U.S. Department of Commerce 

Technology Administration 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Office of Applied Economics 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 

Firefighter Turnout Coat Configurations: 

Performance Data for Acquisition Decisions 

Hayden Brown

NISTIR 7141
U.S. Department of Commerce 

Technology Administration 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Office of Applied Economics 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 

Firefighter Turnout Coat Configurations: 

Performance Data for Acquisition Decisions 

Hayden Brown 

Sponsored by: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

February 2005 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION 

Philip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Hratch G. Semerjian, Acting Director

NISTIR 7141
ii

Abstract

This report describes the essential components of turnout coats, specifies the relevant performance 

tests, and documents the collected performance data that can support cost-effective acquisition and 

utilization decisions. A turnout coat is a system of separate components. Each component has many 

commercially available alternatives. Critical measures of performance are described. For each 

performance measure, the test method, reference, and significance are all explained. These measures 

fall into four categories: 

1. Heat Resistance: Includes measures of resistance to heat and flame such as thermal protective 

performance (TPP), thermal efficiency (derived), and vertical flame char length. 

2. Tactile Performance: Includes measures of weight, thickness, and bending stiffness. 

3. Durability: Includes measures of outer shell durability, lightfastness, abrasion (two types), trap 

tear, and grab strength. 

4. Comfort: Includes measures of breathability, face cloth friction, and face cloth wicking. 

These performance characteristics are key to making selection decisions. Data on the performance 

characteristics have been compiled along with in this report. There are three distinct data sets in this 

report: a comprehensive universe of all suit components gathered without corresponding 

performance measures; and two data sets including performance data provided by Dupont and 

Southern Mills. 

The decision support tool will help fire departments apply these data to their turnout coat selection 

procedures. The conceptual framework is the Analytic Hierarchy Process, a multiattribute model 

developed in the operations research field. The tool will implement the Analytic Hierarchy Process 

to help fire departments select the best turnout coats for their applications, given the relative 

importance they place on each of the performance characteristics presented here, and taking into 

account the acquisition cost. The software will be available directly on the Internet in a convenient, 

readily accessible form. 

Key Words: firefighter, cost effective, multiattribute decision analysis, performance data, selection 

criteria, turnout coat 
iii

Preface

This study was conducted by the Office of Applied Economics in the Building and Fire Research 

Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This report describes the essential 

components of firefighter turnout coats, specifies the relevant performance tests, and documents the 

collected performance data that support the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) so that costeffective acquisition and utilization decisions can be made. The intended audience is the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology as well as other government and private sector organizations 

that are concerned with evaluating and selecting turnout coats. 

Disclaimer: Certain trade names or company products are mentioned in the text to specify 

adequately the experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does such identification 

imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that the equipment is the best available for the purpose. 

Disclaimer Regarding Non-metric Units: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology is to use metric units in all its published materials. Since this report is intended for U.S. 

users of firefighter turnout coats who evaluate performance using customary units, it is more 

practical and less confusing to use the customary rather than metric units to indicate turnout coat 

performance. 
iv

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Dave Evans, Randy Lawson, and Kuldeep Prasad of the Building and Fire 

Research Laboratory for starting this project and for their many helpful comments and suggestions 

on the turnout coat performance measures and data. Thanks are also given to Harold Marshall, 

Robert Chapman, Laura Schultz and Stephen Weber for their comments and suggestions, and to 

Grace Lin and Christine Izzo for data input and organization. 
v

Table of Contents

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... ii 

Preface............................................................................................................................................iii 

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ iv 

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Approach........................................................................................... 1 

2. Performance Criteria................................................................................................................... 3 

2.1 Available Performance Measures and Sources..................................................................... 3 

2.2 Introduction to Performance Tests........................................................................................ 4 

2.3 Performance Test and Measure Descriptions ....................................................................... 4 

2.4 Summary of Performance Measures..................................................................................... 8 

3. Data Set Organization and Collection......................................................................................... 9 

3.1 Composition of Fire Turnout Coats, by Component ............................................................ 9 

3.2 Fiber and Fabrics in the Component-Level Data Set.......................................................... 10 

3.3 The Southern Mills Data Set............................................................................................... 11 

3.4 The Dupont Data Set........................................................................................................... 11 

3.5 Complete Turnout Coat Performance Data for Internet Decision Tool.............................. 12 

4. Summary and Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................... 17 

4.1 Summary............................................................................................................................. 17 

4.2 Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................................ 17 

References..................................................................................................................................... 18 

Appendix A: Test Standards ........................................................................................................ 19 

Appendix B: Composition of Fire Turnout Coats, By Component ............................................. 21 

Appendix C: Southern Mills Data Set ......................................................................................... 27
vi

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Components of Firefighters' Turnout Coat ................................................................. 9 

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Standards Organizations............................................................................................... 3 

Table 2-2. Performance Measures and Direction Indicating Improved Performance ................... 8 

Table 3-1. Dupont Fire Suit Performance Data ........................................................................... 13 

Table B-1. Fibers Used In Outer Shells, Moisture Barriers, And Thermal Liners...................... 22 

Table B-2. Outer Shells and Thermal Liners............................................................................... 23 

Table B-3. Moisture Barriers ....................................................................................................... 26 

Table C-1. Southern Mills Fire Suit Performance Data............................................................... 27 
1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background 

Firefighters use a variety of equipment for protection from injury and death. Examples include self 

contained breathing gear, thermal imaging equipment, and protective clothing. Information about the 

multiple performance characteristics of such equipment is sparse and not organized for informing 

cost-effective decisions on acquisition and utilization. The long-range goal of this research is to 

develop and implement a decision support tool for the evaluation of several types of firefighters’ 

equipment. The current effort focuses on protective clothing. This report is specifically focused on 

firefighter turnout coats. 

The decision support tool will help fire departments apply these data to their turnout coat selection 

procedures. The tool will implement the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a multiattribute model, 

to help fire departments select the best turnout coats for their applications, given the relative 

importance they place on each of the performance characteristics presented here, and taking into 

account the acquisition cost. The software will be available directly on the Internet in a convenient, 

readily accessible form. 

The AHP is one of a set of multiattribute decision analysis methods that considers nonmonetary 

attributes (qualitative and quantitative) in addition to common economic evaluation measures (such 

as life-cycle costing or net benefits) when evaluating project alternatives. The AHP has several 

significant strengths: it is well known and well-reviewed in the literature; it includes an efficient 

attribute weighting process of pairwise comparisons; it incorporates hierarchical descriptions of 

attributes, which keep the number of pairwise comparisons manageable; and it has been accepted by 

ASTM as a standard practice.1

 

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Approach 

This report is the supporting documentation for the decision support tool. This report defines turnout 

coats that will be included in the decision support tool, describes the relevant performance tests, and 

documents the collected performance data that can support cost-effective acquisition and utilization 

decisions. Users of the decision support tool will need this report to develop individualized rankings 

of the importance of each performance characteristic. 

Section 2 describes the performance tests and measures. Suit component and assembled suit 

selection decisions are based on performance. Section 3 explains the scope of the three data sets that 

were compiled. Section 3 also contains the collected data for the Dupont data set, the source data 

that will be used in the decision support tool. Section 4 concludes with a summary of the data, 

discussion of the decision support tool, and directions for future research. There are three 

appendices. Appendix A lists the ASTM test standards that were consulted in this report. Appendix 

 

1

 ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute 

Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, E 1765-02, West Conshohoken, PA, 

2002. 
2

B lists most of the alternatives available for each suit component, based on an independent review of 

the market. Appendix C provides performance data from Southern Mills. 
3

2. Performance Criteria 

2.1 Available Performance Measures and Sources 

A comprehensive investigation was completed to identify appropriate testing standards for available 

published test results.2

 The testing standards referenced in this report are from the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA), ASTM International, and the American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). 

Table 2-1. Standards Organizations 

Organization web site 

National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) www.nfpa.org 

ASTM International www.astm.org 

American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) www.aatcc.org

Appendix A cites the performance tests used in this report. The major NFPA tests are outlined in 

NFPA 1971 and NFPA 1976. In addition, NFPA 1851 is useful for its assistance in developing 

selection criteria, based on the risks that emergency responders face. 

The NFPA standards for turnout coats specify tests that the coats must pass in order to be labeled 

“compliant.” Manufacturers report NFPA compliance according to these tests. The tests include 

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP), flame resistance, tear resistance, liquid penetration 

resistance, shrinkage resistance, and water absorption resistance. Manufacturers have the 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and other independent laboratories perform the tests. 

In this report, the test data fall into one of four natural groupings, explained in the next chapter. 

Additionally, the decision support software will permit the user to enter specific cost quotes obtained 

from suppliers. 

 

2

 The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) fire 

researchers are developing new test methods to collect more data on the thermal performance of turnout coats in 

non-optimal conditions. A test apparatus was developed to measure heat transfer on a fabric sample that is 

compressed and submerged in water—a situation that might occur at a firefighter’s knees or elbows. Also, heat 

transfer tests have been performed on turnout gear after exposure to wear (cleaning, prior exposure to heat). The 

Protective Clothing Performance Simulator (PCPS), developed by R. Lawson and K. Prasad, adds a skin model to 

the heat transfer model, and estimates the time to first degree burn and second degree burn. Kukuck and Prasad 

(2003), Simulating a TPP Test for Single-Layered Fabrics (NISTIR 6993), is an extension of earlier work by Mell 

and Lawson (1999) on developing a heat transfer model. In the future, the decision support tool for Fire Protective 

Clothing could use performance data calculated according to NIST-specified performance measures, when they are 

finalized and become widely available. 
4

2.2 Introduction to Performance Tests 

The performance measures listed below tend to fall into four groupings.3

 

1. Heat Resistance: Includes measures of resistance to heat and flame such as thermal protective 

performance (TPP), thermal efficiency (derived), and vertical flame char length. 

2. Tactile Performance: Includes measures of weight, thickness, and bending stiffness. 

3. Durability: Includes measures of outer shell durability, lightfastness, abrasion (two types), trap 

tear, and grab strength. 

4. Comfort: Includes measures of breathability, face cloth friction, and face cloth wicking. 

2.3 Performance Test and Measure Descriptions 

Presented below is the following information for each performance test: (1) the test name, (2) what 

the test shows regarding performance, (3) a reference to the test standard (such as ASTM or NFPA), 

(4) a short description of the test, (5) the test outcome measure, (6) whether better performance is 

indicated by increasing or decreasing performance numbers, and (7) whether the test measure units 

are proportional to the impact on performance. 

The mathematical framework used in the decision support tool requires that the performance 

measures be denominated in units that are proportional to the performance impact. Proportional units 

are those that are directly proportional— a measure that is twice as high indicates performance that is 

twice as good— and inversely proportional— a measure that is twice as high indicates performance 

that is half as good. 

Thermal Protective Performance (TPP)

The thermal protective performance (TPP) test measures the thermal insulation of a suit. Thermal 

efficiency— TPP divided by the turnout coat weight—can be derived. The TPP indicates how long a 

firefighter can wear the suit under specific conditions before being burned. The test is referenced in 

NFPA 1971, Chapter 6-10, p. 43-47. The NFPA minimum requirement of a TPP rating of 35 equates 

to 17.5 s until second degree burn in a flashover situation. A test apparatus is described for exposing 

a turnout coat sample to a heat source. A calorimeter measures the heat during the exposure process. 

The heat exposure is described using a plot of energy versus the time to cause a second-degree burn 

in human tissue. The TPP rating is calculated as the product of exposure energy heat flux— calories 

per square centimeter per second, or cal/(cm2

·s)— and the time to burn in seconds (s). The resulting 

measure is cal/cm2

, calories per square centimeter. A suit with a higher TPP number gives the 

wearer more protection than a suit with a lower number. The measure is proportional, so that a suit 

with a TPP twice as high as another suit offers twice as much protection.

 

3

 The hierarchy used in the decision support tool can accommodate, at most, seven characteristics. This first version 

of the decision support software will allow the user to select seven performance characteristics. Future versions of 

the decision support tool software will use the groupings developed in this section to allow consideration of all 

performance characteristics. 
5

Vertical Flame Char Length

Vertical flame char length measures the deterioration of a suit when exposed to flame. This shows 

the stability of the suit. The test method is given in "Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of 

Textiles (Vertical Test)," ASTM Test Method D 6413-99. A specimen is positioned vertically above 

a controlled flame and exposed for 10 min. The fabric is folded, a weight is attached, and the fabric is 

lifted. Char length is the linear measure, in inches, of the tear produced. There is a linear measure of 

the tear along the warp (the continuous length) of the fabric, and a linear measure of the tear along 

the fill (the cross length) of the fabric.4

 A higher length indicates a longer tear. The measure is 

inversely proportional, meaning that a suit fabric that has a tear that is twice as long as another suit 

fabric is only half as stable. 

System Mass (Weight)

System Mass (Weight) indicates how heavy the suit is. In order to simplify the terminology, 

“weight” should be read as “mass (weight)” throughout this report. The test method "Standard Test 

Method for Mass Per Unit Area (Weight) of Fabric," is provided in ASTM Test Method D 3776-96. 

This test measures the fabric mass per unit area (weight). A larger number— ounces per square yard, 

or opsy—indicates a heavier weight. The measure is inversely proportional. 

System Thickness

System thickness indicates how bulky the suit is. The test method "Standard Test Method for 

Thickness of Textile Materials," is provided in ASTM Test Method D 1777-96 (Reapproved 2002). 

A specimen is placed on the base of a thickness gauge and a weighted presser foot is lowered. The 

displacement between the base and the presser foot is measured as the thickness of the specimen, 

given in mils ( ) 1 inch 1000 . Higher numbers indicate greater thickness. The measure is inversely 

proportional. 

Thermal Liner Bending Stiffness

Thermal liner bending stiffness indicates the effort of the firefighter to both put on and to move 

around in a suit. The test method "Standard Test Method for Stiffness of Fabrics," is provided in 

ASTM Test Method D 1388-96 (Reapproved 2002). The test result is the required force per inch (in 

grams force per inch, gf/in) to bend a sample of fabric 90°. A higher number indicates a higher force 

required to bend the fabric. The measure is inversely proportional, meaning that a fabric that 

requires twice as much force to bend compared to another fabric, is half as flexible. 

Lightfastness (Colorfastness) Rating

This test measures the color change of the outer shell of the suit. Color change in some suits is an 

indicator of age and reduced protective performance. The test is referenced in AATCC Test Method 

16-1998, "Colorfastness to Light.” The test is a color shift rating after 20 h based on a grey scale 

color difference. Samples of the textile material to be tested are exposed to a light source under 

specified conditions. The colorfastness to light of the specimen is evaluated by comparison of the 

 

4

 The decision support tool could either use the longest tear length, or it could multiply the warp and fill to get the 

area of the tear. 
6

grey-scale change of the exposed portion to the masked control portion of the test specimen. The 

maximum lightfastness rating of 5 indicates that there was no color shift. The lowest lightfastness 

rating of 1 indicates that there were more than 13 AATCC Fading Units (AFU) between the exposed 

and unexposed fabric. The measure is proportional, meaning that a fabric with a lightfastness rating 

twice that of another fabric is twice as stable. 

Tabor Abrasion (CS10 and H18)

Tabor abrasion measures the durability of a fabric when subjected to wear. The test method 

"Standard Guide for Abrasion Resistance of Textile Fabrics (Rotary Platform, Double-Head 

Method)" is provided in ASTM Test Method D 3884-01. A specimen is abraded using rotary 

rubbing action from an abrading wheel. The CS10 wheel is mildly abrasive. The H18 wheel has a 

medium-coarse texture. The tabor abrasion number is the number of revolutions of the specified 

wheel until a hole has formed in the fabric. A hole is defined as breaking both the warp and fill 

fibers. A higher number—more wheel revolutions—indicates a higher fabric durability. The 

measure is proportional, so that a fabric that requires twice as many wheel revolutions to form a hole, 

compared to another fabric, is twice as durable. 

Trapezoidal Tear

Trapezoidal tear is a measure of fabric strength and durability. The Tear Resistance Test is 

referenced in section 6-12 of NFPA 1971, 2000 edition. The ASTM reference is "Standard Test 

Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by Trapezoid Procedure," ASTM Test Method D 5587-96. 

The test is described as follows: An outline of an isosceles trapezoid is marked on a rectangular 

specimen cut for the determination of tearing strength, and the nonparallel sides of the trapezoid 

marked on the specimen are clamped in parallel jaws of a tensile testing machine. The separation of 

the jaws is continuously increased so the tear propagates across the specimen. At the same time, the 

force (pound-force, or lbf) developed is recorded and averaged for the test.5

 This test is performed 

separately along the warp direction and fill direction of the fabric.6

 A higher number indicates a 

greater number of pounds of force necessary to tear the fabric. The measure is proportional, so that a 

fabric that requires twice as much force to tear compared to another fabric, is twice as strong and 

durable. 

Grab Strength

Grab strength is a measure of fabric strength. Grab strength is referenced in NFPA 1971, Chapter 6-

50 (called the Breaking Strength Test using ASTM D5034). The test method is given in "Standard 

Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test)," ASTM Test 

Method D 5034-95 (Reapproved 2001). In this test, a continually increasing load (pound-force, or 

lbf) is applied longitudinally to the specimen until the fabric ruptures. This test is performed 

separately along the warp direction and fill directions of the fabric. A higher grab strength indicates 

a greater number of pounds of force necessary to rupture the fabric. The measure is proportional, so 

that a fabric that requires twice as much force to rupture compared to another fabric, is twice as 

strong. 

 

5

 The pound-force (lbf) is a unit of force or weight equal to a mass of one pound multiplied by the standard 

acceleration of gravity, approximately 32.17405 ft/s2

). 6

 For the trapezoidal tear test and the grab strength test, the decision support tool will use the lower number. 
7

Breathability

Breathability indicates the flow of heat and moisture from the skin to the environment, by measuring 

the amount of energy required to maintain a constant suit temperature. The test is referenced in 

NFPA 1971, Chapter 6-34, p. 62-63. The specific test method "Standard Test Method for Thermal 

and Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate," is provided in ASTM 

Test Method F 1868-02. Breathability is the Total Heat Loss (Qt), which is defined as watts per 

square meter (W/m2

). A higher THL indicates that the suit is more breathable—it allows more flow 

of heat and moisture to the environment. The measure is proportional, so that a suit with a THL 

twice that of another suit is twice as breathable. 

Face Cloth Friction

Face cloth friction indicates the ease of donning and removing fire suits over station wear. The test 

method is the "Standard Test Method for Static and Kinetic Coefficients of Friction of Plastic Film 

and Sheeting," ASTM Test Method D 1894-01, using a weighted sled (400 g) wrapped with 

NOMEX fabric (to simulate station wear) pulled across a length of face cloth (0.5 in/min). Face 

cloth friction is the coefficient of sliding friction of a suit face cloth material when sliding over a 

reference fabric. The measure is free of units. Larger numbers indicate more friction, and hence 

more difficulty in donning fire suits. The measure is inversely proportional, meaning that a fabric 

with twice as much face cloth friction as that of another fabric is half as easy to don. 

 

Face Cloth Wicking

Face cloth wicking indicates the ability of the face cloth to draw heat and moisture away from the 

skin, improving comfort. This is a Dupont-specified test. A sample fabric (1 in x 7 in) is suspended 

in a pan of water containing 1.8 in ± 0.2 in water. The vertical progress of water up the fabric is 

measured at specific time intervals. The data in this report list the vertical height (inches) after 

10 min. A higher number indicates more absorption and thus more comfort. The measure is 

proportional.
8

2.4 Summary of Performance Measures 

These performance standards can be summarized as follows: 

Table 2-2. Performance Measures and Direction Indicating Improved Performance

Group Measure Measurement 

Units Test Reference Direction Indicating 

Improved Performance 

TPP cal/cm2 Heat NFPA 1971 higher (more protection) 

Resistance Vertical Flame Char in (per 10 min) ASTM D 6413-99 lower (resistance to charring) 

Weight oz/yd2 ASTM D 3776-96 lower (lighter) 

Thickness mils ASTM D 1777-96 lower (thinner) Tactile 

Performance Bending Stiffness gf/in ASTM D 1388-96 lower (flexible) 

Lightfastness Rating indexA AATCC 16-1998 higher (more colorfast) 

Abrasion cycles ASTM D 3884-01 higher (resistance to abrasion) 

Trap Tear lbf ASTM D 5587-96 higher (resistance to tearing) Durability 

Grab Strength lbf ASTM D 5034-95 higher (resistance to tearing) 

Breathability W/m2 ASTM F 1868-02 higher (body moisture escapes) 

Comfort Face Cloth Friction dimensionless ASTM D 1894-01 lower (less friction) 

Face Cloth Wicking in (per 10 min) Dupont test higher (more wicking) A Lightfastness Rating is given by an index from 1 to 5. 

These performance measures will be used in the decision support tool. The tool will help users 

understand tradeoffs between performance measures. As an example, the standard method of 

increasing TPP ratings is by adding more insulation. This makes the turnout coat heavier. There is a 

tradeoff between weight—and perhaps associated measures such as stiffness—and the TPP rating. 

Again as an example, one way to reduce char length is to increase the weight of the fabric. This 

makes the turnout coat heavier. Again, there is a tradeoff between weight—and perhaps stiffness—

and the char length rating. The decision support tool will help the user make individualized tradeoffs 

between weight, stiffness, TPP, char length, and other performance characteristics. The decision 

support tool will present the user with the best firefighter turnout coat choices based on his or her 

individualized performance tradeoffs and budget. 
9

3. Data Set Organization and Collection

A firefighters’ turnout coat is made of four basic components. Figure 3-1 shows these components 

from the interior (bottom layer) to the exterior (top layer). The first two are the face cloth and 

thermal liner combination, represented together in Figure 3-1. The third and fourth components are 

the moisture barrier and the outer shell. The face cloth is closest to the skin of the wearer and 

attaches to the thermal liner. The thermal liner protects against heat penetration. The integrated 

moisture barrier component consists of the actual moisture barrier which is a plastic-like non-fabric 

product laminated to a fabric liner. The moisture barrier is designed to keep water out while 

allowing a limited amount of moisture vapor to exit. The exterior turnout coat component is the 

outer shell, which protects against flames and heat. The performance of a whole turnout coat 

depends on the choice of each of the four components (face cloth, thermal liner, moisture barrier, and 

outer shell). 

Figure 3-1. Components of Firefighters’ Turnout Coat 

Three data collection efforts were undertaken for this project. The first effort resulted in a data set, 

presented in Appendix B, describing the composition of turnout coats, by component. It is a detailed 

description of the composition of available thermal liners, moisture barriers, and outer shells; and 

provides the most comprehensive picture available of all possible suit configurations. No 

performance data are included for this data set. The second data set, obtained from Southern Mills, 

denotes a complete suit as the combination of four components: the face cloth, thermal liner, 

moisture barrier, and the outer shell. The third data set, obtained from Dupont, denotes a complete 

suit as the combination of three components, because the face cloth is considered part of the thermal 

liner. The Dupont data will be used in this first version of the decision support tool. Therefore, these 

data are presented in the body of this report, specifically Section 3.5 Table 3-1. 

3.1 Composition of Fire Turnout Coats, by Component 

The first data set, available in Appendix B, was compiled from company-provided specifications on 

available products on the market. Information sources included web sites, brochures, and corporate 

documents. The face cloth, thermal liner, moisture barrier, and outer shell are the separate 

components that must be combined to produce a complete suit. The face cloth and thermal liner 

combination is treated as a single component in this data set. Information such as fabric type, fabric 

 outer shell 

 moisture barrier 

 thermal liner + face cloth 
10

blends, weight, weave, and finishes were compiled for thermal liners and outer shells. In Appendix 

B, the first table lists the available fibers. The second table details fabrics used in thermal liners and 

outer shells. Because both components use the same fabrics, they were combined into one table for 

ease of presentation. The third table details moisture barriers. 

The component-level approach has many advantages. Component-level evaluation provides more 

flexibility to the data set user. Protective clothing can be specified as any combination of 

components—not just the combinations that were tested together. Second, gathering component 

performance data is more efficient and more cost effective than collecting turnout coat performance 

data. The number of choices for each component results in a large number of possible combinations 

of turnout coats. Turnout coats are often made to custom specifications, and the performance 

information on all possible completed turnout coats is not available. 

This approach also has some deficiencies. Not all tests are performed or disclosed by the 

manufacturer for each component. The cooperation of the manufacturer is needed to obtain specific 

measures when they are not presented in the published product literature. 

Second, because the data are limited to tests on individual turnout coat components and not entire 

suits, some performance measures are not available. Simple additive measures such as weight and 

thickness are possible to construct, and some single-component performance tests can indicate the 

whole turnout coat performance. For example, a moisture penetration test performed on the moisture 

barrier component indicates the moisture penetration performance of a whole suit. Also, the tabor 

abrasion tests and lightfastness tests performed on the outer shell component will indicate the 

durability of the whole turnout coat. There are, however, performance tests that require all the suit 

components to be tested together—such as the thermal protective performance (TPP) test. For the 

TPP, it is necessary to either locate actual test data for the suit or to estimate performance data based 

on the components used. Performance algorithms being developed at the NIST may eventually be 

able to calculate the TPP performance of the whole turnout coat from the performance of each 

individual component.7

3.2 Fiber and Fabrics in the Component-Level Data Set 

Any specific turnout coat component, such as an outer shell, is created using specific steps that may 

involve several companies. For example, one manufacturer might make the fiber, a second weave 

the fiber into fabric, and a third use the fabric to make one or more of the components of a turnout 

coat. The most basic element of the turnout coat is the fiber, followed by the fabric. Both the fiber 

and fabric manufacturers provided performance information. 

Properties of fabrics include weight, fiber, and fiber blends. This information was compiled 

separately for outer shells, moisture barriers, and thermal liners. In the data set, the moisture barrier 

component is entered as a single unit, typically a combination of the moisture barrier and a backing 

fabric. 

Data on the composition of fire turnout coats, by component, are presented in Appendix B. 

Identified are 55 thermal liner and face cloth combinations, 22 moisture barriers, and 91 outer shell 

variations. Moisture barriers are a combination of the moisture barrier and a liner. Components are 

differentiated when they change fiber blends, when they have unique trade names or product names, 

 

7

 See footnote 2. 
11

and when they have weave or finish variations. Entries are identified by product name, trade name, 

fiber content and blend, and manufacturer name. 

Currently, these performance data are incomplete because components do not have performance data 

for all tests. The models for estimating thermal performance are not currently available and data are 

not available at the component level. Due to incomplete manufacturer testing information, the 

performance of components cannot be reliably compared. 

To compensate for unavailable performance data, a new data collection effort was undertaken. The 

strategy was to look for data from a single-source that had several full turnout coat combinations and 

performance measures, where all the turnout coat combinations had been tested thoroughly and 

consistently. The collected data were compiled into the second (Southern Mills) and third (Dupont) 

data sets. 

3.3 The Southern Mills Data Set 

The second data set, presented in Appendix C, is from performance data provided by Southern Mills, 

a textile manufacturer. Southern Mills provides information on 50 suits that are the combinations of 

5 thermal liners (with face cloths), 2 moisture barriers, and 5 outer shells. The performance measures 

used by Southern Mills are TPP, weight, thickness, and a price index (these data are shown in 

Appendix C). 

Because of data limitations, it is not possible to combine the Southern Mills and Dupont data into a 

single, usable, data set.8

 

3.4 The Dupont Data Set 

The third data set is from performance data provided by Dupont. The information contained in the 

Dupont data set is available on the Internet using the Dupont EZ-Spec configuration program 

(http://www.dupont.com/nomex/ezspec/splash.html). This data set includes 13 measures of 

performance on a total of 41 complete suits.9

 Dupont uses a well-documented standard set of tests on 

all suits. The performance results of one suit can be meaningfully compared with those of another 

suit. One notable omission in these performance tests is the radiative protective performance (RPP) 

measure. The Dupont performance data presented are from tests of whole turnout coats. The Dupont 

data used in the decision support tool are presented in their entirety in Section 3.5, Table 3-1. 

The multiattribute decision analysis algorithm requires a fully-populated data matrix. As more data 

become available, these data sets will be expanded and, where possible, merged. When relevant 

NIST models are developed, the data sets will incorporate these NIST-developed performance 

measures. 

 

8

 In order to use the analytic hierarchy process, all suit choices must have measures for all performance criteria. 

Because the Dupont data and Southern Mills data do not share all suit choices or all performance measures, it is not 

possible to combine them for use in the decision support tool. 

9

 Two tests in the Dupont data were omitted from this report. The Thermal Efficiency test is TPP divided by weight, 

and so may be constructed without a separate entry. The “Thermo-Man” test uses a Dupont-specific method that 

estimates percent of estimated burn. This test was omitted because it is not a required test and it is not often 

reported for other turnout coats that might be added to the this data set in the future, thus eliminating its usefulness 

as a standard of comparison. 
12

3.5 Complete Turnout Coat Performance Data for Internet Decision Tool 

The following table lists the performance data from Data Set 3 (Dupont Data) for the 41 turnout coat 

combinations tested. These data will be used in the decision support tool. Table 3-1 column headings 

refer to the performance measures explained in Section 2. 
13

Table 3-1. Dupont Fire Suit Performance Data

Tabor 

Abrasion 

Outer Shell 

Moisture Barrier 

Thermal Liner 

Face Cloth 

TPP (cal/cm

2

) 

Char Length (in) 

Vertical Flame: 

Trap Tear (lbf) 

Grab Strength (lbf) 

CS10 (cycles 

to hole)

H18 (cycles to 

hole)

Lightfastness Rating 

Face Cloth Friction 

Face Cloth Wicking 

(in) 

System Weight 

(oz/yd

2

) 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance) 

Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Woven 47.7 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.47 2.2 19.7 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance) 

Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 Aralite Caldura 45.5 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.37 2.8 20.2 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance) 

Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 43.1 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.47 2.2 19.6 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance 

Crosstech/ E89 

2 layer Nomex E89 

Caldura 41.3 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.37 2.8 18.4 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance) 

Crosstech/ E89 

3 layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Woven 44.3 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.47 2.2 19.0 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance) 

Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Caldura 43.8 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.37 2.8 19.0 

Nomex/Kevlar (Advance) 

Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 45.3 0.8 x 0.8 31 x 22 233 x 178 740 165 1 0.47 2.8 18.7 

Nomex/Kevlar (Duralite) 

Crosstech/ E89 SMS 200 Denier 40.4 0.6 x 0.6 90 x 108 288 x 262 861 292 3 0.27 2.5 16.4 

Nomex/Kevlar (Fusion) 

Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Woven 43.1 0.9 x 0.8 44 x 32 363 x 313 1233 247 2/3 0.32 4.0 19.6 

Nomex/Kevlar (Fusion) 

Crosstech/ E89 

2 Layer Nomex E89 

Glide 36.1 0.9 x 0.8 44 x 32 363 x 313 1233 247 2/3 0.32 4.0 17.9 

Nomex/Kevlar (Fusion) 

Crosstech/ E89 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Woven 43.1 0.9 x 0.8 44 x 32 363 x 313 1233 247 2/3 0.50 1.9 20.5 
14

Table 3-1. Dupont Fire Suit Performance Data, continued 

Tabor 

Abrasion 

Outer Shell 

Moisture Barrier 

Thermal Liner 

Face Cloth 

TPP (cal/cm

2

) 

Char Length (in) 

Vertical Flame: 

Trap Tear (lbf) 

Grab Strength (lbf) 

CS10 (cycles 

to hole)

H18 (cycles to 

hole)

Lightfastness Rating 

Face Cloth Friction 

Face Cloth Wicking 

(in) 

System Weight 

(oz/yd

2

) 

Nomex/Kevlar (Fusion) 

Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 41.9 0.9 x 0.8 44 x 32 363 x 313 1233 247 2/3 0.47 2.2 18.7 

Kevlar/Basofil Crosstech/ E89 2 Layer Nomex E89 Caldura 45.8 0.3 x 0.3 23 x 43 185 x 146 1042 137 2 0.38 2.8 19.8 Kevlar/Basofil Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Caldura 47.7 0.3 x 0.3 23 x 43 185 x 146 1042 137 2 0.38 2.8 20.2 Kevlar/Basofil Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 47.5 0.3 x 0.3 23 x 43 185 x 146 1042 137 2 0.47 2.2 19.2 Kevlar/Basofil Crosstech/ E89 Basofil Felt FRT Cotton 53.5 0.3 x 0.3 23 x 43 185 x 146 1042 137 2 0.50 3.0 24.1 Kevlar/PBI (Gold) 

Crosstech/ E89 

2 Layer Nomex E89 

Caldura 39.3 0.3 x 0.2 30 x 35 258 x 234 870 119 3 0.38 2.8 18.7 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold) 

Crosstech/ E89 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Woven 43.0 0.3 x 0.2 30 x 35 258 x 234 870 119 3 0.47 2.2 19.6 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold) 

Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Caldura 43.5 0.3 x 0.2 30 x 35 258 x 234 870 119 3 0.38 2.8 20.0 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold) 

Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 41.4 0.3 x 0.2 30 x 35 258 x 234 870 119 3 0.47 2.2 18.7 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold) 

Crosstech/ E89 Rebound Slick 50.0 0.3 x 0.2 30 x 35 258 x 234 870 119 3 0.27 2.5 22.3 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold Plus) 

Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Glide 43.2 0.5 x 0.5 38 x 40 239 x 248 862 183 3 0.32 4.0 19.8 
15

Table 3-1. Dupont Fire Suit Performance Data, continued 

Tabor 

Abrasion 

Outer Shell 

Moisture Barrier 

Thermal Liner 

Face Cloth 

TPP (cal/cm

2

) 

Char Length (in) 

Vertical Flame: 

Trap Tear (lbf) 

Grab Strength (lbf) 

CS10 (cycles 

to hole)

H18 (cycles to 

hole)

Lightfastness Rating 

Face Cloth Friction 

Face Cloth Wicking 

(in) 

System Weight 

(oz/yd

2

) 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold Plus) 

Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 Aralite Caldura 44.1 0.5 x 0.5 38 x 40 239 x 248 862 183 3 0.38 2.8 20.0 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold Plus) 

Crosstech/ E89 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Woven 44.5 0.5 x 0.5 38 x 40 239 x 248 862 183 3 0.47 2.2 20.3 

Kevlar/PBI (Gold Plus) 

Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 45.6 0.5 x 0.5 38 x 40 239 x 248 862 183 3 0.47 2.2 19.5 

Nomex Crosstech/ E89 Nomex/ Kevlar Batt Nomex Woven 42.0 3.2 x 3.2 63 x 41 295 x 256 1442 270 3 0.50 1.9 18.9 Nomex Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Caldura 41.8 3.2 x 3.2 63 x 41 295 x 256 1442 270 3 0.37 2.8 19.7 Nomex Crosstech/ E89 Aralite Nomex Woven 42.8 3.2 x 3.2 63 x 41 295 x 256 1442 270 3 0.47 2.2 19.3 Nomex Crosstech/ E89 Q9- Aramid Nomex Woven 46.0 3.2 x 3.2 63 x 41 295 x 256 1442 270 3 0.47 2.2 20.9 Nomex Neoprene Q9- Aramid Nomex Woven 54.1 3.2 x 3.2 63 x 41 295 x 256 1442 270 3 0.47 2.2 31.0 Z200 Aquatech 

2 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Filament - 100 Denier 

46.6 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 18.5 

Z200 Aquatech 

3 Layer Nomex E89 

Nomex Filament - 100 Denier 

54.0 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 20.0 

Z200 Breathe-Tex Plus/E89 2 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 46.2 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 18.8 
16

Table 3-1. Dupont Fire Suit Performance Data, continued 

Tabor 

Abrasion 

Outer Shell 

Moisture Barrier 

Thermal Liner 

Face Cloth 

TPP (cal/cm2

) 

Char Length (in) 

Vertical Flame: 

Trap Tear (lbf) 

Grab Strength (lbf) 

CS10 (cycles 

to hole)

H18 (cycles to 

hole)

Lightfastness Rating 

Face Cloth Friction 

Face Cloth Wicking 

(in) 

System Weight 

(oz/yd2

) 

Z200 Crosstech/ E89 2 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 44.0 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 17.0 Z200 Crosstech/ E89 3 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 52.0 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 18.5 Z200 Crosstech on Slick 2 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 40.9 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 17.6 Z200 Crosstech on Slick 3 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 49.0 0.4 x 0.5 28 x 26 215 x 200 890 117 3 0.26 1.2 19.7 Z200 Isodri Crosstech/ E89 2 Layer Nomex E89 Glide 44.0 0.5 x 0.5 28 x 25 217 x 178 900 137 4 0.32 4.0 18.8 Z200 Isodri Crosstech/ E89 2 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 41.3 0.5 x 0.5 28 x 25 217 x 178 900 137 4 0.26 1.2 18.5 Z200 Isodri Crosstech/ E89 3 Layer Nomex E89 Glide 50.5 0.5 x 0.5 28 x 25 217 x 178 900 137 4 0.32 4.0 20.7 Z200 Isodri Crosstech/ E89 3 Layer Nomex E89 Nomex Fil- ament - 100 Denier 48.2 0.5 x 0.5 28 x 25 217 x 178 900 137 4 0.26 1.2 18.4 
17

4. Summary and Suggestions for Future Research 

4.1 Summary 

The Firefighter Protective Clothing project has successfully developed a data framework and 

collected data to be used in the decision support tool for Firefighter Protective Clothing. The data set 

framework consists of four firefighter turnout coat elements: the face cloth, thermal liner, moisture 

barrier, and outer shell. Three data sets were created. In the first data set, the different product 

choices for each suit component were collected and entered into a comprehensive data set (available 

electronically from the author). When populating the data set with performance data, complications 

arose. Data on the performance of specific fire fighting gear, when available, did not cover the broad 

combination of suits that could be produced by combining the various choices of outer shell, thermal 

liner, moisture barrier, and face cloth. Second, when merging performance data from different 

sources, or even across different suit types, differences in test methods or in the way test results are 

reported, cause meaningful comparisons to be impossible. A second data set was obtained from 

Southern Mills. This data set provides four turnout coat performance measures for 50 suits (5 outer 

shells, 2 moisture barriers, and 5 thermal liners). A third source of data, the Dupont EZ-Spec 

Machine, included 13 performance measures on a total of 41 suits. 

The decision support tool will help the user make individualized tradeoffs between weight, stiffness, 

TPP, char length, and other performance characteristics. The decision support tool will present the 

user with the best firefighter turnout coat choices based on his or her individualized performance 

tradeoffs and budget. 

4.2 Suggestions for Future Research 

The decision support tool, in the future, could incorporate additional performance tests and more 

combinations of turnout coat components. BFRL fire researchers are developing mathematical 

models to estimate heat transfer, time to skin burn, and TPP measures. The decision support tool for 

Firefighter turnout coats will be able to add performance data calculated according to new NISTspecified performance measures. 

The decision support software could be revised. Based on input from users, the interface could add 

new functions that would provide an informative report on selected coats, or screen the coats for 

certain user-input criteria, such as a performance threshold. The decision support tool could also be 

expanded to encompass other protective clothing items such as helmets, gloves, pants, and boots. 

Lastly, the tool could be modified to encompass biological or chemical protective gear. A universal 

database would need to be developed to facilitate the use of different clothing items as well as 

clothing items that protect the wearer from different types of threats. 
18

References 

ASTM International, Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to 

Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems, 

E 1765-02, West Conshohoken, PA, 2002. 

Dupont, Dupont EZ Spec Machine, http://www.dupont.com/nomex/ezspec/splash.html 

Kukuck, Scott and Prasad, Kuldeep, Thermal Performance of Fire Fighters' Protective Clothing. 3. 

Simulating a TPP Test for Single-Layered Fabrics, NISTIR 6993, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, January 2003. 

Lawson, J. Randall and Pinder, Tershia A., Estimates of Thermal Conductivity for Materials Used 

in Fire Fighters' Protective Clothing, NISTIR 6512, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, May 2000. 

Lawson, J. Randall and Walton, W. D., Estimates of Thermal Properties for Fire Fighters' 

Protective Clothing Materials, to be published, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2004. 

Mell, William E. and Lawson, J. Randall, A Heat Transfer Model for Firefighters' Protective 

Clothing, NISTIR 6299, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 

January 1999. 

National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural 

Fire Fighting: 2000 Edition, NFPA 1971-2000, Quincy, MA, 2000. 

National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 1976 Standard on Protective Ensemble for Proximity 

Fire Fighting 2000 Edition, NFPA 1976-2000, Quincy, MA, 2000. 

National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 1851 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of 

Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles 2001 Edition, NFPA 1851-2001, Quincy, MA, 

2001. 

Kuldeep Prasad, William Twilley, and J. Randall Lawson, Thermal Performance of Fire Fighters' 

Protective Clothing. 1. Numerical Study of Transient Heat and Water Vapor Transfer, 

NISTIR 6881, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, August 

2002. 

Kuldeep Prasad, Hoang Minh Ho Dac and Scott R. Kukuck, Thermal Performance of Fire Fighters’ 

Protective Clothing. 2. Protective Clothing Performance Simulator - User’s Manual, NISTIR 

6901, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, January 2003. 

Southern Mills, Inc. Southern Mills Firefighter Gear Selector. 2003. 

http://www.somills.com/sm_gearSelector.asp?id=16 
19

Appendix A 

Test Standards

American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC), "Color Fastness to Light," 

Test Method 16-1998. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Stiffness of Fabrics," Test Method D 1388-96 

(Reapproved 2002). 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by FallingPendulum Type (Elmendorf) Apparatus," Test Method D 1424-96. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Static and Kinetic Coefficients of Friction of 

Plastic Film and Sheeting," ASTM Test Method D 1894-01. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Air Wicking of Tire Fabrics, Tire Cord Fabrics, 

Tire Cord, and Yarns," Test Method D 2692-98. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Mass Per Unit Area (Weight) of Fabric," Test 

Method D 3776-96. 

ASTM International, "Standard Guide for Abrasion Resistance of Textile Fabrics (Rotary 

Platform, Double-Head Method)," Test Method D 3884-01. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Trapezoid Tearing Strength of Geotextiles," 

Test Method D 4533-01 (Reapproved 1996). 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Grab Breaking Load and Elongation of 

Geotextiles," Test Method D 4632-91 (Reapproved 1996). 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile 

Fabrics (Grab Test)," Test Method D 5034-95 (Reapproved 2001). 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by Trapezoid 

Procedure," ASTM Test Method D 5587-96. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Nonwoven Fabrics by the 

Trapezoid Procedure," Test Method D 5733-99. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Flame Resistance of Textiles (Vertical Test)," 

Test Method D 6413-99. 

ASTM International, "Standard Test Method for Thermal and Evaporative Resistance of 

Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate," Test Method F 1868-02. 
20

ASTM International, "Standard Guide for Measuring and Reporting Friction Coefficients," Test 

Guide G 115-98. 
21

Appendix B 

Composition of Fire Turnout Coats, By Component 

The performance of a turnout coat is primarily based on fabric characteristics. The fabric used to 

make a turnout coat component has inherent properties such as weight, thickness, stiffness, resistance 

to abrasion/tearing, and protection from heat and flame. There can be more than one way to 

manufacture a fabric. Different blends have different properties. The fabric may be made into 

different styles of turnout coats that have different layering, stitching, sleeve design, and closures that 

affect performance. 

Table B-1 identifies the different fibers that are available for manufacturing turnout coat components. 

Outer shells and thermal liners (with face cloth, if specified) are described in Table B-2. Table B-3 

describes moisture barriers. The moisture barriers are laminated or cross-stitched to the fabrics in 

Table B-2. There is no performance data in this data set. 
22

Table B-1. Fibers Used In Outer Shells, Moisture Barriers, And Thermal Liners 

Fiber Trade name Manufacturer Web Add

Basofil BASF www.basofil.comKevlar (para-aramid fiber) Dupont www.kevlar.comPBI Hoechst Celanese Nomex (meta-aramid fiber) Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/Zylon Toyobo Co., Ltd. www.zylon.comP84 Inspec Fibres www.p84.comLenzing FR Lenzing Fibres www.lenzing.comConex Teijin www.teijin.co.jpKermel Rhodia www.kermel.comN330 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/N301 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/N302 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/N305 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/N307 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/N308 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/N310 Dupont www.dupont.com/nomex/
23

Table B-2. Outer Shells and Thermal Liners 

Fabric Description 

not specified X % Nomex, Y % Kevlar batting with Chambray face cloth not specified X % Nomex, Y % Kevlar batting with Glide II face cloth not specified X % Nomex E89 Araflo with Glide II face cloth not specified X % Nomex E89, with 100 denier filament face cloth Advance, ripstop weave (7.0 oz) 40 % Nomex IIIA (93 % Nomex, 5 % Kevlar, 2 % P-140), 6

Shelltite or Super Shelltite finish 

Araflo Nomex E89 with spunlaced fabric Araflo Dri not specified Aralite X % Kevlar, Y % Nomex batting with spun face cloth Aralite Gold 80 % Kevlar, 20 % PBI batting with spun face cloth Aramax, x weave (x.x oz) 60 % Kevlar, 40 % Nomex III (Core of Kevlar/ Sheath of NoAtEase, plain weave (4.5, 6.0, or 7.5 oz) 100 % Nomex IIIA with Wickwell finish Barrage, ripstop weave (7.5 oz) 40 % Basofil, 60 % Kevlar with Hypel or Super Shelltite finiBrigade X % Nomex IIIA Caldura X % Nomex, Y % Kevlar batting with spun aramid face clotCaldura SL 2 layers Nomex E89 with aramid face cloth Chambray 50 % Kevlar, 50 % Nomex virgin batting with 100 % Nomex Chambray Araflo 3 layers of E89 with 100 % Nomex face cloth Chambray Pure Quilt 50 % Kevlar with 100 % Nomex face cloth Crusader 60 % Kevlar, 40 % Nomex Defender 600, ripstop weave (6.0 oz) 100 % Nomex IIIA (93 % Nomex, 5 % Kevlar, 2 % P-140) wDefender 750, plain (duck) weave (7.5 oz) 100 % Nomex IIIA (93 % Nomex, 5 % Kevlar, 2 % P-140) wDefender, twill weave (7.0 oz) 100 % Nomex IIIA (93 % Nomex, 5 % Kevlar, 2 % P-140) wDelta T 75 % Nomex, 23 % Kevlar, 2 % P140 Duralite 50 % Kevlar, 50 % Nomex FE-289 3 layers of Nomex E89 with Nomex filament face cloth FE-389 2 layers of Nomex E89 with Nomex filament face cloth Fireflite X % Kevlar, Y % Wool 
24

Table B-2. Outer Shells and Thermal Liners, continued 

Fabric Description 

Flame Quilt 100 % Indura, 50 % FR rayon, 50 % Basofil Fusion 40 % Nomex, 60 % Kevlar, Teflon F/PPE Genesis Nomex IIIA with proprietary finishing procedure Gladiator 60 % Kevlar, 40 % Basofil Glide II 50 % Kevlar, 50 % Nomex virgin batting with 100 % Nomex Glide Pure 50 % Kevlar with 100 % Nomex face cloth Guardian 60 % Kevlar, 40 % PBI Iso-dri X treated with Teflon Isolator X % Kevlar, Y % Nomex batting with spun face cloth Isolator Plus X % Kevlar, Y % Nomex batting with spun face cloth Kermel HTA X % Kermel, Y % Kevlar Kombat 600, ripstop weave (6.0 oz) 60 % Kevlar, 40 % PBI with Shelltite or Super Shelltite finisKombat 750, ripstop weave (7.5 oz) 60 % Kevlar, 40 % PBI with Shelltite or Super Shelltite finisMillenia, twill weave (7.5 oz) 60 % Technora, 40 % Zylon with Super Shelltite finish Nomex E89 Spunlaced, X % Nomex, Y % Kevlar OMNI 45 40 % Basofil, 60 % Kevlar OMNI Quilt, 1 layer 100 % Nomex, 1 layer Basofil spunlace fiber OMNI Quilt, 2 layer 100 % Nomex, 2 layers Basofil spunlace fiber OMNI Quilt, 3 layer 100 % Nomex, 3 layers Basofil spunlace fiber PBI Gold 60 % Kevlar, 40 % PBI blend PBI Gold Plus 60 % Kevlar, 40 % PBI PBI Lightweight Gold 50 % Kevlar, 50 % PBI blend PJ Pleatpak X % Nomex SL E89 Power PBI Gold Plus 60 % Kevlar, 40 % PBI Protective Comfort Indura face cloth with spun Basofil Q-9 X % Kevlar, Y % Nomex batting with Nomex face cloth Quattro-tech Nomex filament face cloth with Kevlar fleece 
25

Table B-2. Outer Shells and Thermal Liners, continued 

Fabric Description 

Rebound SRS SRS Rebound with Chambray face cloth Reliant, x weave (x.x oz) x % x, x % x with x finish Slick 200 denier Nomex Stretch Kombat X % Kevlar, Y % PBI, Z % Lycra, S % Nomex E89 Synergy, x weave (x.x oz) 100 % Nomex III (95 % Nomex, 5 % Kevlar) UltraFlex X % Kevlar, Y % Nomex batting with 200 denier filament XTRA-LITE X % Nomex, Y % Kevlar batting Z-200, x weave (7.5 oz) x % Nomex with Teflon F/PPE finish 
26

Table B-3. Moisture Barriers 

Fabric Manufacturer Web A

Crosstech W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. www.goretex.com/acGore-Tex W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. www.goretex.com/acTetratex W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. www.goretex.com/acFR-Neoprene Tetratec Corporation www.tetratex.comNeo-Guard Southern Mills www.southernmills.cBreathe-Tex Plus Aldan Industries, Inc. www.aldan-ind.comAquatech Aldan Industries, Inc. www.aldan-ind.comFR Xalt Burlington Performance Fabrics Stedair2000 Stedfast www.stedfast.com/en

ghter.html
27

Appendix C 

Southern Mills Fire Suit Performance Data 

Column headings are explained in Section 2. 

Table C-1. Southern Mills Fire Suit Performance Data 

Outer 

Shell 

Moisture 

Barrier Thermal Liner 

composite 

price index 

composite 

TPP rating 

( cal/cm2

 ) 

composite 

weight 

(oz/yd2) 

composite 

thickness 

 

Millenia ComfortZone Caldura SL 81 35-38 20.0 0.115 

Millenia ComfortZone 3-Layer E-89 81 41-44 21.5 0.127 

Millenia ComfortZone Caldura 79 39-42 21.4 0.151 

Millenia ComfortZone Aralite 73 35-38 20.8 0.200 

Millenia ComfortZone Q-9 70 45-48 23.3 0.183 

Millenia Crosstech Caldura SL 93 35-38 19.5 0.102 

Millenia Crosstech 3-Layer E-89 93 37-40 21.1 0.128 

Millenia Crosstech Caldura 91 37-40 20.4 0.137 

Millenia Crosstech Aralite 85 36-39 20.3 0.172 

Millenia Crosstech Q-9 82 42-45 22.9 0.171 

Kombat ComfortZone Caldura SL 80 39-42 20.1 0.126 

Kombat ComfortZone 3-Layer E-89 80 44-47 21.0 0.156 

Kombat ComfortZone Caldura 78 39-42 21.0 0.163 

Kombat ComfortZone Aralite 72 38-41 20.0 0.157 

Kombat ComfortZone Q-9 69 48-51 22.7 0.204 

Kombat Crosstech Caldura SL 92 37-40 19.4 0.104 

Kombat Crosstech 3-Layer E-89 92 42-45 21.3 0.130 

Kombat Crosstech Caldura 90 39-42 20.9 0.154 

Kombat Crosstech Aralite 84 37-40 20.4 0.185 

Kombat Crosstech Q-9 81 45-48 21.7 0.188 

Advance ComfortZone Caldura SL 61 41-44 19.8 0.122 

Advance ComfortZone 3-Layer E-89 61 48-51 20.7 0.150 

Advance ComfortZone Caldura 60 45-48 20.6 0.160 

Advance ComfortZone Aralite 53 40-43 20.4 0.168 

Advance ComfortZone Q-9 51 49-52 23.0 0.211 

Advance Crosstech Caldura SL 73 36-39 19.0 0.103 

Advance Crosstech 3-Layer E-89 73 45-48 20.4 0.133 

Advance Crosstech Caldura 72 40-43 20.1 0.136 

Advance Crosstech Aralite 66 44-47 19.6 0.129 

Advance Crosstech Q-9 63 49-52 21.8 0.180 

Barrage ComfortZone Caldura SL 64 no data no data no data 

Barrage ComfortZone 3-Layer E-89 64 no data no data no data 

Barrage ComfortZone Caldura 63 no data no data no data 

Barrage ComfortZone Aralite 56 no data no data no data 

Barrage ComfortZone Q-9 54 no data no data no data 

Barrage Crosstech Caldura SL 77 no data no data no data 

Barrage Crosstech 3-Layer E-89 77 no data no data no data 
28

Table C-1. Southern Mills Fire Suit Performance Data, continued 

Outer 

Shell 

Moisture 

Barrier Thermal Liner 

composite 

price index 

composite 

TPP rating 

( cal / cm2 ) 

composite 

weight 

(oz per sq yd) 

composite 

thickness 

 

Barrage Crosstech Caldura 75 no data no data no data 

Barrage Crosstech Aralite 69 no data no data no data 

Barrage Crosstech Q-9 66 no data no data no data 

Defender ComfortZone Caldura SL 56 35-38 21.3 0.179 

Defender ComfortZone 3-Layer E-89 56 38-41 21.0 0.142 

Defender ComfortZone Caldura 54 36-39 20.6 0.129 

Defender ComfortZone Aralite 48 35-38 20.6 0.156 

Defender ComfortZone Q-9 45 39-42 23.2 0.198 

Defender Crosstech Caldura SL 68 37-40 20.3 0.112 

Defender Crosstech 3-Layer E-89 68 44-47 20.8 0.154 

Defender Crosstech Caldura 67 39-42 21.3 0.140 

Defender Crosstech Aralite 60 42-45 20.2 0.162 

Defender Crosstech Q-9 58 49-52 23.0 0.180