--vw ";!

CWJIE

MICRPOCLIMATE'
COOLIN SYSEMS
'ASHIPBOARD mnAUT NOF
COMM ERCIAL.M.O.DELS
ATS

I; DTIC.
ECT
A
G1 .61988 .

SI

NAVY CLOTHING AND TEXTILE RESEARCH FACILITY0

NATICK, MASSACHU,' TTS

Approved for public release; Technical Report No. 163

distribution unlimited.

8 '8 YS "
 Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
I Air~m Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Io40 MC.ov0d-01
I Ep Date: Jun 30, 1986
la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release;
"2b.DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution unlimited.

4. PERFRMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

NCTRF Report No. 163

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
Navy Clothing and Textile (f applicable)
Research Facility 40 Navy Sc-ince Assistance Program
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)
21 Strathmore Road Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet
latick, MA 01760 Norfolk, VA 23511
Ba. NAME OF FUNDING/ SPONSORING Bb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION (if appikable)
Navy Science Assistance Program N02El CLF-2-86
8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
Corfommander in Chief,
Norfolk, VA
2NT Atlantic Fleetv
23511
NO. NO.
I1743
NO. ACCESSION NO.

11. TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Microclimate Cooling Systems: Shipboard Evaluation of Commercial Models

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Jani. Crl R.. Barbara A- Ave lLin.Nac A imna
13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) IS. PAGE COUNT
F'inaI FROM zJan TO July 8 --- 46
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES IJv SU&JET TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Microclimate Cooling Systems; Shipboard Testing of Micro-
06 1 [climate Cooling Systems; Physiological Testing; Heat Stress;
019 i ........ Commercial Microclimate Cooling Systems.
I BSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
The Navy Clothing & Textile Research Facility (NCTRF), under contract to the Navy SciencI
Assistance Program (NSAP), evaluated the feasibility of using commercial microclimate coolin9"
systems (MCS) in high heat areas onboard Navy ships by conducting an evaluation aboard the
USS LEXINGTON (AVT 16) from 30 March to 9 April 1987. The following cooling systems wer~e
evaluated: three liquid-cooled MCS - the LSSI Cool Head, the LSSI Portapack, and the ILC
Cool Vest; and two air-cooled MCS - the Encon Air System, with and without a vortex tube.
Both air systems and the LSSI Portapack MCS were tethered. The remaining two MCS's were
portable, battery-operated, backpack systems. A control test with no cooling system was also
run. The evaluation consisted of having test subjects wear the MCS during their normal duty
and collecting physiological, subjective, and logistical data. During the test period,
environmental jonditions were relatively mtila,
j the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) did not
rise above 349C, and the average WBGT was 24 C.-Of the four systems tested, the ILC Cool Vest
was the overall favorite of theorrewmen due to i~s simple construction, low profile and ease
20. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT " 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
10 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT. E- DTIC USERS Unclassified
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
John A. Mvlotte 617-651-4680 V OOP
DD FORM 1473, 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted. SECURITY CLASSITICATI"N OF THIS PAGE
All other editions are obsolete. Uni.aSSi leo

F'
 MLOCK 19 A3SRTCT (Continued)

of operation. Few operational dif.ficulties were encountered with this system. (U)
The results of this evaluation showed that, given adequate supports a. coercial NCB
can be effectively used to relieve heat stress onboard Navy ships; b. shipboard personnel
accept the use of 1CS as a means of relieving heat stress in high heat areas, c. personnel
overwhelmingly preferred the ILC Cool Vest; and D. the ILC Cool Vest and the Brion Air
Vortex system had the fewest operational difficulties and were the easiest to operate. (U)

Orr
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. Introduction 1

2. Background I

3. Description of Microclimate Cooling Systems 3

3.1 ILC Cool Vest 4

3.2 LSSI Cool Beau 5
3.3 Encon Vortex Systea 6
3.4 Ambient Air System 8
3.5 Thermacor Cooling System 8

4. Test Methods 9

4.1 Ship Selection 9

4.2 Test Design 9
4.3 Measurement& 11
4.4 Statistical Procedures 12
4.5 Operational Feasibility 12

5. Results 13

5.1 Physiological Evaluation 13

5.2 Performance and Subjective Evaluation 13
5.3 Air System Performance 15
5.4 Logistics 15

5.4.1 Ice/Canister and Battery Support 15

5.4.2 ILC Operational Difficulties 17
5.4.3 LSSI Operational Difficulties 17
5.4.4 Encon Vortex Operational Difficulties 18

6. Discussion 19

7. Recommendations

Acknowledgements
23

25
K2
*U6lTY

8.

9. Appendix A. Illustrations A-1

cession For
B-1 -- _R_

10. Appendix B. Sample Questionnaires

SDTIC TAB 0
DWUnannounc ed 0
Justificeation

By
Distribution/
Availability lodes
Avail anld/or

k
____ ___ __Dist~ Spec ia~l

ii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRAXIONS

Figures
1. ILC Cool Vest A-2

2. LSSI Cool Head A-3

3. Encon Air Vortex System A-4

4. Encon Air Vest Temperature Measurement Location A-5

iv
 LIST Of TADURS

Table Paso

I. Weight comparison for portable cooling system 3

components carried by the individual.

11. Cooling systems evaluated by test subecta inboard 11

USS LEXINGTON.

III. Overall ranking of preference for Microclimate 14

Cooling Systems#

IV. Commercial Hicroclimate Cooling System battery changes 16

for 4-hour watches (Data from scullery, laundry, and
pressroom not included).

V
 MICROCLIAATE COOLING SYSTEMS:
T
A SR1 PBOARD EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL MODELS

1. Introduction

The Navy Clothing & Textile Research Facility (NCTRF) conducted a study
to determine the feasibility of using commercially available microclimate
cooling systems (MCS) to reduce heat stress in I'.ot shipboard environments.
Two concepts of cooling - air and liquid - were evaluated. We tested two
portable liquid-cooled systems, the ILC Cool Vest and the LSSI Cool Bead.
Both were battery-operated and consisted of a torso vest through which a fluid
circulated. In addition to the vest, the LSSI 'ool Head contained a cooling
cap. We also tested a tethered version of the LSSI Cool Head, the Portapack,
which consisted of vest, cap, and portable cooling unit that could be carried
by the individual. Because there are no commercially available portable
air-cooled systems, the air systems we evaluated required a tether cord
attached to %i compressor. We tested an Encon Air Vest with and without a
vortex tube, which is a device in which air is spun and split into a warm and
a cold air stream. The cold air is then fed directly into the vest.

Our evaluation consisted of physiological measurements, subjective

questionnaires, and determination of logistical support and maintenance for
the cooling systems. Testing was conducted in early spring 1987 aboard the
training aircraft carrier, USS LEXINGTON (AVT 16). The results of the
evaluation favorably supported the use of personal cooling systems to reduce
heat stress in hot shipboard spaces. The simple, portable ILC Cool Vest was
overwhelmingly preferred by the subjects over the more complicated, portable
LSSI system. The ILC system also required less maintenance and logistic
support. Despite significant cooling, the tethered Encon air system was not
well-received, because its tether -d tended to restrict free movement about
the space. This report provideb some background into the heat stress
problem onboard ships, details the methodology and the results of the
evaluation, and recimmends general use of the cooling system onbcard ships,

2. Background

Heat stress on land and at sea has always been a concern for the Navy.
Shipboard heat stress results both from the climatic environment and from heat
generated within the spaces, especially in the engine and catapult rooms and
numerous supply areas. Current methods of dealing with shipboard heat stress
include: improvements to shipboard lagging, repair of steam leaks, increased
stay
use of air showers, and rotation of personnel based upon the allowable(1,2).
times dictated by the Physiological Heat Exposure Limit (PHEL) curves

(1) U.S. Navy. Manual of Naval Preventive Medicine. Chapter 3, Ventilation

and thermal stress ashore and afloat. NAVMED P-5010-3, Bureau of Medicine,
1974, pp. 18-24.

(2) Dasler, A.R. Physiological Heat Exposure Limits (PHEL). OPNAVINST

5100.20C, Supplement, Apr 1984.

0 W UV L~dW- P9 VWVWU%(UVVWAdVW UWW,%-%. uw.ffim . - . .

Personnel working in the hot spaces have also sought relief from heat stress
by removing heavy protective clothing. While providing some comfort, this
subjects the person to the possibility of burn injury and could be dangerous
for both the individual and the operation of the ship.

Another method of providing relief from heat stress is the use of MCS's,
which provide cool air or liquid directly to the individual through a garment
worn close to the skin. There are basically two categories of MCS - liquid
system and gas systems. The liquid MCS's operate by circulating a cvoling
liquid through a torso vest and extracting heat from the body through
conduction. The heat is transferred to a cold substance, i.e., a heat sink,
by the circulation of the cooling liquid. The aommercially available
gas-operated systems consist mainly of either air drawn directly from a
compressed air source and fed into an air vest or air that has been
conditioned (cooled) before being fed into the air vest. Through convection
and evaporation, heat is transferred from the body to the cool air.

Laboratory evaluations (3,4,5,6) have demonstrated that MCS's effectively

reduce the thermal strain induced by the combination of work, clothing, and
environment. With ICS's, work times can be increased and physiological
strain, as measured by core temperature and heart rate, can be decreased.
Commercial ICS's do appear to have their limitationt. however. With the
combined effects of high temperature, moderately heavy workloads and heavily
insulated garments, such as the Army's Chemical Warfare ensemble, the current
MCS's can become overburdened and, under these conditions, their ability to
reduce physiological strain is still considered somewhat limited (7,8).

(3) Pimental, N.A. Effectiveness of microclimate cooling systems. Navy

Cloth:'ng & Textile Research Facility report, June 1987.

(4) . Evaluation of two commercial microclimate cooling systems.

Technical Report No. 164, Navy Clothing & Textile Research Facility, Natick,
MA, In Press.

(5) Pimental, N.A., H.M. Cosimini, M.N. Savka, and C.B. Wenger.
Effectiveness of an air-cooled vest using selected air temperatare and
humidity combinations. Aviation, Sace, and Environmental Medicine 58:119-24,
1987.

(6) Shapiro, Y., K.B. Pandolf, M.N. Sawka, M.4. Toner, P.R. Winsuan, and R.F.
Goldman. Auxiliary cooling: comparison of air cooled vs. water cooled vests
in hot-dry and hot-wet environments. Aviation, Space and Environmental
Medicine 53:785-89, 1982.

(7) Cosimini, H., J. Cohen, B. DeCristofano, R. Goff, V. Iacono, M.

Kupcinskas, and T. Tassinari. Determination of the feasibility of two
commercial portable microclimate cooling systems for military use. Technical
Report No. Natick/TR-85/033L, US Army Natick Research and Development Center,
Natick, MA 1985.

(8) Terrian, D.D., and S.A. Nunneley. A laboratory comparison of portable

cooling systems for workers exposed to two levels of heaL stress. Technical
Report No. USAFSAM-TR-83-14, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB,
TX, 1983.
2
F
Commercially available MCS's have been successfully utilized in industry
at poaer stations and processing plants to reduce heat casualties of personnel
working in hot environments. In an effort to examine this method of reducing
heat stress, the Navy Science Assistance Prograsm (NSAP), on behalf. of the
Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANTFLT)s sought to investigate the
feasibility of using commercially available MCS in selected spaces onboard
Navy ships. In response to NSAP's request, NCTRT was tasked to conduct the
evaluation onboard Navy ships having heat stress problems.

3. Description of Microclimate Cooling Systems

Five commercially available cooling systems :roa three manufacturers were

evaluated. To assure that the systems were in proper workir4 order, all
components for each MCS were evaluated in the laboratory prior to the
shipboard evaluation. To provide protection from the possibility of fire, all
exterior surfaces of the systems were covered with a Kynol/Nomex fabric.

Table I contains a weight comparison of the five systems. The values in

the table represent the weight of the cooling system components carried by the
subjects. The lighcest system was the &abient air system (3.6 lbs), while the
heaviest system was the LSSI backpack system (16.8 lb.).

Table I. Weight comparison for portable cooling system components

c~cried by the individual.

ILC LSI LSSIP ENCON AIR

(lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
Vest 2.1 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.6

Motor/pump 0.9 2.0 - - -

Heat exchanger 0.6 5.0 - - -

Battery 1.9 2.2 - - -

Ice/Canister 6.0 5.2 - - -

Circulating Water 2.1 * - - -

Vortex Tube - - - 0.8 -

Hose (assume 10' - - 2.0 2.0 L.0
carried by man)

TOTAL 13.6 16.8 4.4 4.4 3.6

* Included in the weight of Vest and Heat Exchanger

Note: Systems tested were as follows: ILC - ILC Cool Vest, LSSI - LSSI Cool
HEAD, LSSIP - LSSI Portapack, ENCON - Encon Air Vortex System, AIR - Ambient
Air System. All systems are described below.
3
U
,3. ILC Cool Vest

The ILC Cool Vest Model 19 system, depicted in Figure 1, consists of a

cirtulating liquid vest powered by a battery-operated motor/pump assembly.
The system is manufactured by ILC Dover, Frederica, DL. Heat is removed from
the body through the use of a circulating liquid vast. The vast comes in one
size, covers the torso and consists of a heat-sealed, polyurethane-coated
nylon with an inner bladder through which water flows. Water in trh liquid
used throughout the system. The heat exchanger consists of a vinyl bag filled
with ice and water and contained in a backpack assembly within the vest
itself. (For thiq evaluation a 1/8" sheet of foam insulation was placed
between the vinyl bag and the vest to isolate the bag from the test subject's
skin.) As the waw.er circulates through the vest and l-ag, heat is transferred
from the body to thi water and ice, resu.cing in a gradual melting of the Ice.
The backpack can be worn either on the front or back of the individual. For
this evaluation, it was worn on the back to achieve a better ergonomic balance.

Temperature of the water/ice mixture in the vinyl bag was monitored with
a thermistor connected to a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) junction box.
When the temperature of the mixture reached 60"F, some of the water was
drained out of the system and replaced with ice. The manufacturer recommends
that 4 lbs of ice and I quart of water be placed in the system; more ice could
be used for longer periods of work. Laboratory tests at NCTRF showed the
maximum amount of ice that could be placed in the bag was 8 lbs, but then the
bag was difficult to close. Because six lbs of ice enabled easy closing of
the bag, this amount was chosen for all tests. The ice, which was obtained
from the ship's freezer, consisted of cubes measuring a nominal I x 1.25 x
1.25".

The ILC system was powered by an 8-volt, 2.6 awp-hr rechargeable gel-cell
battery and pump/motor assembly, which were also contained in the backpack.
Prior to the evaluation, batteries under an appropriate load were checked in
the laboratory with a voltmeter. The manufacturer states that the system can
be operated for up to 3 hours before changing the battery. For this
evaluation, the batteries were changed every 2 hours, or sooner if we noticed
the flow through the system had significantly decreased.

The cost of the ILC system as tested was $680 and consisted of one Model
19 vest, 2 batteries and I battery charger. (NOTE: On 1 July 1987, ILC
lowered the price of their system, which would now cost $359.) The following
quantities of systems were used in this evaluation. All items were purchased
in 1986.

Item Unit Cost Quantity

Vests $525 8

Batteries $60 16

Battery Chargers $35 12

Ice Cubes (trays) -

H
100

4
3.2 LSSI Cool Head

As depicted in Figure 2, the LSSI Cool Head I& a liquid system consisting
of a vest, head cap and heat exchanger unit (HEU). It is manufactured by Life
Support Systems, Inc., ,4ountainview, CA. The circulating liquid used in the
system is a mixture of propylene glycol and water with a freezing temperature
of -10o.5C (13*F). Liquid is circulated through the vest/cap and heat is
transferred into two frozen liquid canisters connected in series in the HEU.
The vest/cap comes in one size and is coustructed of a heat-sealed,
polyurethane-coated nylon with interior channels through which the liquid
flows. Circulation is provided by a battery-powered pump/motor assembly.
Liquid is circulated from the pump, to the cap, to the vest, to the lIU's and
back to the pump. The HEU's and the pump/motor assembly are contained in
either a backpack or portable pack (Portapack) configuration. The backpack it
worn either on the front or back of an individual and connected to the vest
with a short length of connective hose. For this evaluation, the backpack was
worn on the back. The Portapack is a separate unit that is placed on the
floor near the individual and is connected to the vest with multiples of 6- or
12-foot hoses. To compensate for the additional heat gain along the extension
hose, we tested the Portapack configuration with three frozen canisters.

The battery for the LSSI MCS's is a 6-volt, 4 amp-hr unit. The
manufacturer of this unit recommends that the batteries be charged for at
least 12 hours. Prior to the evaluation, all batteries were charged and
checked with a voltmeter. Batteries not achieving a potential of at least 6
volts were not included in the evaluation. All of the acceptable, fully
charged batteries were then tested under an appropriate load with a voltmeter.
Those units not attaining at least a 5.2-volt potential under load were also
eliminated from the evaluation. The average potentiel of the fully charged
batteries was 5.6 volts. To further assure proper operation, randomly
"selected batteries were tested in the laboratory by measuring the voltage
discharge when the battery was connected to the pump for a period of 2 hours.
After each recharge onboard ahip, the potential of the batteries was checked
again. Batteries were changed after 2 hours, or sooner if we noticed the flow
of coolant through the system had significantly decreased.

The canisters were frozen in the ship's food freezer which was maintained
at 50F + 50F. The temperature of the coolant fluid in the HEU was monitored
with a thermistor connected to a YSI junction box. The thermistor was inserted
in the HEU with the sensor portion of the thermistor in contact with the bag
containing the coolant fluid. To assure constant cooling during the
evaluation, we replaced the canisters when the coolant temperature reached
60*F. Following the test, the used canisters were returned to the ship's
freezer.

When the quick disconnects from the vest to the backpack were uncoupled
during doffing, the unit leaked a small amount of fluid, causing air to
infiltrate the system. Consequently, after several uses we had to replenish
the lost fluid and purge the system of atr. The manufacturer supplied a kit
for this purpose with instructions on how to refill the system.
 The average cost of the LSSI backpack system ap tested was $2511. This
included a backpack/vest assembly (fully charged), four canisters, two
rechargeable batteries, one battery charger, one refill kit and one additional
quart of recirculating fluid. The LSSI Portapack system with 12 feet of
tether cord costs an additional $603. (Note: effective July 1, 1987 the cost
of the above systems would be $2376 and $2979.) The following quantities of
LSSI system were available for use in this evaluation.

Item Unit Cost )Uantity Date Purchased

backpacks/Vest Assembly $2162 4 (3) 1986, (1) 1982

Portapacks $329 3 1986

Canisters $9 52 (43) 1986, (12) 1982

latteries $98 19 (11) 1986, (8) 1982

Battery Charger $48 18 (12) 1986, (6) 1982

Refill Kit $51 2 1987

Circulating Fluid (gal) $72 6 1987

Tether Cord (ft) $5 24 1987

3.3 Encon Vortex System

The Encon Air Vortex System Model 02-6360, depicted in Figure 3, consists
of an air vest connected to a vortex tube. It is manufactured by Encon Corpo-
ration, Houston, TX. Th, vest comes in two sizes, regular and extra large,
and is constructed of a Buna-N-coated nylon shell with a perforated interior
and an inner air distribution system for both the front and rear of the vest.

In a vortex cooler, high pressure air enters a stationary generator

and is released with a vortex motion, spinning along the tube's
walls toward the hot air end at sonic speeds up to 1,000,000 rpm.
Air near the suriace of this spinning vortex becomes hot, and some
of it exits through the needle valve in the hot end. The air that
does not escape through the hot air needle valve is forced back
ttirough the center of the warm air vortex. Because the air forced
baik through the sonic-velocity hot iirsteam moves at a slower
speed, a simple heat exchange takes place. The inner,
slower-moving column o air gives up heat to the outer,
faster-moving column. When the slower, Inner column of air exits
through the center of the stationary generator and out the cold
exhaust, it has attained an extremely low temperature. (9)

(9) Vortec Corporation. Products for Productivity. Cincinnati, OH, 1986.

6
 e

The cold air from the vortex tube is fed into the vest, while the warm sir
is directed away from the user. The temperature and flow rate of the air iutto
the vest can be inversely controlled with the control valve located on the
vortex tube. The valve cotates 1/4 turn from minimum to maximum cooling. The
system id powered by a compressed air line. The manufacturer recommends
anywhere from 80-10C psig @ 20 scfm. To insure that all systems would operate
at a constant input and that the ship would be able to supply the required
air, a pressure of 80 psig was selected for the operation of the system.

In addition to the vest and vortex cooler, this Facility supplied an air
regulator with water trap, a 5 micron filter, 50' of 3/8" diameter hose, and
the required fittings at each test site. Also, since this system was
tethered, w! had to provide a means for the user to disconnect rapidly in an
emergency situation. For this purpose, we fabricated a breakaway fitting
located at the connection to the vest. The fitting was constructed from a
commercially available ouick disconnect with the outer sleeve replaced by a
section of rubber hose. The breakaway force was set to 40 lbs by adjusting
the tension on a hose clamp encompassing the rubber hose.

0 To monitor the temperature of the air being fed into and out of the
vortex tube, we placed thermistors in the air lines of the vortex tube. Dry
"and wet bulb temperatures were measured on the vortex inlet air; only dry bulb
temperature was measured on the vortex cold air outitt (vest inlet). Figure 4
Sillustrates the location of the vest temperature measurement. Due to
expansion as the air diffused through the air vest, the air temperature
steadily decreased. Although the temperature measured in the vest supply line
wai not the exact air temperature reaching the skin surface, it did represent
the closest region to the skin that could be measured without encountering
widely fluctuating temperatures resulting from the expansion and diffusion of
the air as it entered the vest. The instrumentation for the measurement of
the wet bulb temperature of the cold air outlet would hove added another
tethered cord and/or fitting for the test subject to contend with. We felt
this would unduly affect the subject's evaluation of thn system and therefore
did not use it.

The basic cost of the Encon air vest, vortex tube and belt was $402. The
average cost of the system we tested was $625, which included air vest, vortex
tube, air lines, air filters, regulators and miscellaneous fittings. The
following quantities of systems were used in this evaluation. All items were
purchased in 1986.

Item Unit Cost Quantity

Air vests (regular) $200 4

Air vests (X-large) $20J 5

Vortex tubes $196 9

Belts $6 9

Hose (3/8" dia) $1/ft 250'

7

6. . ". .o . .
9
Filters $65 8

Regulators $60 4

Breakaway fittings $18 8

3.4 Ambient Air System

Because cowressed air cools as it expands, some degree of body cooling

can be achieved 'iith high temperature, unsaturated ambient compressed air with
no vortex tube (3). To determine the effectiveness of using this method of
cooling, we fabricated a system cons.sting of the Encon air vest fed directly
from the shipboard compressed air line. The pressure regulator was set to
maintain an air flow of 15 scfm. In addition to the air vest and regulator, a
5 micron filter, 50' of hose and a breakaway fitting were also supplied with
this system.
The temperature of the air was monitored in a similar manner to that used
in the vortex air system. The cost of this system was $200 for the Encon air
vest. The cost of the system as tested was $420, which included the Encon
vest, pressure regulator, air filter, hose and miscellaneous hardware.

3.5 Thermacor Cooling System

Another type of gas MCS that has recently become available is based upon
the heat absorption capacity of a liquified gas as it vaporizes during
depressurization. The system, marketed by Thermacor Corp., consists of a
vest, a tank of pressurized freon (R-114) and a thermally regulated
distribution system. This Facility considered testing the freon system during
the shipboard evaluation. However, we first sought guidance from the Navy
Medical Command (NMC) to determine the safety of using freon in a relatively
enclosed space. NMC did not recommend its use. Specifically, NMC objected to
the use of freon 114 within shipboard spaces because of:

a. The potential of freon 114 to dissociate into more toxic substances

when it comes in contact with heated surfaces normally found in shipboard
spaces.

b. The possibility that, because freon is heavier than oxygen, it could

displace oxygen to sufficiently low levels, thereby creating an hypoxic
environment that could produce asphyxiation.

c. The possibility that personnel would "sniff" the freon and lose their
coordination.

(3) Pimental, N.A. Effectiveness of microclimate cooling systems. Navy

Clothing & Textile Research Facility report, June 1987.
8

is
 4. Test Methods

4.1 Ship Selection

To select an appropriate ship for this evaluation, we discussed the

heat stress problem with persinnel from NSAP and CINCLANTFLT. Ships were
screened for their respective history of heat-related problems and their
availability for shipboard testing in the specified timeframe. From this
initial screening, four potential ships were identified:

a. USS NASHVILLE (LPD 13)

be USS CORAL SEA (CV 43)
c. USS SARATOGA (CV 60)
d. USS LEXINGTON (AVT 16)

Factors that were considered in the final selection of a ship were:

the number and availability of test volunteers, the flexibility of the sailing
schedule, the ease with which the ship could accommodate the technical aspects
of this evaluation, and the size of the ship as it related to onboard support
equipment. Because of their size, the USS CORAL SEA, the USS SARATOGA and the
USS LEXINGTON would have provided the largest number of personnel to test in
the shortest period of time. They would also have had the greatest amount of
equipment to support MCS. As an aircrew training ship, the USS LEXINGTON had
the additional benefit of a more flexible schedule and could more easily
accommodate the test requirements than a war ship. Because of this
flexibility and because of its convenient departure date, the USS LEXINGTON
was selected as the ship on which the evaluation should be conducted.

4.2 Test Design

Testing was conducted from 30 Mar to 9 Apr 87 on board the USS LEXINGTON
during a roundtrip cruise from Pensacola, FL to Corpus Christi, TX. A total
of 29 volunteer subjects were tested in the following spaces, which had been
designated by the ship as having previous heat stress problems.

Space Shift # of Subjects Duties

Aft Engine Room 0800-1200 4 Lower Level, Messenger,

Top Watch

Aft Engine Room 1600-2000 4 Lower Level, Messenger,

#2 ThrotT1e

Main Control 1600-2000 4 Lower Level, Messenger,

#1 Throttle, #4 Throttle

#1 Fireroom 1600-2000 3 Auxiliaryman, Messenger,

Top Watch

#2 Fireroom 1600-2000 3 Auxiliaryman, Messenger,

Top Watch

0t
MEO
#3 Fireroom 0800-1200 4 Auxiliaryman, Burnerman,

Messenger, Switchboard

Laundry 1200-1430 3 Laundry, Press, Supervisor

Scullery 1030-1330 4 Banger, Catcher, Pitcher,

Right Fielder

SuW'jects were tested during their entire duty shift, which, except for
laundry and scullery personnel, was normally 4 hours. Shifts for the laundry
and scullery personnal were anywhere between 2 and 4 hours. To minimize
diurnal body temperature effects, the subjects were tested the same time each
SPrior
day. to reporting for their
normal duty, the subjects
reported to our
test center where, as described below, measurement devices were attached and
-estionnaires filled out. Following pre-evaluation measurements, the
subjects donned the appropriate cooling system over their T-shirt and were
instructed in its use. (For this evaluation, subjects wore either a T-shirt
And denim trousers or a T-shirt and coverall with the top rolled down to the
waist.) They proceeded to their work space where the MCS were filled with ice
and water (ILC) or canisters (LSSI), or connected to the compressed air lines
(ENCON). The subjects adjusted the control valve on each system to their own
comfort level. Battery and cooling system maintenance was made as previously
described in Section 3. Operational difficulties were noted throughout the
test. At the completion of their duty, the subjects returned to the test
center whete they doffed the systems, completed post-test measurements, and
were verbally debriefed.

Control tests with no cooling vest were conducted on the first 14 test
subjects. However, due to the low heat load (environmental and metabolic),
control tests did not seem warranted and were not conducted on the other
subjects. The remaining test time was devoted to evaluating a larger number
of subjects and cooling systems. Table II lists the types of cooling systems
evaluated in random order by the test subjects. As is evident, there were
numerous combinations of systems evaluated by the 29 subjects. This varying
number was the result of several factorR, including time constraints for the
subjects and feasibility of using a tethered system within the space.
Further, after several tests, the air system with no vortex tube was
eliminated from the testing because it did not provide sufficient cooling. In
some instances, the feasibility using a tethered system was determined only
after one test with an umbilical; all other tethered systems were therefore
not tested on that particular individual.

In summary, we collected data on 28 subjects using the LSSI Cool Head, 29

using the ILC Cool Vest, 16 using the Encon Vortex, 4 using the ambient air
system, 13 using the LSSI Portapack, and 1.4 using no cooling. The one subject
who did not evaluate the LSSI Cool diead did not show up for his last day of
testing. Nine subjects were tested with lhU LSSI Cool Head and ILC Cool Vest
only. These systems were chosen because the)Aare both liquid-cooled, portable,
backpack systems and O"re considered the 0os. likely candidates for Navy
procurement.

10
Table II. Cooling systems evaluated by test subjects onboard USS LEXINGTON.
Test Total Subjects

Series MCS Systems Tested Tested

1 LSSI ILC VOR AIR PORTA CONTROL 0

2 LSSI ILC VOR AIR - CONTROL 3

3 LSSI ILC VOR - PORTA CONTROL 6

4 LSSI ILC VOR - - CONTROL 2

5 LSSI ILC - AIR - CONTROL 1

6 LSSI ILC - - PORTA CONTROL 1

7 LSSI ILC - - - CONTROL 1

8 LSSI ILC - - PORTA - 1

9 LSSI ILC VOR - PORTA - 4

10 LSSI ILC .- 9

11 - ILC VOR - PORTA - 1

Total 29

4.3 Measurements

Dry bulb temperature (DB) and wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) were
measured using a Wibget Heat Stress Monitor (Reuter-Stokes, Inc.). DB and
WBGT readings were taken at least three times during each duty shift. If
environmental conditions varied within a space, measurements were taken at
several different locations. Rectal temperature was measured with a YSI
(Model 401) thermistor inserted about 10 cm beyond the anal sphincter. Skin
temperatures were measured with YSI (Model 409) thermistors strapped to the
chest, arm, and leg. Rectal and skin temperature measurements were collected
on a portable, computer-controiled data acquisition system (Hewlett Packard
(HP) Scanner 2413A data acquisition and control unit and HP 71B computer).
Heart rate was measured from three chest electrodes (CM5 placement) with a
digital, portable heart rate monitor (Computer Instruments Corp.). Cognitive
performance was measured with an interactive, computerized, performance
assessment battery. Included in the battery were tasks for pattern
recognition, logical reasoning, reaction time, and dexterity. Periodically
during each test, subjects were asked to rate their thermal sensation on a

11
 nine-point scale ranging from "very cold" to "very hot." Following each day's
session, subjects completed questionnaires on each cooling system, ranked the
systems in order of preference, and were interviewed. Appendix B contains
sample questionnaires.
4.4 Statistical Procedures

The physiological, performance, and subjective data were analyzed by use

of repeated measures analysis of variance. Tukey's test was used to locate
significantly different means. Significance was accepted at the 0.05 level.
Statistical analyses were done on the dcta from the 11 subjects who performed
the control test and the LSSI backpack, ILC, and Vortex cooling tests.
Statistics were also performed o'n the data from the 28 subjects who used the
ILC and LSSI backpack cooling systems.

4.5 Operational Feasibility

To determine if the commercial systems could be used onboard ship, we had

to monitor several key logistical items.

a. Air line set up - The setting up of the tether lines for the
*operation of the air MCS included the location of low pressure air lines, the
selection of compatible fittings, the installation of regulator and filter,
and the careful routing of the air lines so as not to disrupt the personnel on
duty.

b. Battery usage - The number of batteries used during a test was

monitored. The time when batteries were changed was also noted.

ce Ice/canister usage - The amount of ice or canisters used during a

test and the time of change were noted.

d. Operational difficulties - Any difficulties in the operation of the

systems were noted. The difficulties included those experienced by both the
user and the test team personnel.

* 12
5. Results

5.1 Physiological E-,alustion

Due to unseaot ably cold weather, environmental conditions durIng the

course of the evaluation were relatively mild. Overall WBGT averaged 24"C
(76*F); the range wa.3 '6-34C (61-93*F). Overall DB averaged 31"C (88*F); the
range was 22-42*C (72-1086F).

Even during the control tests with no cooling, rectal temperatures did
not increase by more than 0.2C (0.4*F) over the 4-hc'ir duty shifts. Rectal
temperature did not significantly differ between the control test and any of
the cooling tests, nor among any of the cooling tests. However, there was a
significant difference in chest temperature. For the 11 subjects who ran a
control test and also tested the ILC, LSSI backpack, and Vortex systems, chest
temperature was lowest with the ILC system (22.2*C), similar for the Vortex
and LSSI backpack (27.3 and 28.8*C), and highest for the control test
(33.5%c). In all cases where the ILC was compared with the LSSI backpack,
chest temrerature was significantly lower with the ILC. (Note: Because we did
not use insulated thermistors, the chest temperature may have been greatly
influenced by the cold liquid or air in direct contact with the measuring
device.)
Much of the test subjects' duties involved standing in one location
(watching gages, supervising, pressing, etc.). The heart rates reflected this
low metabolic work rate. Heart rates averaged 82-86 b/min for both the
control and the cooling tests. These were not statistically different.

5.2 Performance and Subjective Evaluation

For the four tasks included in the performbnce assessment battery, there
were no differences in either speed or accuracy between the control test and
cooling tests. On the thermal sensation scale, all cooling systems were rated
"slightly cool." Control tests were rated significantly higher ("slightly
warm").

The subjects' overall ranking of preference for the MCS's they tested is
listed in Table 11I. Of the 10 subjects who used the LSSI backpack, ILC,
Vortex, and LSSI Portapack cooling systems, nine rated the ILC system as their
first choice. Overall, the Vortex was the second choice, the LSSI Portapack
was third, and the LSSI backpack was fourth. Of the 10 subjects who used only
the ILC and the LSSI backpack systems, all of them preferred the ILC. When
all the data were evaluated together. 26 of the 29 subjects preferred the ILC
Cool Vest; the remaining subjects selected the Vortex System as their overall
number one choice.

After each test, subjects complet.d a questionnaire and were interviewed.

The majority of the subjects preferred the ILC system over the other cooling
systems. They had many positive comments about the system: it was lightweight
and not too bulky, provided consistent cooling, was easy to operate, and had
no tubes or cords to get tangled. Even though the investigators and not the
subjects set up the cooling systems and provided ice and battery changes,
several subjects commented that the ILC system would be much easier to
13
 maintain than the LSSI. They liked the ILC's ability to use either ice cubes
or freezer packs; only a f-,- chought that ice and freezer space would be a
problem onboard ship. They thought the ILC's on/off toggle switch and
adjustable cooling control were accessible and easy to opera'e. However,
several subjects suggested the toggle switch be relocated to Lhe front of the
vest to prevent accidental shut off. Several subjects mentioned the ILC vest
tended to slip down in the back, pulling the vest up against the neck. A
waist strap and a deeper neckline might prevent this. Subjects did not like
the metal clips which fasten the vest around the torso; they would have
preferred a Velcro closure. They also suggested extra padding on the
shoulders for both teb ILC and the LSSI backpack systems (padding with a
rubberized, nubby surface might also reduce backpack slippage).

Table III. Overall ranking of preference for Microclimate Cooling Systems.

TEST SERIES *

SYSTEMS TESTED A B

0 Overall Ranking Overall Ranking

ILC Cool Vest #1 #1

LSSI Backpack #4 #2

Vortex #2 **

LSSI Portapack #3 **

refers to types of cooling systems evaluated by

test participant (see Table 2). A - All four
systems evaluated (Test Series 3 and 9, n-1O);
B - ILC Cool Vest and LSSI Cool Head evaluated
(Test Series 7 and 10, n-10).

* System not tested

Many subjects stated they would not use the LSSI backpack system under
any circumstances, or only under extreme conditions. They thought this system
was too heavy and much too bulky for shipboard use. Only two of the 29
subjects liked the head cooling. The others stated they could not feel the
cooling unless the cap was held closely against the head by significantly
tightening the chinstrap, but they found the chinstrap uncomfortable and
irritating. (Note: The two subjects who liked the head cap had very short
hair.) Several subjects complained of getting snagged by the tubes connecting
the cap to the vest. The subjects liked the way the LSSI vest fastened around
14
 the torso (stretchy fishnet fabric with Velcro closure). Because the LSSI's
power switch and cooling control knob are on the back, they were hari to
reach. It was difficult to distinguish the "on", "cff", and "Uill" positions
of the power switch. The cooling control knob rotates clockwise/counter-
clockwise, ane it was not easily distinguishable as to which direction
increased the flow of liquid. However, as personnel become more familiar with
the system through continued use, the problem with the control knobs should be
reduced or eliminated.

Most of the subjects stated that, due to the tether cord, they 'z-ld not
use the air or the Vortex cooling systems. They did, however, like the feel
of the air cooling and the lightweight vest.

5.3 Air System Performance

Temperatures taken both in the compressed air lines and at the outlet
entering the air vests indicated that the Incon vest with the Vortex tube
would provide substantial personal cooling. The inlet air on the Encon air
vortex system averaged 33C (91*F) DB with a dewpoint (DP) of -4*C (24*7).
The DB of the air entering the vest was never above 10*C (50*F) and in several
instances was below the 0C measurement limit of the test instrument.

The air from the ambient system averaged 36*C (97*F) DB and -5'C (22"F)
DP in the pressurized line. The Air flowing into the vest averaged 32C
(91*F) DB. As previously stated, the temperature of the air was measured just
before the air entered the vest. Since the ambient compressed air continued
to expand after iL entered the vest, the actual cooling air temperature at the
skin surface could not be determined. However, assuming that the measu:ed
vest temperature of both air systems was proportional to the temperature felt
at the skin and that the mean skin temperature of clothed individuals is
33*-35*C, then the vortex system contained up to nine times more sensible
cooling capacity than the ambient compressed air system. As discussed above,
we found the air system was not cooling as well as we had anticipated and
after four tests, we discontinued this system evaluation.

5.4 Logistics

5.4.1 Ice/Canister and Battery Support

In this evaluation, because of the remote location of the freezer,

supplying canisters or ice tc t)t LSSI and ILC systems repreeanted a
significant effort. The LSSI canistcrs were placed upright on a pallet in the
freezer, allowing approximately 2 inches between adjacent canisters. Although
the ship's freezer was maintained adequately cool for freezing (5*F), it still
took between 12 and 18 hours to completely freeze the canisters. During the
freezing process, nine of the 52 canisters developed leaks through the top
expansion seal. The ice used in the ILC vests was made in standard ice cube
trays. Because of the limited amount of space in the freezer, the ice trays
could not be spread over a wide area; the trays were therefore stacked, 6
deep, on top of freezer boxes. The top trays of ice took approximately 7
hours to freeze, while the trays in the middle of the stack took between 12
and 18 hours to completely freeze due to poor air circulation.

15

WH
 The average time was apprnximately 1/2 hour for one person to collect,
pack and transport the ice to the test site for four subjects. Since the ice
and canisters frose at different temperatures, O0C (32*F) for ice vs -10"C
(13*F) for canisters, they were transported to the test site in sepaeate
coolera (Coleman 24 quart). The ice or canisters in the systems were changed
when the temperature of the coolant reached 15.5*C (60OF), as measured with a
thermistor in contact with the coolant. Fer the 4-hour tests, the average
change t: ne for the ILC and LSSI backpack systems was 3. 1 and 2.3 hours,
respectively. Thus the ILC system offered a 352 longer cooling time per
charge than the LSSI backpack system. Supplying ice for four people for one
4-hour duty required 48 lbs of ice (12 Lbs per person). This included the
initial load of ice plus one recharge. Supplying four people with the LSSI
canisters required, on the average, 16 canisters (42 lbs).

Because both the LS'I and ILC systems were powered by batteries, the
batteries had to be naintained on full charge at all times. The test center,
however, was not electrically set up to maintain a bank of chargers;
therefore, the batteries were recharged at seieral sites throughout the ship.
This was an inconvenience that could be avoided if the systems were to be used
on a continuous basis and a charge center could be maintained. To guarantee
that the batteries obtained a full charge, they were charged for at least 12
hours. Recharging the ILC batteries presented no difficulties. Two of the 19
LSSI batteries did not hold their charge after 12 hours off the charger (1
purchased in 1986, 1 purchased in 1982).

To prevent a complete discharge of the batteries, they were operated for

a maximum of 2 hours. New batteries were installed after 2 hours, or earlier
if the system had stopped operating or had slowed down. Table IV gives a
breakdown of the time of failt'ie for the batteries. The LSSI backpack system
required 11 battery changes before the scheduled 2-hour change, whereas the
ILC system required only one change prior to the 2-hour time. The LSSI
Portapack system required R changes before 2 hours.

Table IV. Commercial Microclimate Cooling System battery changes fnr 4-hour

watches (Data from scullery, laundry, and pressroom not included).

Total Number of Battery Changes

Change Time ILc Ccol Vest LSSI Cool Head LSSI Cool Head
(hrs) (backpack) (portapack)

0.0 - 0.5 0 4 1

0.6-1.0 0 3 2

1.1 -1.5 0 4 4

1.6 - 2.0 0 1
2.0+ *19 11 2

* Time for scheduled battery change was 2 hours.

16
 5.4.2 ILC Operational Difficulties

Relatively few difficulties were experienced with the ILC system. Those
that were encountered were minor and did not significantly affect the test.
In a few instances, the switch on the ILC unit was inadvertently shut off
after the operator either hit the switch with his hand or passed by an object
that shut off the switch. In one case, water leaked from the top of the
ziplock bag on the ILC unit when the individual bent over to work on a device.
One ILC system developed a pinhole leak in the bag. The leak was not large
enough to stop the test or prevent the subject from performing his duties.

5.4.3 LSSI Operational Difficulties

Of the 5 cooling systems tcsted, the LSSI backpack and Portapack systems
presented the greatest number of difficulties in all phases of operation. Of
the 52 canisters brought onboard ship for the evaluation, 3 popped the
expansion seal during shipment, 2 developed leaks at the expansion seal during
shipment, 2 were severely dented during shipment, I developed a leak due to
corrosion, and 9 leaked fluid through the expansion seal during freezing.

A significant amount of time was spent trying to keep the LSSI systems
operational. In nine instances the LSSI unit ran for a period of time and
then stopped. liter the control unit -as given a significant rapping, the
system started running again. The stoppage was apparently due to an air lock
in the system which was dislodged when thb unit was rapped. Since the flow
indicator was located on the back, the subject did not realize that the unit
had shut off until after he had started to feel warm.

As described previously, the LSSI units needed to be replenished with

fluid and purged of air after a few periods of use. The fluid replenishment
and air purging procedure, which was demonstrated to CINCLANTFLT and NCTRF
personnel by an LSSI representative, consisted of the following procedure.

a. Head-Vest rluid Replenishment

1) Lay Head-Vest flat with yellow panel facing up. Eliminate folds
or crimps. Keep headliner in a bowl shape.
2) Connect umbilical to pump/motor assembly.
3) Adjust Temp Control Valve to "Change Cartridge" position.
4) 1urn pump/motor to "ON".
5) As fluid begins to flow, gently shake and turn headliner to
remove air bubbles.
6) After all air bubbles have cleared headliner exit tube, set
headliner down.

b. System Fluid Replenishment

1) Connect fill bottle to pump/motor assembly.
2) Turn temperature control to full warm, press power switch to the
fill position and run pump/motor assembly for I minute.
3) Turn pump/motor assembly power switch OFF and remove fill bottle
in 15-30 seconds to prevent excessive liquid from flowing out of pump/motor
assembly reservoir into fill bottle.

Although the instructions were followed, there weze five occasions when
the system was overfilled. Overfilling was not apparent until the frozen
17

I
canisters were being placed into the unite. At that time, it was extremely
difficult to close the HSU. The units then had to be bled of the excess
fluid, This procedure required time (approximately 4 minutes) and delayed
both the start of the test and the sailolr's performance of his duties. In two
instances an effort was made to close the HEU's during an overfill situation,
resulting in cracked HEU cases.

Whei. the LSSI system was tested on a subject of small build, the vest
straps hiad to be tightened so such that the flow channels in the vest were
pinched closed and tde coolant flow stopped. Although the individual
complained of lack of cooling, the crimped line was noc recognized until after
the test had been aborted. This "pinching off" of flow in the vest had been
experienced in other studies (7).

In one case, the control unit on the LSSI system stopped working in the
middle of a test. Neither replacement of the battery nor purging the system
of air bubbles restarted the unit. A new control unit was placed in service,
resulting in a testing delay of approximately 45 minutes.

On two occasions after the systems were used several times, the hasp
holding the battery on the LSSI control units failed to securely hold the
battery. Both units had to be replaced.

In two separate instances, the hoses on the LSSI Portapeck system and
LSSI backpack system were inadvertently pulled out, resulting in the delay of
a test. Due to the numerous hoses contained on the Portapack system and the
inability to visually determine whether the hoses were properly connected, the
difficulty was not immediately apparent.

Most subjects using the LSSI system complained that no cooling was felt
on the head. Some apparent causes of this were: the insulating factor of the
hair, chinstraps that were not tightened enough, and chest straps that were
pinching off flow to the cap. Those who tightened the chinstrap to feel the
cooling complained that the strap was too uncomfortable.

The LSSI system projected out extensively from the back (5"). Therefore,
several individuals had difficulty maneuvering through shipboard spaces or
could not pass through a given space without removing their backpack.

5.4.4 Encon Vortex and Ambient Air Operational Difficulties

The tether cord on this system was cumbersome and frequently became
tangled and caught on objects as the individual moved to different locations.
The fittings, regulators and filters used with the system required
approximately 45 minutes' setup time for each test location. In a situation
where this system would be employed at one location all the time, this setup
time would not represent a major difficulty. There were no malfunctions of
this system during the evaluation.

(7) Cosimini, H., J. Cohen, B. DeCristofano, R. Goff, V. Iacono, M.

Kupcinskas, and T. Tassinari. Determination of the feasibility of two

I
commercial portable microclimate cooling systems for military use. Technical
Report No. Natick/TR-85/033L, US Army Natick Research & Development Center,
Natick, MA, 1985.

___ _ _1_
6. Discussion

To determine the operational feasibility of using commercial cooling

garments in a shipboard environment, NCTRF conducted a shipboard evaluation o&
three basic commercial MCS's onboard the USS LEXINGTON. The evaluation
consisted of wmnitoring subjective and physiological parameters and
determining required logistical support in the engine spaces, laundry and
scullery.

There were many factors that contributed to our evaluation nf the

success of a MCS onboard ship. Some of these factors were considered more
critical (primary) than others (secondary). The following tabulation is a
rating of primary and secondary factors contributing to the final NCS
selection.

a) Primary Factors
- User acceptance as determined by test volunteers' comments.
- Ability to consistently deliver cooling to an individual.
- Ease of operation.
- Simplicity of construction.
- Reliability of components.
- Size and weight of system.

b) Secondary Factors
- Logistical difficulties associated with supplying the basic
operating components, i.e., ice or canisters and batteries.
- Component failure due to possible operator error, such as,
disconnected hoses, defective batteries, inability to properly operate control
knobs.

Because of the mild environmental conditions during the evaluation, we

could not consider the reduction in heat stress - as indicated by
physiological measurements - as a primary factor. Under hotter conditions,
this factor would have been given significant weighting.

Based on the subjects' nverall preference after they had tested all
cooling systems, the ILC system was the overwhelming favorite, with 26 of 29
votes for the number one rating. The reasons stated for the high preference
of the ILC system were its low profile, simple operating characteristics, and
significant cooling. After the ILC, the next preferred system was the Encon
vortex. However, this system contained a tether cord; and because of the
hazard it posed with shipboard operatiunal components, most subjects stated
that they would not be able to work with a tether cord. The least preferred
system was the LSSI backpack system. The weight, bulkiness, and interrupted
cooling of the LSSI system were the Y asons for its unpopularity.

Due to the mild environmental conditions, physiological measurements of

heart rate and rectal temperatures were not significantly different among the
cooling systems and the control tests. However, previous laboratory tests
have shown that the cooling systems do provide substantial reduction of heat
stress when worn with utility clothing in moderately hot environments

19
(3,4,5,6). Other than the required logistical support and maintenance, there
is little reason to believe that the systems would not provide adequate
cooling to individuals working in hot shipboard environments.

lecause of the low heat stress incurred during the shipboard evaluations,
we conducted a laboratory comparison between the LSSI and ILC MCS's in the
summer ot 1987 (4). Nine male test subjects were first heat acclimated and
then performed five different teets: two with the ILC Cool Vest, two with the
LSSI Cool Head, and one control with no cooling. Environrental conditions
were 43 0 C (110F) dry bulb and 45% relative humidity (WBCT - 360 C, 960F).
During the 3-hour heat exposure, subjects wore the Navy utility uniform and
walked on a level treadmill at 1.6 a/sec (3.5 mph), with 5 minutes of seated
rest every half hour. This represented a mild-to-moderate work effort. The
results from the test indicated that both cooling systems were similarly
effective in reducing physiological strain and increasing tolerance time in
the heat. Tolerance time increased from an average of 114 minutes with no
cooling to at least 180 minutes with each of the two cooling systems. At 120
minutes, when either MCS was worn, rectal temperature had been lowerAd by
approximately 0.50 C compared with the control test.

From a logistics point of view during the shipboard evaluation, the Vortex
air system was the easiest to usc. The system was also the least bulky for
the individual; it weighed only 4.4 lbs. However, because its tether cord
restricted movement somewhat, it was not the most favored system. Logistical
difficulties with the system included the need to hook up and route the air
supply line to the work station and the problem with cord entanglement. Cord
entanglement could be reduced through the use of swivel disconnects on the
hoses and also with the use of shorter hoses with more air taps in the hot
spaces.
Supplying ice or canisters to the ILC and LSSI systems required a
continuous effort. Because of the remote location of the freezer, the ice and
canisters required for all subjects had to be gathered before each test
sequence. This process could be cumbersome if an entire space were to be
outfitted 'ith the cooling system. The LSSI canisters presented more of a

(3) Pimental, N.A. Effectiveness of microclimate cooling systems. Navy

Clothing & Textile Research Facility report, June 1987.

(4) Evaluation of two commercial microclimate cooling systems.

Technical Report No. 164, Navy Clothing & Textile Research Facility, Natick,
MA, In Press.

(5) Pimental, N.A., H.M. Cosimini, M.N. Sawka, and C.B. Wenger.
Effectiveness of an air-cooled vest using selected air temperature and
humidity combinations. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 58:119-24,
1987.

(6) Shapiro, Y., K.B. Pandolf, M.N. Sawka, M.M. Toner, F.R. Winsmann, and
R.F. Goldman. Auxiliary cooling: comparison of air cooled vs. water cooled
vests in hot-dry and hot-wet e,-.!ronme-ts. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 53:785-9. 1982.

20
 burden than the ice because of the need to return the canisters to the freezer
for reuse; the melted ice could be disposed of at the test site. (Because ice
cube trays were refilled at the time of ice pickup, only one trip to the
freezer was necessary for the ILC system.) If the systems were to be used in
a routine manner during normal shipboard operation, dedicated freezers could
be located in an area more convenient to the hot spaces. This would
significantly reduce the negative impact of having to return the LSSI
canisters to a remote freezer location.

Supplying fully charged batteries for each test sequence was also
time-consuming for the test team. To maintain the batteries during this test
sequence, one test team member had to be responsible for hooking up the
batteries at the end of each test. Further, the test center did not contain a
sufficient number Of outlets to connect each charger. To support the cooling
systems in a realistic situation, a small room with adequate power and outlets
could be dedicated to the daily recharging of batteries.

The LSSI system required the most attention to insure that the system
was operating properly. There were numerous component failures during the
operation of both the LSSI backpack and Portapack systems. The primary
problems included:

1) Because of air in the lines, the LSSI system occasionally stopped

running altogether and required a rap to get it started, resulting in a delay
in the start of the test.
2) Canisters leaked through the expansion seal as they were frozen and
were no longer usable.
3) The refilling of the system frequently resulted in an overfill
situation which would require time to release fluid from the system prior to
use and which would cause the HEU to crack if the canister was forced into it.

Secondary problems included:

1) Despite pre-evaluation check-out of the LSSI batterias (see Section

3.2), several of the batteries would not hold their charge for the 2-hour time
specified by the manufacturer. Many failed within the first half hour. This
might have been partially due to the age of some of the batteries (purchased
1982).
2) Hoses w'ere inadvertently disconnected.

In addition to these equipment failures, most of the subjects complained

about the weight of the backpack system (16.8 lbs) and felt its bulkiness
restricted their movement in some shipboard spaces. The subjects noted the
cooling cap did not provide any perceivable cooling and complained the
chinstrap was uncomfortable and irritating. Because of the inconvenient
location of the on/off and control switches, the subjects had difficulty
operating the system alone and could not easily distinguish which direction on
the control switch increased the coolant flow.

Compared with the LSSI system, the ILC Cool Vest was much easier to
operate and maintain. The ILC system used reliable components and simple
methods of construction. The ILC system weighed 13.6 lbs, 20% less thar the
LSSI backpack system, and was not judged to be as cumbersome as the LSSI
backpack. Although the ILC system weighed less than the LSSI system, it
21

SIV
contained a larger ice reserve (6 lbs vs 5.2 lbs) and required less frequent
ice changes (3.1 hrs vs 2.3 hrs). The greater cooling capacity of the ILC
system would be a benefit in that stay times between coolant changes could be
increased. The ILC batteries were reliable and provided sufficient power to
enable the system to run for the entire test period without stopping. Other
than for the scheduled battery, ice and water changes, there was no need to
interrupt the test to refill or purge the system at any time. All of the
working components were contained inside the backpack; therefore, there were
no problems with hoses inadvertently being disconnected. The ILC system also
had the advantage of operating with ice, which could be disposed of at the
work site after it melted. Also, the cost of the ILC system was much less
than the LSSI backpack system, $680 vs $2511 (prices we paid prior to cost
reduction in July 87).

In summary, the ILC system was rated as the MCS of choice. The primary
factors contributing to this rating included:

1) The system was overwhelmingly preferred by 26 out of 29 test subjects.

2) The system provided a 35% greater cooling capacity - as determined by
frequency of coolant changes - than the LSSI system. Cooling was delivered in
a consistent manner, with only scheduled battery and ice changes interrupting
the test.
3) it was easy to operate with little or no training.
4) It had very few malfunctions, all of which were minor.
5) It was not judged to be too heavy or too bulky for shipboard use.

The LSSI systems (Backpack and Portapack), on the other hand, failed many
of our primary evaluation factors.

1) The Portapack and Backpack were not preferred by any test subject and
were rated as the third and fourth choices, respectively, of the four cooling
systems.
2) They provided inconsistent cooling as a result of pinched-off lines,
air in lines, ineffective cooling cap, etc.
3) They required a great deal of effort to keep them operational.
Systems had to be refilled or purged periodically, resulting in several
overfill situations and cracked HEU's. Lines became pinched off or filled
with air, resulting in test delays to determine and resolve the problem.
4) Components were not very reliable. Canisters leaked or popped the
expansion seals; batteries and control units failed; structural components
(e.g., HEU's, hasps for batteries) broke.
5) The bulkiness of the system precluded some subjects from easily
maneuvering through shipboard spaces without removing their backpacks.

The Encon system was also rated highly in all of our evaluation factors.

1) It provided consistent cooling.

2) It was easy to operate.
3) It had no equipment malfunctions.
4) It was lightweight.
5) It was rated as the second most preferred system. User acceptance,
however, was limited because of the tether cord which restricted freedom of
movement.

22
 7. Recommendations

The results of this evaluation have shown that, provided sufficient

support is available to maintain the systems, commercially available MCS's can
be effectively used onboard ship to provide personal cooling and alleviate
heat stress in hot compartmental spaces. To minimize the support required,
the system should be kept as simple as possible and use reliable components.
Of the four systems tested, the ILC Cool Vest and Encon Air Vortex System were
preferred by the test subjects and provided the highest degree of reliable
operation. These two systems, therefore, are recommended by NCTRF for future
* procurement consideration by the Navy.

* The ILC Cool Vest was chosen as the best portable system by the crewmen.
This system was also the simplest portable system tested. For efficient use
of the system onboard ship, the following support services should be made
available.
a. Each vest will require 6 lbs of ice for each 1.5-2.5 hours of
operational time. To provide the required ice, we recommend that freezers or
ice-making machines be strategically located near the areas of MCS use.

b. Each vest will require one 8-volt battery for each 2-3 hours of
operation. The rechargeable batteries supplied by the manufacturer are
recommended for use. These batteries require 6-8 hours to recharge on a 115AC
power source. For proper recharging, a recharge location should be provided
that will allow sufficient space, outlets and power to recharge the units on a
continuous basis. A recharge center located near the MCS freezer would more
easily support the system.

c. Proper care should be given to maintain long-term use of the systems.

The following operational items should be considered.

1. Although the units are relatively easy to use, all personnel

wearing the system should be given adequate instructions on proper operation.
For prolonged use, periodic washing, in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions, is recommended.
2. Space should be allowed onboard ship for the storage of the units
when not in use. For prolonged periods of storage, all water should be
drained from the systems and clean, compressed air shout". be used to dry the
vest to prevent bacterial growth.
__In addition to these support services, the following structural
modifications to the Cool Vest unit have been recommended by the test subjects
during this evaluation and NCTRF thinks they warrant further investigation.

a. In place of the metal vest fasteners, Velcro straps could be used to

tighten the vest to the body.
b. The on/off control switch should be relocated so that it 1,3 easily
reached and not accidentally turned off during operation.

23

EM
 c. A waist belt could be incorporated to prevent the system from riding
up in the front due to the weight of the backpack.

d. Shoulder padding could be used to provide better weight distribution.

e. The system should be provided with a fire-rer~ardant outer covering

similar to the type used in this evaluation.

Although the use of the Encon Air Vortex System was hampered by the
tether cord, this system did provide ample personal cooling; and, other than
the tether cord, presented no operational difficulties. This system could be
used effectively onboard ship provided the difficulties with the tether cord
are minimized. NCTRF recommenids the following actions be taken with this
respect*

a. The system could be used only for individuals requiring minimal

movement, such as burnermen, throttlemen.

b. Several connect locations should be employed throughout the workspace

to enable a crewman to use the vortex system with only short lengths of
tethered lines. Thi& action will minimize the possibility of cord
entanglement in confined spaces. With more air lines, personnel could
* disconnect and reconnect their tether lines and become more mobile within the
space.

C. The use of swivel disconnects at both ends of the tether cord would
*also minimize the possibility of cord entanglement.

d. To allow rapid exit from the space in case of emergen~cy, breakaway

fittings should be used.

e. It is also recommended that the exterior of the air distribution vest

be covered with a fire-retardant material similar to the type used in this
evaluation.

The results of this evaluation have clearly shown that both the ILC Cool
Vest and the Encon Air Vortex System provide adequate personal cooling and
were favorably received by the test subjects. Due to the difficulties with
the tether cord on the air vortex system, NCTRP recommends that, if a system
is required immediately for shipboard use, the ILC Cool Vest be selected as
the general cooling system. With some minor modifications the ILC system
could provide a completely adequate system for Navy use.

24
8. Acknowledgements

The Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility would like to thank Mr.
Richard Walchli and Dr. Scott McGirr of the Navy Science Assistance Program
for their support in the evaluation. The help f-om LCDR Greg Colegate at the
initiation of the project is also appreciated. Special thanks are extended to
LCDR Greg Moore of CINCLANTFLT for his coordination of, and his participation
during, the shipboard evaluation. We would also like to thank Dr. Jim
Driskell and Dr. Pat Moskal from the Naval Training System Center for their
invaluable assistance in providing the performance assessment battery and in
training us in its administration and interpretation. The efforts of CDR John
Scholl, MMCM William Werner, LCDR Donald Mason and Assistant Supply Officer
HMI Norma Baugh from the USS LEXINGTON were greatly appreciated. Also, a
sincere thank you is extended to the men on the USS LEXINGTON who participated
in this evaluation.

25
APPENDIX A. ILLUSTRATIONS

A-1
I I

Figure 1. ILC Cool Vest.

(Note: System shown without fire-retardant covering.)

A-2
 I Figure 2.
LSSI Cool Head.

I
MV "Note: System shown without fire-retardant covering.)

___A-3
 Figure 3. Encon Air Vortex System.

(Note: System shown with fire-retardant covering.)

A-4
I r

N%1!.
rAir Distribution
I I (Front Back)

Vest Temperature Measurement (Dry Bulb)

Figure 4. Encon Air Vest Temperature Measurement Location.

A-5
 APPENDIX B. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES

I B-1
 COOLING-VEST PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Experimenter Information

EXPERIMENTER:_ DATE:
TIME:
TEST CONDTIONS:
COOLING VEST:
SHIP/SPACE:

Subject Background Information

Please provide the following Information.

NAME:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER:

In the space provided below, list the duties that you performed while you wore
the cooling vest.

"APPENDIX B
 Page 2

ENVIRONMENTAL S1NPTONS jUESTIONMIRE

We are Interested in how warm or cool, comfortable or uncomfortable you feel

during your work shift. Circle each item separately to indicate whether you
DO or DO NOT have the sympt'-ij any time during your work shift. Please
ad eac-ih-Wom carefully.
For example, if you felt moderately lightheaded during your workshift, circle
the mark as shown below.

I ............. I
--------..-----. ----------I--------- I
not at all slightly moderately very extremely

1. 1 feel lightheaded.
I------------- eeeeeeee I-------
---------------I---------I
not at all slightly moderately very extrqmely
0 2. 1 have a headache.

------------- I-------------- I------------ I

------------
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
3. 1 feel dizzy.

I------------- I-------------- I....-------.I---------.

not at all slightly moderately very extremely
4. My coordination is off.

----------- I-----------
not at all slightly
I--------- very
moderately
I-----------
extremely
5. I'm short of breath.

Iaaaaaaa--------- I
I.-------------- ----------- I--------
not at all slightly moderately very extremely

I-
6. 1y heart is beating fast.
...-------
not at all
I-------------- I------------ I------------
slightly moderately very extremely
7. 1 have chest tightness.
m.......------------- I-------------- I...................
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
I_
 Page 3

8. My hands are shaking or trembling.

Ieeeeeeeeee----------I-------------- I---------- 11------th
------ I

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

9. My muscles feel tight or stiff.
I ------ IeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeI---------I------------ea e e

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

10. Parts of my body ache.
I-------------- Ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
--------eeeeee-----
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
11. 1 feel sick to my stomach (nauseous)
I ------------ I -- -- -- -- - I -- e -- -- -- I -- - -- - -

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

12. 1 feel warm.
Ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee- ! ---------
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
13. 1 am sweating.

eee I --------------
------------- ee Ie-------
eee---- - eI m-------
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
14. 1 feel chilly.
Ie.-------------e I-- - -- - - -- -------------- I -- - -- - -
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
15. My skin is burning or itching.

I------------- I-------------- I------------ I---------------I

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

I--
16. My vision is blurred.

not at all
------I------ ------
slightly
I-------I
modierately
-------
very extremely

Inot
17. My mouth is dry.
I------------

at all
I-------C

slightly
ee-------I-------I

moderately
------------

very extremely
 Page 4

18. I'm thirsty.

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

19. 1 feel tired.
----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I
not at all slightly moderately ve~ry extremely
20. My concentration is off.
----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I"
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
21. 1 feel irritable.
----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
22. 1 feel tense.
-------
I--------------------- --------
I-------I
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
23. 1 feel alert.
----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
24. 1 feel relaxed.
----------- I---------I-------- I---------I-----
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
25. 1 feel good.

I----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

Do you have any comments that you would like to add about the cooling vests?

em
 Page 5

Please answer the following questions as best you can. We are interested in
how YOU feel about the cooling vests on such matters as their fit, comfort,
and usefulness. There are no right or wrong answers; we simply want your
opinion, but please try to be as accurate as possible.
FIT
A.) How heavy does the vest scem to you?
------- I------------ I---------- I----------I
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
heavy heavy heavy heavy heavy

B.) How bulky does the v(nst seem?

I----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I

Ibulky
not at all slightly
bulky
moderately
bulky
very
bulky
extremely
bulky

C.) How tight does the vest feel?

I----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I

not at Z71 slightly moderately very extremely
tight tight tight tight tight

D.) If the vest included a headpiece, was wearing it difficult?

I--------- I--------- I--------- I-------- I-------- I

vest did not at all slightly moderately very extremely
not have a difficult difficult difficult difficult difficult
headpiece
E.) Did the vest provide consistent cooling, or did it change from
warm to cool often?

I----------- I------------ I---------- I----------I

not at all slightly moderately very extremely

consistent consistent consistent consistent consistent

II ---------,-
--------- ---
------
 Page 6

DEXTERITY

Please give your impression of yo ur ability to move about while you are
wearing the cooling vest.
A.) If your vest had a hose attached to it,did the hose restrict
your movement?

---------- I ------ I--------------

I-- II----
vest did not at all slightly moderately very extremely
not have a restricting restricting restricting
hose
B.) Did'you think that this vest would hinder you from moving into tight
spaces (for example, crawl spaces or hatches)?
--------- I-------------- I----
I ------------
not at all slightly moderately very extremely
restricting restricting restricting restricting restricting

C.) Did the vest cause you to have any difficulty in reaching or
bending?

----------- I ----------- I---------- I----------I

not at all slightly moderately very extremely
difficult difficult difficult difficult difficult
 Page 7

Please answer the next set of questio~ns in terms of how well you could
perform your job while wearin the cooling vest compared to how well you
could perform if you were noT wearing it.

A.) Speed at performing your job. I feel like I could work:

I--------------- I-----------I ------------ I-----------

the same or slightly faster moderately much faster very much
faster WITHOUT with the vest faster with with the vest faster wit";
the vest the vest the vest
B.) Skill at performing your job. I feel like I could perform:
--------------- I----------- I---------- I------------I
the same or slightly better moderately much better very much
better WITHOUT with the vest better with with the vest better with
the vest the vest the vest
C.) Length of time that you could perform your job. I feel like I
Could keep working:

--------------- I----------- I----------I-----------I

the same or slightly lon~ger, moderately much longer very much
longer WITHOUT with the vest longer with with the vest longer with
the vest the vest the vest
D.) Comfort at performing your job. I feel:
I-------I------ ------------I-----------
the same or slightly more moderately much more very much more
more comfort comfort with more comfort comfort with comfort with
WITHOUT wearing the vest with the vest the vest the vest
the vest
E.) Preference for wearing the vest. I:
I--------------- I----------- I---------- I------------I
prefer NOT slightly prefer moderately much prefer very much
wearing the wearing the vest prefer the the vest prefer the
vest vest vest
 Page 8

After you have participated in two conditions, please rank order your
preference for the cooling vests and/or your normal clothing. Use numbers 1
and 2 (with I being the best) to represent your rank.
Note: the instructor will identify the suits in the columns shown below, and
will explain the ranking procedure.
Condition

ITEM JA: IB:

Which vest fits better?
Which vest cools the best?
Which vest is the lightest?

Which vest is the 1.east bulky?

-------------------- ---------------
Which vest is least restrictive?
Which vest makes you feel the best?
-- m-------------------------------- m--------
Which vest lets you perform the best? I I I

-
 Page 9

After you have partl~pated in 3 sessions, please rank order them, using the
numbers 1, 2, and 3 (with 1 being the best). Follow the sami! procedure as
you did when you ranked two conditions.
Condition
IITEM JA: IB: IC: I
IWhich vest fits better? I -~ I I I
----------------------
hich--
ves colsth-bst--I --
IWhich vest ioos thelihest? I I I I
I Which vest isthe liheastbuk? I I II

Which vest isleast restrictive? I I I I

I Which vest makes you feel the best? I I I I
IWhich vest lets you perform the best? I I I I

*1- ----------
----------
---------
 Page 10

After you have participated in 4 conditions, please rank order them, using
the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 (with 1 being the best), Follow the same
procedure as you did when you ranked three conditions.

Condition
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM IA: 1B: IC: IC:
I Which vest fits better? I I I
Which vest cools the best? I I I I
Which vest is the lightest? I I I
I Which vest is the least bulky? I I I I II
Which vest is least restrictive? I I I I
---
im-I- ----------------------------------
---mm -i-- m -------
Which vest makes you feel the best?

Which vest lets you perform the best?- -

IJi ~ ll l i i ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ i J l l i l l l J~ J

I
I!
______ ________ ________