1 / 15

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. Variables. 5 PFDs from 4 manufacturers Palm (two PFDs) Peak UK Nookie Safequip

eudora
Download Presentation

Methodology – Rescue 3 (UK) Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. Victim & Rescuer

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. Initial Findings • Doubling load does not double force on system • Average of 170N solo and 190N with victim

  8. 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)

  9. Comparison with US Study

  10. 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)

  11. 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)

More Related