Probability of Making A Successful
Mine Escape While Wearing
A Self-Contained Self-Rescuer
John G. Kouac,1 Charles Vaught,2 and Michael J . Bmich, Jr.3
lSupervisory Physical Scientist, 2Research Sociologist, 3Mining Engineer
Pittsburgh Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, PA
A computer simulation has been developed to estimate the chances of a miner mak-
ing a successful escape while wearing a SCSR. The model takes into account: (1) train-
ing in the use of SCSRs, (2) apparatus integrity, and (3) the oxygen cost of a mine
escape. This Bureau of Mines report examines survival odds for a prototypical escape,
and illustrates how these odds change when SCSR training is improved.
When a mine disaster occurs, the basic survival The chances of a miner making a successful
technique for a miner is to escape from the mine. escape while wearing a SCSR depend on three
After a mine fire or explosion, the atmosphere issues:
inside the mine may become oxygen deficient or
filled with smoke and toxic gasses. Under these 1. Training-Did the miner don the SCSR
circumstances, escape is virtually impossible properly?
unless a miner is equipped with a self· rescue
device that supplies oxygen while isolating his or 2. SCSR integrity-Did the SCSR function,
her lungs from the ambient atmosphere. or did the miner decide to abandon it?
Federal regulations require that every person 3. Oxygen cost-Did the SCSR provide
who goes into an underground coal mine in the enough oxygen?
United States be supplied with a Self·Contained
Self·Rescuer (SCSR) and trained in its use (U.S. A computer simulation that takes these issues into
CFR Title 30, 1988). A SCSR is a closed·circuit account has been developed to estimate survival
breathing apparatus designed for the purpose of odds for a prototypical escape. This report exam-
mine escape. It must be capable of providing at ines how these odds change when SCSR training
least a 60·minute supply of oxygen, regardless of is improved.
the condition of the mine atmosphere.
Mine Escape Model
Although mine disasters seem to occur with miners wearing the apparatus. As a consequence,
great regularity, they are still rare events. Since there is not enough historical data to allow us to
SCSRs are a relatively new technology, there are assess the impact of the device. Unfortunately,
very few case studies of escape attempts involving experiments in this area are impractical, ifnot
impossible. It would be very costly to reconstruct a that, because our model is computer generated, a
mine disaster or escape situation as a controlled user can make choices or decisions on initial
experiment. Moreover, it would be unethical to conditions or parameter sets. This means that the
expose human subjects to risk just for the sake of mine escape model can be used to make what-if
collecting experimental data validating SCSR calculations to explore alternatives, or to test the
technology or training. Yet, there are compelling affects of marginal changes in parameters on
reasons for wishing to evaluate an individual's survival odds.
chances of escaping an unbreathable mine atmo-
sphere. We therefore decided to develop a model of In essence, for the present task, the probability
a mine escape in order to estimate survival odds of a successful mine escape is arrived at through
under certain conditions. simulation. The model can be considered a pro-
grammed structure, because it is a logical progres-
Models may actually offer some advantages sion of ifYthenielse decisions. In particular, it is a
over real-world scenarios. The first is parsimony. worksheet template written in Lotus 1-2-3 with
Our model provides a theoretical framework for the @Risk add-on (Palisade Corp, 1988). The
explaining or predicting the outcome of an escape model has an empirical basis because it uses the
attempt in terms oftraining, SCSR integrity and experimental results of training studies, SCSR
oxygen consumption issues. The underlying logic field audits, and oxygen cost experiments to
and formulas are visible, and the issues are clearly calculate survival odds.
focused and segregated. A second advantage is
Prototypical escape means a hypothetical functional, the worker begins moving along
situation in which a disaster has occurred, and, in the escape route.
order to survive, a miner must evacuate to safety.
Certain conditions are stipulated as follows: 3. Once the miner starts along the escape
route, he is always trying to make forward
1. The miner is still in fresh air, but his only progress, never stopping to rest. He
escape route is a straight-line path through continues moving until all of the oxygen
a fatally hostile environment. supplied by the SCSR is consumed.
2. At the start of his escape, the miner tries 4. At the end of the escape route, there is
to don a SCSR. If he can actually don and fresh air and safety.
activate the device, and if the apparatus is
Attrition occurs at the start of a prototypical 2. Outcome-The second factor, donning
escape because some miners cannot don their outcome, focuses on the actual results
SCSRs. The first component of the mine escape when SCSR donning is attempted. A
model, therefore, is training. Training involves miner either completes the donning se-
two related factors: quence perfectly, or he falls short. The
chance that any particular miner can don
1. Proficiency-At any given mine, each his apparatus correctly is influenced by the
worker can be classified according to how general level of SCSR donning skill at his
well he is able to don and activate the mine site.
SCSR. For the purposes of this model,
donning proficiency is defined by a five- The two training factors, then, are related by the
level classification scheme (Failing, Poor, assumption that the higher the general skill level
Marginal, Adequate and Perfect). at a mine, the greater the odds are that a repre-
sentative miner will be able to don a SCSR in an Values (FI, F2, F3, F4, F5) for this model have
emergency. been obtained from four mines that were part of an
empirical assessment of SCSR donning proficiency
Donning proficiency is modeled as a discrete at sites in the eastern United States. At every
function. It is represented as a five-state look-up mine, 30 volunteers were selected for testing in the
table presented below. Some preliminary defini- workplace. Each worker was instructed to don the
tions are needed: SCSRjust as he would ifit were necessary to
escape the mine, and to do the entire procedure.
Skill Level = i; i = 1,2,3,4,5 While one researcher videotaped the miner's per-
Pr(Skill Level = i) = Probability that a miner formance, another evaluated and timed the tria!.
drawn from the The results have been closely scrutinized, and are
workforce at a given an accurate representation of the proficiency levels
mine can don a SCSR at found at the four mines. The aggregate data are
that skillleve!. presented in the form of pie charts in Figure 1.
= Fraction of workforce at
that skillleve!. In the final analysis, whether a miner fails or
succeeds in the real world would be determined by
Donning Proficiency the ability to use his SCSR well enough to survive
Fraction of Workforce an attempt to evacuate through an unbreathable
Skill Level at that Skill Level atmosphere. Individual actions that characterize
each category in the classification scheme, taken
Failing = I FI from selected donning evaluations, are profiled
Poor = 2 F2 below.
Marginal = 3 F3
Adequate= 4 F4
Perfect = 5
Because the skill levels are exclusive and ex- • The mouthpiece flange was outside the
miner's lips and he did not adjust straps.
haustive, the following relationship always holds :
• The miner put the SCSR on backwards.
FI + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5 = I The mouthpiece and nose clips pulled out--
he put the mouthpiece back in but forgot
This relationship also guarantees that the skill the noseclips. He did not adjust the waist
level probabilities are normalized. or neck straps.
The second factor that the training model • The miner failed to activate the oxygen
accounts for is SCSR donning outcome. SCSR and forgot to put on the noseclips.
donning outcome depends on skill level, and it is
represented as a two-state discrete function,
Skill Level = i; 1,2,3,4,5
Pr(Success,i) = Probability that a miner will successfully don his SCSR, given his
Pr(FaiJure,i) = 1 - Pr(Success,i).
Outcome(i) = Successfully dons SCSR = True Pr(Success,i)
Miner fails to don SCSR = False Pr(Failure,i)
Mine A ~Poor Mine B
f: ! ..1Perfect
Mine C Mine D
Figure 1. Donning proficiency profiles.
• The miner stood up to put the SCSR on. • The miner twisted the neckstrap around
The mouthpiece and noseclips pulled out the breathing hose.
because the trainee failed to adjust his
neckstrap. He appeared to be very con- • The miner didn't put on the goggles and
fused during the en tire donning sequence. failed to fasten his waist strap. The nose-
clips slipped off, but he put them back on.
• The miner didn't loop the necks trap.
Instead, he put the waist strap around his • The miner adjusted the necks trap after
neck. He also put the goggles on over his looping, but he never secured the waist
glasses and forgot to put his hardhat back strap. He took the mouthpiece out to look
on. for noseclips, and put it back in once he
found them. He initially hung the goggles
• The miner failed to adjust the neck strap; around his neck. He had to remove the
as a result, there was noticeable tension on mouthpiece and noseclips to put the
the breathing hose.
goggles on. After donning the goggles, he steps necessary to isolate the lungs. In point of
replaced the mouthpiece and nosec1ips. fact, miners in both the "failing" and "poor" catego-
ries would be considered less than proficient with
Adequate the apparatus. Individuals in the "adequate" and
"perfect" categories, on the other hand, would be
• The miner adjusted the neckstrap before considered proficient.
activating the oxygen .
In order to arrive at a conservative but fair
• The miner adjusted the neckstrap before interpretation of what performance at a particular
donning the goggles. After he put his hat skill level might mean in the real world, research-
on, he fastened and snugged the waist ers analyzed evaluations of 1264 donning trials.
strap. To illustrate use of this analysis, consider how
failures were treated. It was found that 32.8% of
• The miner looped the neckstrap over his all critical steps (those necessary to isolate one's
hat and lamp cord. lungs) omitted initially were subsequently cor-
rected during the trials. While a miner's inability
Perfect to get his lungs isolated would result in death,
there are three chances in ten that he might
• The miner performed a perfect 3+3 se- convert his failure into a partial success. For this
quence . reason, Ufailing" was not assigned a zerO chance of
survival, but set instead at 30%. The same reason-
• The miner did a perfect sequence. The ing was used to apportion weights to the other
waist strap should have been slightly categories. Estimates of successful donning
tighter. probabilities for all skill levels are given in Tables
1 and 2.
As can be seen, "failing" here merely applies to
an individual's omission of one or another of the
Table 1. SCSR donning trial performance (in 1264 trials).
Missed steps Corrected steps subsequently corrected
Critical 525 172 32.8
Secondary 780 336 43.1
Table 2_ SCSR donning probabilities_
Skill Level Probability (%)
SCSR integrity is the second component of the fails to provide life support due to a manufacturing
mine escape model. This issue was defined by defect, or because of damage caused by the in-mine
asking what the chances are that a miner will environment. A second reason the device might be
abandon his SCSR after donning it. The Bureau of abandoned is that the miner is unfamiliar with
Mines and Mine Safety and Health Administration how a SCSR works, and decides that the appara-
(MSHA) have conducted field audits of SCSRs, and tus is not functioning properly.
both agencies have investigated actual mine
escapes involving the apparatus. The results of SCSR integrity is modeled as a discrete distri-
this research have yielded a 10% use-failure rate bution. It can also be represented by the two state
for the devices and suggest two reasons why a look-up table presented here:
SCSR might be abandoned. First, the apparatus
SCSR integrity = Miner keeps SCSR = True Pr(Keeps SCSR)
Miner abandons SCSR = False PrCAbandons SCSR) =
1 - Pr(Keeps SCSR)
The third component in the mine escape model In other words, a miner consumes twice as much
is oxygen consumption. Attrition occurs if a miner oxygen while crawling during his attempt to
is not supplied with enough oxygen to make a escape as he would use ifhe could walk upright.
successful escape. The amount of oxygen that a The formula for oxygen consumption would be:
miner consumes while making an escape depends Oxygen_Consumption = Oxygen cost • Body_
on three factors: weight • Escape_distance.
1. The miner's body weight, which simply The linear model makes three assumptions.
refers to how much the escaping miner First, oxygen consumption at rest is insignificant
weighs, and is modeled as a normal distri- when compared with consumption while moving.
bution. Second, once a miner starts along the escape route,
he is always trying to make forward progress and
2. Escape distance (that is, the length of the never stops to rest. Third, in the computer simula-
escape route). tion, the miner walks in a bent posture the entire
length ofthe escape route.
3. The oxygen cost of a mine escape.
Another feature of the linear oxygen consump-
Oxygen cost, given in terms of standard tempera- tion model is that by keeping oxygen cost and body
ture and pressure with dry bulb (STPD), is a weight fixed, oxygen consumption is a homoge-
parameter that depends on travel mode: walking neous function of degree 1 in escape distance. In
upright, walking in a bent posture (duck walking), other words, when the escape distance is doubled,
or crawling. The oxygen cost values for each of the oxygen consumption is doubled.
three modes of travel during escape are as follows:
A miner who must escape a fatal hostile
Walking upright = 0.3 mL 02 CSTPD)lkg-m environment has two survival strategies available.
Ifhe cannot don his SCSR, or the apparatus fails
Bent posture = 0.5 mL 02 CSTPD)lkg-m to function, there is a "worst-case" strategy-the
miner can simply hold his breath, consuming the
Crawling = 0.7 mL 02 CSTPD)lkg-m residual oxygen in his lungs, and make a short-
distance escape attempt. The best course of action, miner with enough oxygen to pennit a successful
and the only one that would be tenable over a long escape. If the ratio calculated was greater than
distance, however, is to use the SCSR while one, however, a successful escape from the hostile
escaping. mine atmosphere would be considered impossible,
since the miner would not have enough oxygen
Oxygen consumption for both survival strate- available under that escape strategy. Our choices
gies can be measured in terms of ratios. For a for oxygen consumption parameters are given in
miner who holds his breath and attempts to reach Table 3.
fresh air within a short-distance, the oxygen
consumption ratio (or Holds_Breath_Ratio) equals Table 3. Oxygen consumption parameters.
in the lungs. For a miner using his SCSR, the
oxygen consumption ratio (or SCSR Ratio) is equal
to the Oxygen_ConsumptioniOxygen_Supplied by
Body weight SCSR Residual
In both of the survival scenarios mentioned 87 kgb 100 L 0.5 L
above, the oxygen consumption ratios will al ways
be positive. If a calculated ratio is less than one, 8STPD = Standard temperature and pressure
with dry bulb
then that particular escape strategy supplied the bStandard deviation, 10 kg
Calculating Survival Odds
When all the models are put together, the travel the escape distance. The simulation is then
computer simulation calculates survival odds for a repeated a large number oftimes to accumulate
specified escape scenario using a generate-and-test statistics on the number of successful escapes,
algorithm. Before the odds can be calculated, using the following logic:
however, the user must provide some initial values
for parameters in the simulation. The parameter Pr(Escape) = Probability of a success-
set defines a particular prototypical escape. The ful mine escape.
user must also specify the escape distance, which = Number of successful
is the independent variable. escapeslNumber of
Once all user input is specified and the simula-
tion activated, it will generate randomly a combi- Mathematically, escape probability is calcu-
nation of Training, SCSR Integrity and Oxygen lated by introducing a special function called
Consumption. This combination describes: Is_A_Success that tests for a successful escape.
1. Whether or not the miner was able to don Is_A_Success has the following properties:
his SCSR successfully;
= 1, if the miner made a
2. Whether the miner possesses a functional successful escape.
SCSR, or an apparatus that he will aban- = 0, if the escape attempt
don immediately after donning; and fails.
3. How much oxygen the miner must con- The Is_A_Success function takes two logical
sume in order to complete the escape. variables as arguments: U ses_SCSR and
The simulation then tests whether the combina-
tion results in a successful escape for the miner. U ses_SCSR = True, if [(Outcome=True) and
(SCSR Integrity=True) and (SCSR Ratio S ill.
In other words, the simulation checks which of = False, otherwise.
the two survival strategies, if either, lets the miner
Holds_Breath =True, if CHolds Breath Ratio ~ 1) Step 3: Calculate an expected value for
=False, otherwise. Is_A_Success, ECls A Success). The expected value
is the successful escape probability:
The variables are logical analogues of the two
survival strategies. In terms of the logical vari- SumCls_A_Success) = Number of successful
ables, Is_A_Success can be rewritten as: escapes in N trials.
= 1, if [CU ses_SCSR) or N_trials.
CHolds_Breath) =True]. = Number of successful
= 0, otherwise. escapes/N_trials.
PrCEscape) = ECls_A_Success).
Let's look at wh at happens if we evaluate
Is_A_Success for a large number of trials, and By varying the escape distance, and repeating
accumulate the results according to the following the probability calculation, the user can map out
program: the functional dependence of survival odds based
on escape distance and parameter choices. A
Step 1: Let j be an index, representing each complete listing of computer pseudo-code for the
trial: j = 1 to N_Trials. Pick N_Trials = 1000 for a simulation algorithm is listed in the Appendix l.
valid simulation . Because the mine escape model was written in
Lotus 1-2-3, Appendix 2 is an example of a
Step 2: Randomly generate values for worksheet template, and Appendix 3 is a cell-by-
Holds_Breath(j) and Uses_SCSR(j) for th e jth trial, cell listing of the worksheet.
and evaluate Is_A_Success.
= 1, if thejth trial was a
= 0, otherwise.
The computer simulation was applied to the instance, the survival probability curves for mines
four mines that were part of the SCSR donning A and B almost overlap, although the pie charts
proficiency field study. In each case survival are not divided the same way. This is because the
probability was plotted as a function of escape expected number of workers at each mine who
distance, and the r esulting family of curves is would actually succeed in using SCSRs proficiently
shown in Figure 2. To make a fair comparison, it is nearly equal. So, at least for a prototypical
was assumed that all of the miners faced the same escape, the actual details of donning skill distribu-
prototypical escape, but each mine had the distri- tion are not so important. What does matter is
bution of SCSR donning skills shown by the pie th at the average level of donning proficiency is as
charts in Figure 1. In other words, the family of high as it can be.
survival probability curves was generated by
changing SCSR donning outcomes according to The survival probability curve can be divided
empirical data derived from field studies. into three regions along the escape distance axis,
according to which survival strategy, if any,
Overall, workers at Mine D have the best dominates. This is shown in Figure 3. Region 1
chances of making a successful mine escape, while covers short distances, from 0 to approximately 20
those at Mine C have the lowest survival odds. m. Over this range, the miner can simply hold his
The difference amounts to n early 30%, and is due breath, consuming the residual oxygen in his
to relative SCSR donning proficiency. The lesson lungs, and make a quick escape. For short dis-
seems clear: survival odds change for the better tances, the "worst-case" strategy dominates,
when SCSR training improves. The dispersion of because a miner avoids the risk of attrition due to
ability levels may be quite differ ent between two improper donning or SCSR integrity failure. If we
sites without affecting 20 overall outcomes. For look at escape distances in Region 2, from about 20
r- .6 . ....... .......~.-..:e
<t I \
lD b---o----o- - - ~--"G'
••••••• Mine A
.~. Mine B
--0-- Mine C
o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Figure 2. Probability of successfully escaping an unbreathable atmosphere while wearing
.2 '. •~. Mine B
. --0-- Mine C
Figure 3. Survival strategy regions. (Patterns from left to right indicate regions 1,2, and 3,
as described in the text.)
to nearly 2000 m, using the SCSR while escaping exceeds 2000 m, which is the case in Region 3,
is the best course of action . Finally, no survival because a miner would not have enough oxygen
strategy dominates when escape distance greatly available under either strategy.
The chances of a miner making a successful common sense view that using a SCSR is the best
escape while wearing a SCSR depend on three survival strategy, and the only one that is tenable
issues: over long distances. The real limitation on escape
distance is that SCSRs make available only a finite
1. Training- Did the miner don the SCSR quantity of useable oxygen. This must be taken
properly? into account in planning for mine emergencies.
2. SCSR Integrity-Did the SCSR function, Because theoretical issues are clearly segre-
or did the miner decide to abandon it? gated and the mathematical structure ofthe model
is open to modification, it seems likely that the
3. Oxygen Cost-Did the SCSR provide computer simulation can be extended naturally to
enough oxygen? cover other factors affecting survival odds:
A computer simulation that takes these issues into 1. The location of SCSR caches along escape
account was developed to estimate survival odds routes;
for a prototypical escape, and used to show these
odds change when SCSR training improves. The 2. Decision making under uncertainty, with
computer simulation was applied to four mines regards to choice of escape routes; and
that were part of a SCSR donning proficiency field
study. The results show that relative survival 3. Group dynamics in mine emergencies.
odds for different mines can vary by as much as
30%, and that this difference is due to SCSR These will be topics for future research.
donning proficiency. The results also confirm the
Palisade Corp., At Risk : Risk Analysis and Modeling for the P.C. Computer software, (Newfield, NY)
u.s. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30-
Mineral Resources; Chapter I- Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Department of Labor; Subchapter O- Coal Mine Safety and Health; Part 75-
Mandatory Safety Standard- Underground Coal Mines, sec. 75.1714; July 1, 1988.
Simulation Algorithm-Computer pseudo-code for the mine escape model is listed below. Variable
names in the program are concatenated for the sake of clarity. Commands or reserved words in the
pseudo-language are shown in bold type.
REMARK Stipulate parameter set
REMARK Donning Skill level
REMARK Donning Probability
REMARK Create Look Up-Table
LET LOOK UP TABLE(l) :-Pl
LET LOOK=UP=TABLE(1) :-P1
LET LOOK UP TABLE(3) :-P3
LET LOOK-UP-TABLE(4) :- P4
LET LOOK=UP=TABLE(5) :-P5
REMARK SCSR Integrity
ENTER Pr(Abandons SCSR)
Pr(Keeps SCSR) :- 1 - Pr(Abandons SCSR)
REMARK Oxygen Consumption
ENTER Mean, Std Dev
ENTER SCSR Oxygen
ENTER Residual Oxygen
REMARK Choose a value for escape distance
ENTER Escape Distance
REMARK Choose a value for the number of tr i als
ENTER N_trhl s
REMARK Initialize variables used as counters or accumulators
LET Sum (ls_A_Success) :- 0
REMARK Begin while loop
WHILE j <- N_trials
REMARK Randomly as,s1qn a skill level to an escaping miner
GENERATE Donning-Proficiency :- DISCRETE(l,Fl;1 , F1; 3,F3;4,F4;5,F5)
REMARK Randomly assign a training outcome (Failure. FALSE, Success _ TRUE)
REMARK Use look_Up_Table to get successful donning probabilities
Pr(Success) :- LOOK UP TABLE(Donning-Proficiency)
Pr(Failure) :- 1 - Pr(Success)
GENERATE Outcome :-DISCRETE(FAlSE, Pr(Failure); TRUE, Pr(Success))
REMARK: Generate SCSR Integrity
GENERATE SCSR Integrity :- DlSCRETE(FALSE, Pr(Abandons SCSR); TRUE ,
REMARK: Calculate Oxygen Consumption
GENERATE Body_Weight :- NORMAL(Mean, Std_Dev)
Oxygen_Consumption :- Oxygen_Cost * Body_Weight * Escape_Distance
SCSR_Ratio :- Oxygen_Consumption/ SCSR_Oxygen
Holds_Breath_Ratto :- Oxygen_Consumptton/Residua'_Dxygen
REMARK Calculate Uses_SCSR and Holds_Breath
IF [(Outcome' TRUE) AND (SCSR
Integrity - TRUE) AND
(SCSR Ratio (-1)] THEN TRUE,
IF (Holds_Breath_Ratio (.1) THEN TRUE ELSE FALSE
Is_A_Success ;. IF (Uses_SCSR OR Holds_Breath. TRUE) THEN 1, ELSE 0
REMARK Accumulate Statistics
REMARK Calculate Survival Odds
Worksheet Representation-An example of a worksheet template for the mine escape model,
written in Lotus 1-2-3 with the @Risk add-on, is listed below.
Probability of Mine Escape Look-up Table for Training Outcome
Independent Variable Rating Grade Outcome
Fail 0 0
Distance 1000 m
Poor 1 0
Survival Strategies Marginal 2 1
Adeq'Jate 3 1
02 Available SCSR 100 L Perfect 4 1
Residual 02 lungs 0.5 L
Outcome (0 - fail, 1 - success)
Physiological Parameters Integrity (0 - fail, 1- success)
02 Cost 0.5 mL/Kg-m Body Weight 02 Used
Body Weight Avg 87 Kg 87 43.50
Std Oev 8 Kg
SCSR Ratio Holds Breath Ratio
Site Specific Training Results
Rating Percentage Training Outcome Integrity
Fail 6.9% 3
Poor 6.9% Is-A-Success
Cell-by-cell Worksheet Listing-A cell-by-celllisting, showing how to reconstruct the worksheet
template is presented below.
AI: (FO) 'Probability of Mine Escape 036: (FO) @oISCRETE(0,0.3,I,O.7,2)
A3: (FO) 'Independent Variable A37: 'Adequate
A4: (FO) \- C37: (FO) 3
B4 : (FO) \- 037: (FO) @0ISCRETE(O,O.I,I,O . 9,2)
AS: (FO) '~istance A3B:I Perfect
B5: (FO) 1000 C38: (FO) 4
C5: (FO) 'm 038: (FO) I
A7: (FO) 'Survival Strategies A40: 'Outcome (0 = fail t 1 '"' success)
AS: (FO) \- A41: 'Integrity (0 - fail, I - success)
BS : (FO) \- A44: 'Body Weight
A9: (FO) '02 Available SCSR C44: '02 Used
C9 : (FO) 100 E44: 'SCSR Ratio
09: 'L G44: 'Holds Breath Ratio
AlO: (FO) 'Residual 02 lungs @ A45: \-
CIO: (Fl) 0.5 B45: \ -
010: 'L C45: \-
A12: 'Physiological Parameters 045: \-
A13: \- E45 : \-
B13: \- F45: \-
C13: \- G45 : \-
A14 : '02 Cost H45: \-
B14: (FI) 0.5 A46: (FO) @NORMAL(016,o17)
CI4: 'ml/Kg -m C46: (F2) .BI4*A46*B5/1000
A16: 'Body Weight E46: (F2) .C46/C9
C16 : 'Avg G46 : (F2) .C46/ClO
016 : (FO) B7 A48: ' Training
E16: 'Kg C48: 'Outcome
C17: 'Std Oev E4B : 'Integrity
017 : (FO) 8 A49: \-
E17: 'Kg B49: \-
A19: 'Site Specific Training Results C49: \-
A20 : \- 049 : \-
020: \- E49: \-
A50: 0) laoISCRETE(O, C22 , I , C23 , 2 ,C24, 3 , C25, 4, C26, 5)
C21: ' Percentage C50: (FO) @VLOOKUP(A50,C34 .. 03B,I)
A22: 'Fail E50: (FO) @DISCRETE(O,O . l,l,O.9,2)
C22: (PI) 0.069 A52 : (FO) 'Is -A-Success
C23 : (PI) 0.069 A53: (FO) \-
A24: 'Marginal B53 : (FO) \-
C24: (PI) 0.069
A25 : 'Adequate @I F«G46<-I)#0 R# «E46<-I) #ANo#(C5 0=1) #ANo#(E50-1», I , 0)
C25 : (PI) 0.448
A26 : 'Perfect
C26: (PI) 0.345
A2B: ' Total
C28: (PO) @SUM(C22. _C26)
A31: 'Look·up Table for Training Outcome
A33: ' Rating
033 : ttOutcome
A34 : 'Fail
C34 : (FO) 0
034: (FO) @oISCRETE(O,O.7,I,O.3,2)
A35: I Poor
05: (FO) I
035: (FO) @oISCRETE(O,O.5,I , O.5,2)
C36: (FO) 2 @