 [5] for rating face-protective

equipment, F887 [6] for fall protection and positioning devices, F2621 [6]

for finished products like arc-flash suits, F2522 [7] for rating arc-protective

shields, and F2676 [8] for rating arc-protective blankets were developed

over the next decade. Additional standards development is underway for

arc-rated gloves and arc-in-a-box arc-flash hazards. Figures 1-4 show

DOAN ETAL., doi:10.1520/STP104080 5

FIG. 1-8000-Amp arc flash generated in arc testing.

laboratory generated arc-flash exposures and test equipment for two of the

arc test methods.

Figure 1 is created by initiating an arc flash with 8000 A of current flowing

between two vertical stainless steel electrodes with a gap between the two elec￾trodes of 305 mm (12 in.). The incident energy level of the arc flash is

increased by increasing the duration of the arc flash within the range of 0.1 s to 2 s. This arc-flash geometry is used for the ASTM F1959 test method for

determining the arc rating of fabrics or multilayer fabric systems and also the

ASTM F2178 test method for face-protective equipment. The arc-flash incident

6 STP 1544 ON PERFORMANCE OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT

FIG. 2-ASTM F1959 test method for fabric and system arc rating.

energy from this arc geometry is a combination of radiant heat and convective

heat.

Figure 2 shows the test setup for the F1959 test method. There are three

test panels positioned around the two vertical electrodes 305 mm (12 in.) from

the centerline of the vertical electrodes where the arc flash will be initiated.

There are two heat sensors on each test panel and two monitor heat sensors,

one positioned on each side of each test panel. The monitor sensors are also

positioned 305 mm (12 in.) from the centerline of the vertical electrodes. A

fabric test specimen is positioned on each of the three test panels covering the

two heat sensors on each panel. The two monitor sensors are not covered by

test specimens. An arc flash is initiated, and the heat at the panel sensors under

the fabric test specimens is measured to determine how much heat is transmit￾ted through the test specimen. The heat is also measured at the monitor sensors

to determine the total incident energy of the arc flash on each test specimen.

The incident energy is increased until the heat sensors under the fabric test

specimens indicate sufficient heat transfer through the fabric to cause a second￾degree-burn injury. A minimum of 20 test specimens are tested to determine

DOAN ETAL., doi:10.1520/STP104080 7

FIG. 3-ASTM F2178 face-protection test setup.

FIG. 4-ASTM F2676 test method with plasma arc exposure for arc-protective

blankets.

8 STP 1544 ON PERFORMANCE OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT

the arc rating of the fabric or fabric system. The heat-sensor data is analyzed

using logistic regression, and the arc rating is equal to the incident energy that

has a 50 % probability of causing a second-degree-burn injury under the test

specimen.

Figure 3 shows the test setup for the F2178 test method for face-protective

products, such as arc-rated faceshields and hoods. There are two instrumented

heads positioned around the two vertical electrodes 305 mm (12 in.) from the

centerline of the vertical electrodes where the arc flash will be initiated. There

are four heat sensors on each instrumented head, which are located in each eye

area, the mouth area, and under the chin. There are also two monitor heat sen￾sors for each head, one positioned on each side of each instrumented head. The

monitor sensors are also positioned 305 mm (12 in.) from the centerline of the

vertical electrodes. A face-protective test specimen is positioned on each of the

two instrumented heads covering or shielding the four heat sensors on each

instrumented head. The two monitor sensors for each head are not covered or

shielded by test specimens. An arc flash is initiated and the heat at the head

sensors shielded by the face-protective test specimens is measured to determine

how much heat is transmitted through the test specimen. The heat is also deter￾mined at the monitor sensors to determine the total incident energy of the arc

flash on each test specimen. The incident energy is increased until the heat sen￾sors under or behind the face-protective test specimens indicate sufficient heat

transfer through the test specimen to cause a second-degree-burn injury. A

minimum of 20 test specimens are tested to determine the arc rating of the

face-protective product. The heat sensor data is analyzed using logistic regres￾sion, and the arc rating is equal to the incident energy that has a 50 % probabil￾ity of causing a second-degree-burn injury under or behind the face-protective

test specimen.

Figure 4 shows a plasma stream arc exposure, which is used for testing

arc-protective blankets. The plasma arc exposure is continued until it causes

break open in all layers of the arc-protective blanket specimen. The arc￾protective blanket is assigned a rating value based on the product of the plasma

arc current and the time required for break open of all layers.

The type of arc exposure can significantly impact the arc rating of protec￾tive clothing and equipment. When fabrics or fabric systems used in protective

clothing are tested using a plasma arc exposure or an arc flash created in and

projected out of an enclosure, the arc rating is observed to decrease to approxi￾mately half the value determined by the F1959 test method because of the

higher ratio of convective energy in these types of arc-flash exposures. On the

other hand, face-protective products have increased arc ratings when tested

using plasma arcs or arc flashes in enclosures. Real arc-flash incidents fre￾quently involve enclosures and can involve plasma arcs, and consequently the

level of protection provided by arc-rated clothing may be only half of the level

that is expected based on the F1959 arc test method [19]. This dependence of