Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Homeland Emergency Response Operational and Equipment Systems.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Homeland Emergency Response Operational and Equipment Systems."— Presentation transcript:

1 Homeland Emergency Response Operational and Equipment Systems

2 2007 Technologies for Critical Incident Protection IAFF Project Team November 7, 2007 ®

3 Project FIRES  Introduced new design/testing technology to fire service  Provided comprehensive specifications  Promoted new and improved industry products Indianapolis Heat Stress Study  Set mandatory requirements for “breathable” clothing

4  2002: IAFF launches Project HEROES® (Homeland Emergency Response Operational and Equipment Systems)  2004: IAFF receives government contract from the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) with initial funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  2006: DTRA invests research funds to extend project to military fire fighting applications Project Inception

5  The IAFF Project Team was tasked with pursuing a program of materials development and ensemble design to provide an ensemble will meet NFPA 1971 requirements and Class 2 NFPA 1994 requirements, as modified. Project Scope

6 International Association of Fire Fighters Project management/coordination Int’l Assoc. Fire Chiefs (IAFC) User acceptance/publicity Morning Pride Manufacturing Ensemble design/specifications Int’l Personnel Protection Standards/testing coordination NIOSH NPPTL Standards/specialized testing IAFF Project Team

7  Provide CBRN protection in a structural fire fighting ensemble  Certify ensemble to new CBRN requirements in NFPA 1971 Technical Challenge

8  Report indicates use of turnouts and SCBA for use at WMD events  Based on limited testing  Several assumptions for use (e.g., no liquid contact)  Downsides  False sense of security  Less incentive for better PPE Improper Use of Turnouts

9  Fire fighters routinely exposed to skin toxins and other harmful substances  Some produce acute, short term effects  Many create chronic conditions  Conventional turnout clothing does not readily retard vapor penetration

10 Materials Selection and Testing Ensemble Design and Testing Test Method and Standards Development Prototype Ensembles Candidate Materials Proposed Requirements Specifications Serviceability User Acceptance ApproachOutcome Applied Solutions

11  Design ensemble primarily as fire fighting gear that also offers appropriate levels of chemical/ biological/radiological particulate protection  Make CBRN protection passive  Simultaneously provide improvements in structural fire fighting protection  Introduce field-usable, field-acceptable ensemble at conclusion of project Development Philosophy

12  Key Changes:  CBRN protection added as an option  Level of CBRN protection based on NFPA 1994 Class 2, but with increased durability to account for expected service life  Specific CBRN layer and ensemble tests  CBRN option applied to ensemble only  Status:  Revision was published in late 2006; additional amendments were recently approved NFPA 1971 Revision

13  Complete ensemble must be specified  New requirements permit greater design flexibility; allow:  Integrated hood  Integrated boot sock  Different interfaces NFPA 1971 CBRN Design Criteria

14 CBRN Barrier Layer Function

15  Launder 5 times  Expose to 285 o F for 10 minutes  Launder 5 times  Expose to 285 o F for 10 minutes  Flex material 3,000 times  Abrade each side 30,000 cycles  Test warfare agent and toxic chemical permeation resistance CBRN Barrier Layer Durability

16 Repeated Composite Flexing

17  Barrier layer must retard chemical permeation, agent/ particulate penetration and still be breathable  CBRN Agents:  Soman, distilled Mustard  Acrolein, acrylonitrile, ammonia, chlorine, dimethyl sulfate  Air and liquidborne pathogens  Radiological particulates Barrier Layer Diffusion Evaporation Solution CBRN Barrier Layer Performance

18  Thermal Insulation  TPP > 35 cal/cm 2  Target 38-40 cal/cm 2  Stress relief  THL > 205 W/m 2  Target >220 W/m 2  Other requirements  Components remain functional Composite Performance

19  Three levels of testing  Materials  Ensemble (laboratory)  Field testing  Materials testing verifies candidate material performance  Ensemble testing demonstrates whole product performance  Field testing supports design changes; establishes user acceptance Ensemble Testing

20  PADs placed at key locations on test subjects  Measures amount of chemical (MeS) absorbed by skin MeS vapor Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST)

21  Test subject exercises inside chamber filled with surrogate agents  PADs removed and analyzed for agent levels  Requirements  Overall PF > 360  Individual PF must exceed minimum levels (90 to 360) Protection Factor (PF) = Conc outside Conc inside Ensemble Integrity Requirement

22 Overall Results: Standard Protection Factor = 13 to14 Prototype Protection Factor = 465 to 544

23  Completed by NIOSH NPPTL  Measured:  No significant ergonomic differences between standard and Project HEROES ® ensembles  Minor physiological differences between standard and Project HEROES ® ensembles Physiological/Ergonomic Testing

24  Design Configurations  Focused on modifying structural ensemble  New designs sought for garment, hood, gloves, and footwear (helmet is unaffected)  Key Interfaces  Primary focus was integrity of interfaces  Several design iterations followed end user feedback and field evaluations Design Approaches

25  Coat closure  Pant closure  Pant-to-footwear  Hood-to-coat  Hood-to-facepiece  Coat-to-glove  Coat-to-pants Key Ensemble Interfaces

26  Coat Closure  Vapor-penetration resistance side zipper  “Fin” provides baffle  Pant Closure  No zipper  Uses gusset with similar action to make closure Coat and Pant Closure Interfaces

27  Sock-like extension of liner (with barrier) into boot  Boot modified to accept new liner; holds sock in place  Advantages:  Provides “leak-free” interface  Same set up procedures  Can be laundered  Offers significant structural fire fighting advantages Pant-to-Footwear Interface

28 Integrated Boots and Pants

29  Hood-to-Coat  Integrated hood replaces separate hood  Hood-to-Facepiece  Flexible gasket at hood edge seals against facepiece  Coat zipper extends to seal hood around facepiece Hood and Facepiece Interfaces

30  Rings used in coat sleeve and glove gauntlet  Barrier materials sealed to rings  Glove barrier integrated to ring using Neoprene gasket  Coat barrier integrated to ring  Self-aligning magnets provide connection between rings  Glove remains in place; must be twisted to permit removal Coat-to-Glove Interface

31 Magnet Mate Gloves

32  Horizontal suspender loops minimum coat/pant gaps  SCBA exhalation air channeled through hose into coat  Spacers in coat allow air to distribute in coat  Exhalation air provides integrity, cooling, and increased insulation Upper Torso Integrity

33 Insulating Cooling System

34  Coat/pant similar to current designs  Some new features indistinguishable  Donning/doffing time not adversely impacted Current vs Proposed Ensemble

35  Based on Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Work Performance Evaluation  One of two IAFF Incumbent Evaluation Programs  Used assess to individual's ability to physically perform essential functions required in the occupation of firefighting  Consists of 10 events to be completed between 6 min and 10 min 47 sec Practical Performance Evaluation

36  Subjects able to complete all tasks without restriction  No problems with unique interfaces  All subjects felt drier after exercise  All subjects indicated that they preferred Project HEROES ® ensemble over current gear Fairfax Test Results

37  13 FDNY senior instructors  Fitted in standard “new” gear  Fitted in Project HEROES ® ensembles  3 different events  Fitting and orientation  Practice exercises (8 evolutions) – adjustments made between events  Rating exercises (3 combined evolutions) FDNY Form, Fit and Function Evaluation

38  Mask confidence course  Forced entry  Ladder climb/window entry  Dummy drag  Escape through window using descent device  Vehicle extrication/ Hurst tool use  Saw operation to cut roll down door  Hose operations FDNY Training Exercises

39  No perceived difference between standard and prototype ensembles in non-air exercises  Minor hindrance with prototype (effects lessened with use)  Some design features well received (e.g., footwear interface)  Improvements in hardware configuration/positioning identified FDNY Evaluation Findings

40  6 Instructors  5 Different fire training exercises  Aircraft interior  Car fire  Tank fire  Interior structural fire  Overhaul

41  General comments:  Some head movement restriction  No degradation of overall function  Improved thermal protection, especially in hood area  Instructors wanted to “keep” new gear

42 1. Complete field tests at three major cities 2. Finish production engineering 3. Finalize specifications, user instructions 4. Certify ensemble to new CBRN requirements 5. Manufacture for fire service Path Forward

43  Project HEROES ® is the next generation protective ensemble for the fire service  The initial focus has been on enhanced CBRN protection  Future efforts will provide totally integrated, respirator and sensor-based PPE system Homeland Emergency Response Operational and Equipment Systems Project HEROES ®


Download ppt "Homeland Emergency Response Operational and Equipment Systems."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google