Thermal protection measurement of immersion suit comparison of two manikins with humans pilot study report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The use of manikins to evaluate the thermal protection characteristics of cold water protective suits such as marine abandonment or helicopter passenger suits is not widely accepted in international standards. A full demonstration of the validity of such use requires that two questions be answered. 1. Is the heat loss from a manikin representative of the heat loss from a human under identical conditions? 2. Can the measured heat loss be related to the fall in core temperature of a human subject by appropriate models or correlations? As part of a study of the first question, the heat losses, expressed as local heat transfer coefficients or local insulation values, were compared for two thermal submersible manikins and two human subjects wearing immersion suits with three different levels of closed cell foam insulation in two floatation positions in stirred water. Both the manikins and the human subjects were instrumented with heat flow sensors, skin temperature sensors, and outer suit surface temperature sensors at 13 sites over the body. Measurements were taken over the last 30 minutes of a 60 minute exposure in a water temperature of about 12 °C and an air temperature which was in the range 15 to 19 °C. In addition to the heat flow sensor readings, the heat loss from the manikins was determined by their sectional power consumption with their skin temperatures set to a uniform 30 °C. Floatation positions were vertical with immersion to the neck, and a natural position determined by the buoyancy characteristics of the suits. This latter position was determined by measuring the height of several body points relative to the water surface on the human subjects and then arranging the manikins to the same position. The human subjects were selected to have a similar fit with the suits as the manikins. The local heat transfer coefficients showed some scatter, but no systematic variation from manikin to human or from heat flow sensor to manikin power measurement could be discerned. When the local values were used to calculate an overall resistance by the parallel method, the scatter was greatly reduced, and again no systematic variations could be discerned. The final spread in the values of overall resistance was about +/- 18%. The differences between manikin and human (+/- 12%), between humans (+/- 13%), and between manikins (+/- 6%), were all of comparable magnitude. The trend of resistance as a function of suit thickness was similar to that shown by measurements of the insulation of the suit materials on a hot plate. It is likely that the variation in local heat transfer coefficients was due to the effects of differences in fit, folds or wrinkles in the suit materials, and was essentially random. These random differences then tended to average out in the calculation of the overall resistance. It is concluded that within the scatter due to fit, folds and wrinkles, the heat loss from the manikins was a good representation of the heat loss from humans for the vertical and natural floating positions in water for suits insulated with closed cell foam.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».