Soldier Protective Clothing and Equipment: Feasibility of Chemical Testing Using a Fully Articulated Robotic Mannequin (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Committee on Full-System Testing and Evaluation of Personal Protection Equipment Ensembles in Simulated Chemical-Warfare Environments Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology Division on Earth and Life Studies 

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri- ate balance. This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense under Grant W911NF- 06-C-0176. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:  978-0-309-10933-8 International Standard Book Number-10:  0-309-10933-7 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Cover: Design by Michael Dudzik; photos courtesy of U.S. Army. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America 

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en- gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi- dent of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti- tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Coun- cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org 



Committee on Full-System Testing and Evaluation of Personal Protection Equipment Ensembles Masayoshi Tomizuka (Chair), University of California, Berkeley Hadi Abu-Akeel, AMTENG Corporation, Sterling, Virginia Christopher G. Atkeson, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Lisa M. Brosseau, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Zane Frund, Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Darrell L. Jan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Sundaresan Jayaraman, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Leo Kobayashi, Rhode Island Hospital Medical Simulations, Providence Dava J. Newman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Arthur C. Sanderson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York R. Paul Schaudies, GenArraytion Inc., Rockville, Maryland Staff Dorothy Zolandz, Director, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology Kathryn Hughes, Postdoctoral Fellow Tina M. Masciangioli, Responsible Staff Officer Kela Masters, Project Assistant Emily Ann Meyer, Program Officer, National Materials Advisory Board Jessica Pullen, Research Assistant Norman Grossblatt, Senior Editor  

Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology F. Fleming Crim (Co-Chair), University of Wisconsin, Madison Gary S. Calabrese (Co-Chair), Corning Inc., Corning, New York Benjamin Anderson, Eli Lilly K.K., Kobe, Japan Pablo G. Debenedetti, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Ryan R. Dirxx, Arkema, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania George W. Flynn, Columbia University, New York Mauricio Futran, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New Brunswick, New Jersey Mary Galvin-Donoghue, Air Products and Chemicals, Allentown, Pennsylvania Paula T. Hammond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Rigoberto Hernandez, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Jay D. Keasling, University of California, Berkeley James L. Kinsey, Rice University, Houston, Texas Martha A. Krebs, California Energy Commission, Sacramento Charles T. Kresge, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan Joseph A. Miller, Corning, Inc., Corning, New York Scott J. Miller, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut Gerald V. Poje, Independent Consultant, Vienna, Virginia Donald Prosnitz, The Rand Corporation, Walnut Creek, California Thomas Upton, ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Baytown, Texas National Research Council Staff Dorothy Zolandz, Director Kathryn Hughes, Postdoctoral Fellow Tina M. Masciangioli, Program Officer Kela Masters, Project Assistant Ericka M. McGowan, Associate Program Officer Sybil A. Paige, Administrative Associate Jessica L. Pullen, Research Assistant Federico San Martini, Program Officer vi 

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following for their review of this report: Mr. Geoff Betsinger, 3M, St. Paul, Minnesota Dr. C.W. Cole, Clemson University, Pendleton, South Carolina Dr. William R. Hamel, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Dr. Duane Linder, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California Dr. Dennis J. Paustenbach, ChemRisk, Inc., San Francisco, California Dr. Jimmy L. Perkins, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio Dr. Matthew Reed, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Dr. Mike Sailor, University of California, San Diego Dr. Esther S. Takeuchi, State University of New York, Buffalo Mr. Joseph J. Vervier, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida vii 

viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Dr. Frederick A. Mur- phy, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, and Dr. Robert A. Beaudet, University of Southern California, Emeritus. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authors and the institution. 

Preface About a year ago—the U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense, Joint Project Man- ager, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Contamination Avoidance, Product Director, Test Equipment, Strategy, and Support (PD TESS)—met and initi- ated this study with National Research Council staff. The study evaluates the feasibility of developing a fully articulated robotic mannequin to test individual protection ensembles (IPE) in chemical-warfare agent environ- ments, namely the Protection Ensemble Test Mannequin (PETMAN) sys- tem. PD TESS was seeking assistance from an objective group of scientists and engineers (see Appendix A for the statement of task) who could evalu- ate the technical merit and feasibility of the PETMAN system requirements (listed in Appendix B). The resulting study was performed by an ad hoc committee with ex- pertise in chemistry; chemical engineering; biology; human physiology; chemical sensing; respiratory protective equipment; materials science; ro- botics; articulated mannequins; cost, benefit, and risk analysis; and warfare simulation involving chemical agents. Committee members were sought from various sources, including the academic, national laboratory, and industrial sectors. A committee of 10 members met in person four times from January to May 2007 to discuss overall U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and spe- cific PD TESS objectives in protection ensemble testing. During that time, the committee received briefings on current capabilities (see Appendix D), deliberated, and developed its conclusions and recommendations. In the report, the committee discusses in detail what it considered to be the key ix 

 PREFACE design challenges associated with developing a PETMAN system: human- physiology simulation, chemical-agent sensing, robotics design, “skin” ar- chitecture and materials, and systems integration. I thank all the members of the committee for their contributions to this study. Briefings by guest speakers were extremely useful in helping the com- mittee to understand some critical aspects of the PETMAN requirements. On behalf of the committee, I thank the staff members of the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology who helped us by organizing the meet- ings and making our service a rewarding and enjoyable experience. Masayoshi Tomizuka, Chair Committee on Full-System Testing and Evaluation of Personal Protection Equipment Ensembles in Simulated Chemical-Warfare Environments 

Contents Summary 1 1 Introduction 11 The Protection Ensemble Test Mannequin System, 12 Examples of Current Military PETMAN-Like Systems, 20 Organization of This Report, 23 2 Design Challenge: Simulation of Human Physiology 25 Current Technologic Capabilities, 25 Design Challenges and How They May Be Addressed, 39 Cost-Benefit Analysis and Trade-Offs, 46 Feasibility and Potential Alternatives, 46 3 Design Challenge: Mannequin Under-Ensemble Sensing 57 Relevant PETMAN Requirements, 58 Current Detection Technologies, 60 Design Challenges and How They May Be Addressed, 71 Cost-Benefit Analysis and Trade-Offs, 74 Feasibility and Potential Alternatives, 74 4 Design Challenge: Robotic Capability for PETMAN 77 Relevant PETMAN Requirements, 78 Current Technology, 78 Cost-Benefit Analysis, 90 Feasibility and Potential Alternatives, 91 xi 

xii CONTENTS 5 Design Challenge: PETMAN Surface Structure and Materials 93 Relevant PETMAN Requirements, 94 The PETMAN Ski, 94 Current Technology to Meet Skin Design Challenges, 98 Conclusions and Recommendations, 108 6 Design Challenge: An Integrated PETMAN System 111 PETMAN System Design Overview, 111 Tethering Compatibility with Functional Requirements, 115 Some Integration Observations, 121 Practical Approach to Mannequin Development, 122 Systems Architecture and Software Considerations, 123 Conclusions and Recommendations, 126 7 A Complementary Approach to Meeting PETMAN System Goals 129 The Sensor-Integrated Body Suit, 130 Conclusion, 132 8 Overarching Conclusions and Recommendations 133 Priority Setting Among PETMAN Requirements, 133 Contractor Qualifications, 134 A Complementary Approach, 135 Appendixes A Statement of Task 137 B Description of the PETMAN System Feasibility Study 139 C Committee Biographic Information 149 D Open Session Presentation Summaries 155