Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

15
Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study • Real World Conditions • Major manufacturers invited to participate • Representative body types • Qualitative and quantitative data • Two test configurations, solo and with victim

description

Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study. Real World Conditions Major manufacturers invited to participate Representative body types Qualitative and quantitative data Two test configurations, solo and with victim. Variables. 5 PFDs from 4 manufacturers Palm (two PFDs) Peak UK Nookie Safequip - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Page 1: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

• Real World Conditions• Major manufacturers invited to participate• Representative body types• Qualitative and quantitative data• Two test configurations, solo and with

victim

Page 2: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Variables

• 5 PFDs from 4 manufacturers– Palm (two PFDs)– Peak UK– Nookie– Safequip

• Body type (5 test subjects plus a victim)• Low and high water velocity

– Currently undertaking low flow study

Page 3: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study
Page 4: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study
Page 5: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Determinants• Position of wearer in water (pillow wave

marker)• Stability (kinaesthetic feedback)• Quality of release (Commonality of

language)• Time for release• Force placed on system (Quantitatively)

Page 6: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study
Page 7: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study
Page 8: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Victim & Rescuer

Page 9: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Test Area

• Accurate dam release data obtainable from Environment Agency Wales

• Surveyed site (cross sectional area)• Does not present a hazard to recreational

boaters• Representative of low flow, but realistic

conditions

Page 10: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Flow Data

• Realistic water based rescue conditions• Testing occurred at approx 10 m3 s-1

• Equates to water velocity of 1.5 m s-1 mid flow (timed floating object)– Or walking pace– Just over 3mph– Slower than study in US (5mph)

Page 11: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Initial Findings

• Doubling load does not double force on system– Average of 170N solo and 190N with victim

Page 12: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Results

• Of approximately 100 releases in low flow conditions– 160N average force for largest test subject– 100N average force for our slightest subject– 2 release failures, requiring intervention– 10 faltering release (questionable reliability)

Page 13: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Comparison with US Study

Record US Wales

Velocity (m/s) 2.2 1.5

Av force solo (N)

333 170

Av force with victim (N)

453 190

Page 14: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

PerformanceChest Harness

• Failed/faulty release factors include;• Harness tail folded (long tail)• Hot knife termination (blob of nylon)• Ambiguity of instructions from

manufacturer (too much friction)• Inconsistency of new materials (stiffness)• Age of material (used example)

Page 15: Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

Summary Canolfan Tryweryn Testing

• Force values determined are lower than EN 1402 (250 N)

• 2% chance of failed release during low flow

• 10 % chance of a questionable release• Outside of EN12402 range but highly

relevant to user (real world conditions)