New Methods for Evaluation of the

Thermal Environment in
Automotive Vehicles

Report No. 235

January 1986
Thermal Insu8ation Laboratory
Technical University of Denmark

NEW METHODS FOR EVALUAT

OF THE THERMAL ENV WONMENT
N AUTOMOT VE VEH
TsL. Madsen

B. Olesen

ASNRAE Member

ASNRAE Member

K. Reid

ABSTRACT

new method

been

tested

warm-up

for the evaluation of the thermal environment in automobiles has

in

periods

steady-state

conditions

( a s in wintertime) and

and

non-steady-state

cool-down periods

conditions

like

( a s in summertime),

T h e investigation w a s conducted in a wind tunnel where airspeeds of u p t o 130

km/h were achievable

at temperatures between -4E0c

and 4-40c, A realistic sun

load o n t h e car w a s also simulated during the test,

Three

different measuring

techniques have been tested at both t h e driver

and front passenger positions, namely: air temperature sensors at feet and head
level, thermal comfort sensors t h a t measure

the equivalent temperature posi-

tioned at three levels, feet, abdomen and head; and finally, a thermal manikin
t h a t measures

the equivalent temperature or heat-loss

for

16

different body

segments, T h e equivalent temperatures used in the t w o last methods combine the

influence from radiation ( s u n load), air velocity, and air temperature caused
by

t h e air-conditioning

system.

In the t e s t with the thermal manikin, a good

simulation of t h e normal driving situation is created. T h e thermal manikin is

heated and thermally simulates a human being. This is particularly important Pn
a confined space such as a car because t h e airflow from inlets is nonuniformly
distributed and

strongly influenced by t h e presence

of driver and passengers.

I n addition, the s u n e s radiation through the windows causes a n asymmetric thermal load o n t h e persons

in the car and t h e seats thermally insulate some parts

of t h e body, from which the heat loss is greatly reduced. These factors are not
t a k e n into account if only air

temperature is measured.

This paper

presents

results from all the methods and a comparison is discussed.

T.E, Madsen is assistant professor at t h e Thermal Tnsulation Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Bjarne W. Olesen, Ph.D,

is research assosiate at

t h e Laboratory of Heating and Air Conditioning, Technical University of Denmark

and K e n Read
Michigan.

is project

engineer

at General Motors Technical Center, Warren,

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Recent research into indoor climate has resulted in a fairly good knowledge of
the requirements to each of the thermal climate parameters and how to combine
the parameters to obtain an acceptable thermal indoor climate, Standards (ASHR A E 84-55, L 1 ] ,

the

thermal

I S 0 7730 l21 and I S 0 7726 [ 3 ] )

comfort

and

the measuring

methods

have been established for both

for

evaluation

of

the

actual

degree of thermal comfort,

Research and standards to date have concentrated mainly o n the indoor climate

in buildings,

As

people spend a

lot of time In cars, the next step is

obviously t o apply the research methods on the indoor climate t o the thermal
comfort i n cars,

The problems of climate in a car are different and often more difficult to
estimate. Normally, a stable and acceptable indoor climate can be established
and ma.intained

in a building, but in a car, the controlled indoor climate is

only established when the car is started. The thermal environment in a car is
more difficult to control and evaluate than in a building.

These difficulties

are due t o external influences, in particular, t o direct and varying solar gain
o n some parts of the body. Other factors are: the inhomogeneous temperature and
air

velocity

field

created

by

the

air'-conditioning

system

of the

car; that

modern car seats give a considerable amount of insulation to the parts of the
body

in contact with

the seat; and that the person, merely

by his presence,

influences the air movement from the climate and the ventilating system, East,
but not least, neither driver nor passengers are able to change their positions
much t o make up for the asymmetric climate condition. I t is therefore very reasonable to investigate t o what degree modern cars are able to create an acceptable thermal indoor climate; how t o measure the thermal environment in a ear;
and to what extent the n e w international standards for thermal comfort can be
used t o evaluate the thermal invironment in a car. This paper presents a pilot
study designed to compare three different methods of assesment.

Thermal comfort is created when the combined effect of all six thermal c l i mate parameters

activity level, clothing, air temperature, air velocity, air

humidity and mean radiation temperature

duced

by

metabolism

and

According t o IS07730 [ 2 ] ,
the PMV-index
parameters

are

still maintain

cause a person to loose the heat proan

acceptable

skin

[4],

the degree of general thermal comfort can be given by

(figure l), This value can b e calculated when

known.

temperature

T h e PMV-index

should

lie between -0.5

the six climate

and 90.5,

which

means that less than 40% will find that the thermal invironment is unacceptable.

ln addition, the standard includes quidelines

for local thermal comfort

like radiant assymetry, draft and air temperature gradients,

Measuring Methods

T h e usual method of evaluating the efficiency of the climate conditioning

system in cars is t o apply air-temperature sensors t o measure the air temperat u r e at feet and head level at all seats, the main purpose being t o investigate
t h e ability of
level.

the system t o raise and

lower the temperature

However, when using these thermal sensors, only one

t o the desired

(air- temperature)

of t h e three main climatic parameters t h a t concerns the thermal comfort sensations

( a i r temperature, mean

radiant temperature, air velocity) is measured,

T h i s fact is especially unfortunate in cars, as the mean

radiant temperature

usually differs far more from the air temperature than is the case in buildings
and the air velocity is also greater and more nonuniform t h a n in buildings,

Meaurement &thermal

comfort can be made by using transducers made

spe-

cially t o make an integrated determination of the influence of the three abovementioned climatic parameters

o n the thermal comfort. By means of these trans-

ducers, w h e n connected t o a measuring

instrument in which the actual activity

clothing and air humidity are also taken into account

determine

the

equivalent temperature

at

the place

[71,

of

the

it is possible t o
transducers.

The

equivalent temperature [S, 6 1 is defined as the uniform temperature of an imaginary enclosure w i t h air velocity equal t o zero in which a person will exchange
t h e same dry heat loss by
ment,

radiation and convection as in the actual environ-

By using three transducers per person (figure

%),

the equivalent temper-

atures representing the whole body can be found by weighting the three measured
equivalent temperatures in relation t o that part of the body they each represent:

where A , B and C are the equivalent temperatures measured at feet, abdomen and
head level respectively,

By using this mean equivalent temperature, t e q r the thermal insulation o f

t h e clothing and the activity level, the PMV-value may be estimated,

Measurement by Means of Thermal Manikin

T h e thermal comfort meter

is

a good

instrument for

determination

of

the

PMV-values in buildings where the thermal field is fairly homogeneous and the
presence of persons is of minor importance for the measuring result. In a car,
however, it is more important t o simulate the actual conditions and t o measure
t h e very nonuniform conditions. This can be
also described by W y o n e t al.

[R].

done using a thermal manikin

as

Instruments of this kind have been used for

measurements of t h e insulating ability of clothings for several years

[ g ]

and,

i n s o m e c a s e s , for t h e evaluation of

t h e t h e r m a l indoor climate in buildings

T h e manikin u s e d for t h e present investigations has been developed a t t h e

[10],

T e c h n i c a l University
t i o n of
joints

t h e t h e r m a l indoor
so

divided

that

in

it

for measurement of

of Denmark

can

be

climate

3.

[l9

placed

in

clo-values and

T h e manikin

different

is

fitted w i t h pliable

positions,

46 s e c t i o n s , each w i t h its o w n heating

for evalua-

Thermally

it

is

system t o ensure t h a t each

s e c t i o n w i l l maintain exactly t h e surface temperature t h a t , according t o Fanger's c o m f o r t e q u a t i o n [ $ ] ,

w i l l give t h e r m a l c o m f o r t a t t h e actual heat loss,

After measuring t h e energy consumption of e a c h of t h e 1 6 sections, t h e equival e n t t e m p e r a t u r e f o r e a c h part of

heat

loss

ments,

t h e body

c a n be

f r o m t h e w h o l e body, t h e PMV-value may

t h e manikin

is f i r s t clothed

in a

found, By
be

found.

using the total

For t h e measure-

summer suit w i t h a clo-value of

and t h e n i n a w i n t e r suit w i t h a clo-value of

1,4,

0.8

T h e s e clo-values w e r e mea-

sured i n a pre-test and include t h e t h e r m a l insulation of t h e seat, I t is t h u s

possible t o evaluate t h e general t h e r m a l comfort by t h e PMV-value and any asymmetry of t h e t h e r m a l field by t h e individual equivalent temperatures for each
T h e s e asymmetries w i l l cause differences between t h e heat losses

body segment.

f r o m any part of t h e body w h i c h is n o t due t o t h e changing of clothes.

Test
-

Facilities a n d Procedures

All

t h e t e s t s w e r e performed

v e l o c i t y and

in

a w i n d t u n n e l w h e r e ai.r temperature, wind

r a d i a n t s u n load w o u l d be

s,imulated and

controlled

at different

levels.

AS

both

i t w a s n o t possible t o simultaneously measure in t h e same position w i t h

the

c o m f o r t transducers

w i t h o n e placed
position.

and

t h e manikin,

measurements

were

first

taken

i n t h e driver's position and t h e other in t h e front passenger

T h e measurements w e r e t h e n repeated w i t h t h e positions

results presented

h e r e a r e mainly

reversed, T h e

t h o s e conducted a t t h e d r i v e r 8 s seat.

The

following t w o t e s t procedures w e r e u s e d ,

Cool-down:

T o simulate summer condj-tions, t h e car is heated u p in t h e wind

t u n n e l w i t h simulated s u n load t o an operative t e m p e r a t u r e around 60c,

After

steady s t a t e conditions have been obtained for s o m e t i m e , t h e engine and airc o n d i t i o n i n g system

is started, T h e engine

is running under a realistic load

during t h e w h o l e test. During t h e entire t e s t t h e air temperature (t40c) and

s u n load f r o m a b o v e and from the left side of t h e driver is kept constant, W h e n

t h e car is turned o n , t h e wind speed i n t h e t u n n e l is increased t o a level t h a t

is

equal

to

the

relative

air

velocity

w h e n driving

at

80

km/h.

Before

the

c o o l - d o w n starts, t h e air-conditroning system has been set t o maximum, t h e f a n

speed t o h i g h and
recorded

t h e outlets s e t i n a fixed position,

All measurements

c o n t i n u o u s l y during t h i s t r a n s i e n t c o n d i t i o n , i.e,,

are

thermocouples i n

t w o l e v e l s , e q u i v a l e n t temperature i n t h r e e levels and t h e t o t a l heat loss from

41

the manikin, together with the heat loss from the head and feet/lower legs. The
clo-values for the thermal manikin and the values set on the comfort meter are
given in Table 1.

When steady-state conditions are obtained, the heat loss from

all 16 parts of the manikin

is recorded. By estimating the clo-values for the

comfort transducers, it is assured that the thermal insulation of the seat is

equivalent to 0 , 2

In

the

clo.

steady-state

conditions established

tests with different levels of fan speed, A/@

after

cool-down,

series of

level and sun load is performed

(Table 2 ) .

Warm-up:

To simulate winter conditions, the car is cooled down to a n oper-

ative temperature of

approx,

- 1 8 O ~ , After

steady-state

conditions have been

reached for some time, the engine is started and the warming-up of the car by
the heating system is started, The fan speed has been set in the high position,
During the warm-up, similar measurements for cool down are recorded.

In the

steady-state conditions, an additional

test with

low fan speed is

performed.

Results and Discussion

Warm-up.

figure 3

shows the results

from air temperature, comfort meter

and thermal manikin measurements taken at the driver's

seat during a one hour

warm-up test. It is important to remember:

that the thermocouple

curve is the result of only two point measurements

o f the air temperature

that the comfort meter curve is a weighted result of three-point measurements of the equivalent temperatures, and

that

the

manikin

curve

is

the

equivalent

temperature

calculated

on

the

basis of the dry heat loss from the whole body,

T h e manikin curve starts at only - l l O @

ble heat input t o the manikin.

corresponding to the maximum possi-

new thermal manikin t o b e used for car inves-

tigations may have a higher maximum heat input. The temperature measured by the
thermocouples

is

methods.

reason is that the air temperature

The

several

deqrees

t h e mean radiant temperature

capacity

in the car.

higher

than

that

measured

by

the

other

is increasing rapidly while

is increasing more slowly because of the thermal

In addition to that, the mean

radiant temperature

will

remain lower than the air temperature because of the poor insulation of normal
car walls

and

ceiling, and, finally, the air velocity

caused by

the heating

system

will

decrease

of

create

an

increase

t h e equivalent

in

the

convective

temperature, T h e

rise

heat

loss

and

i n temperature

thereby

is

slightly

slower w h e n u s i n g t h e m a n i k i n t h a n w h e n u s i n g t h e c o m f o r t meter; t h e reason may

be

nlanikinws higher

the

time

constant

or

that the

temperature

does

really

he t i m e con-

increase more slowly w h e n t h e w h o l e body i s t a k e n into account,

s t a n t of t h e s e a t may also have contributed t o t h i s difference.

met and a clo-value

D u r i n g w i n t e r c o n d i t i o n s , w i t h a n activity Level of 1.2

of

1.4,

c o m f o r t is obtained a t a n e q u i v a l e n t temperature e q u a l t o 1 9 O ~ . W h e n

u s i n g t h e r m o c o u p l e s , it seems like c o m f o r t is obtained after 15 minutes ( f i g u r e

3),
ver

his is a false c o n c L u s i o n because t h e temperature experienced b y the dri- ~ O Cand

is between

+5OC

as measured

by

t h e c o m f o r t transducers

or

.the

t h e r m a l m a n i k i n , T h e c o m f o r t level is reached a f t e r 24 minutes u s i n g the cornf o r t meter

and

after

i m p o r t a n t t o remember
transient

state,

he

minutes

36

using

therrizal manikin,

t h a t during t h e w a r m - u p period
will

actually

feel

indicated b y t h e objective measurements

the

the

t h e r m o c o u p l e s and

the

t w o more

the

It

is,

howeveru

t h e driver w i L l be

thermal. environment

warmer

in a
tharr

[ 1 2 ] ; but t h e difference found between

sophisticated methods

by

the

end

of

the

warm-up period indicates t h a t t h e heating s y s t e m is considerably less efficient

t h a n indicated by t h e simple measurement of air temperature,

4,
As neither t h e c o m f o r t ineter nor t h e t h e r m a l manikin
Cool-down, figure -".
a r e able t o p e r s p i r e , t h e y cannot be u s e d a t a n equivalent temperature higher
p
p
-

t h a n t h e d e e p body

t e m p e r a t u r e , i , e , , 37O@, T h e heat loss a t t h a t temperature

is z e r o and o n l y t h e operative t e m p e r a t u r e c a n be m e a s u r e d , i , e , , integrating

t h e air temperature and t h e mean radiant temperature but not t h e air velocity,
As t h e m a n i k i n has no o u t p u t f o r operative temperatures, t h e starting point o f
t h e c u r v e is 3 6 , 4 O C , w h i c h

is t h e temperature a t w h i c h heat Loss begins, T h e

c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e t h r e e measuring results is better t h a n for t h e warm-,up

s i t u a t i a n , T h e r e a s o n is t h a t t h e increase in convective heat
compensated

Loss

is partly

for by a decrease i n radiant h e a t loss due t o t h e h o t invironment

o u t s i d e t h e c a r , T h a t means t h e mistake of using a n air temperature sensor t h a t

is

not

influenced

t e m p e r a t u r e is

by

the

also not

t e m p e r a t u r e for 1.2

radiation

is

influenced by

met and O , D

compensated

by

t h e fact

t h e air velocity.

t h a t the

air

T h e o p t i m u m cornfor'r

clo is 2 3 O ~ . T h i s telmperature is reached 30-35

minutes after start-up, but i n t h i s c a s e t h e t h e r m a l manikin is first t o reach

t h e c o m f o r t state.

From

figures

and

4 , it

is

seen

that the

" r e a l ' V g a r m - u p and

cool-down

t i m e s a r e approximately t h e same, around 3 0 minutes.

S t e a d y State After Warm-up.

T w o situations are t e s t e d : maximum o u t l e t air

t e m p e r a t u r e w i t h h i g h f a n speed and maximum o u t l e t air temperature w i t h low fan

speed. T h e t e m p e r a t u r e a t f e e t and head level and t h e mean temperature for both
s i t u a t i o n s a r e s h o w n i n figure 5.

T h e temperature measurements made w i t h ther-

mocouples

are significantly higher t h a n t h o s e made w i t h t h e comfort meter

and

t h e manikin, except i n t h e case of t h e low f a n speed situation w h e r e t h e f e e t

of

t h e manikin

show t h r e e degrees higher

equivalent temperature t h a n t h e air

t e m p e r a t u r e measured by thermocouple, T h e reason may be t h a t because of t h e low

air v e l o c i t y , t h e w a r m air w i l l n o t reach t h e t h e r m o c o u p l e t h a t is placed

clo-

ser t o t h e floor t h a n t h e f e e t and lower legs of t h e manikin, T h e result from

head level shows a n e q u i v a l e n t temperature several degrees lower t h a n t h e traditionally measured air temperature a t breath level; t h e reason is

mentioned

as already

t h e higher air velocity and t h e low mean radiant t e m p e r a t u r e ; but,

nonetheless,

t h e heating

s y s t e m is still able t o maintain

a n equivalent tem-

perature of 1 9 O ~ ,w h i c h is t h e comfort temperature during winter conditions,

Steady

State

After Cool-down,

The

six

situations

shown o n table

have

been t e s t e d :

Figure 6

shows

the mean

a l l t h r e e m e t h o d s , for

temperature

each of

a t t h e d r i v e r s s s e a t , measured

t h e six t e s t situations.

agreement between t h e t h r e e methods

T h e r e is fairly

i n t e s t conditions 1 1 and

using
good

PIE where t h e r e

w a s h i g h o r m e a n f a n speed and normal cooling. T h i s is due t o higher air velocities compensating for t h e h i g h solar gain,

I n situations V and V I , where t h e

solar g a i n is d e c r e a s e d , t h e difference between t h e air temperature measured by

t h e r m o c o u p l e and t h e equivalent temperature measured by comfort meter and t h e r m a l m a n i k i n increases. W i t h no s u n load, t h e temperature at t h e driver's seat
is 4 - 5

degrees

thermocouple.

lower

By

w h e n measured

w i t h meter/inanikin

c o m p a r i n g t h e results f r o m t e s t PI

and

t h a n w h e n measured
111,

by

it is seen that

t h e difference between h i g h and mean f a n speed is insignificant,

The

differences

methods

a t f e e t and

T a b l e 3.
the

between
head

temperatures

level as w e l l as

measured
the mean

at

feet

and

head

the

three

difference

are

different
listed i n

a r e 4-5 degrees lower than

O n a v e r a g e , t h e c o m f o r t meter measurements

t h e r m o c o u p l e measurements

by

level, although

t h e weighted

mean t e m p e r a t u r e of t h e t h r e e comfort meter measurements is only slightly lower

t h a n t h e m e a n t e m p e r a t u r e of t h e t w o t h e r m o c o u p l e readings. T h e reason must b e
t h a t t h e c o l d air is concentrated around t h e body
f o r t sensor is placed.

center w h e r e t h e third cam-

A t f e e t level, measurements made by t h e t h e r m a l manikin

and measurements made by t h e comfort meter are in good agreement, but t h e manik i n measures a higher t e m p e r a t u r e t h a n indicated by t h e thermocouple a t breath
level, T h e r e a s o n for t h i s surprising difference is t h a t t h e t h e r m a l manikin is
t o o t a l l , 1.84

m , and i t c a n n o t be seated i n a normal position i n a car seat;

t h e face is t o o c l o s e t o t h e ceiling of t h e car and about 0.2

t h e r m o c o u p l e a t b r e a t h level. T h e manikin"

m higher t h a n t h e

head is, therefore, partly outside

t h e cold a i r s t r e a m and exposed t o radiation f r o m t h e hot car roof.

T h e m e a n t e m p e r a t u r e measured by t h e t h e r m a l manikin is 2-5

t h a n t h e m e a n t e m p e r a t u r e of

t h e t w o thermocouples.
44

degrees lower

T h e t h e r m a l manikin w i l l

provide

a more

correct description

of the

thermal situation at

the driver's

seat. T h e description may be even better when using a slightly smaller manikin
seated i n a normal position.

~t i s also possible to measure the horizontal asymmetry in all six thermal

situations b y means of the thermal manikin, The difference between equivalent
temperatures for left and right calf plus thigh and for left and right lower
plus upper is shown o n figure 3 ,

T h e equivalent temperature for the right leg

i s , as shown, about two degrees higher than for the Left leg, but the equivalent temperature of the right arm is much lower ( u p to 43 degrees) than that o f
the left arm, In the two first situations, the reason is a forced cooling from
the air inlet of the right arm, and in the last situation, the reason is the
forced cooling in combination with the reduced solar gain from the right and
front windows, Obviously, this information cannot be obtained from the thermocouple or comfort meter methods,

Measurements have been made both at the driver's

seat and at the front pas-

senger seat, and it was interesting t o compare the difference between the thermal situation in these two positions when using all three measuring methods, In
Table 4, the comparison has been stated,

I t can be seen that the thermocouple measures a higher temperature at the

passenger seat in all six situations, the comfort meter measures a Lower equivalent temperature at the passenger seat, and only the thermal manikin measures
the same equivalent temperature at both seats. The reason can be that when measurements are only made at two or three points, it will not be possible to have
a correct mean value of a person's

thermal situation when the person is exposed

t o such a nonuniform distribution o f air temperature, air velocity and radiation as i s typically the case in a car when driving in hot areas, The thermal
manikin integrates this complicated exposure over a l l the body and a representative equivalent temperature can be found,

CONCLUSION

T h e evaluation of thermal comfort i n automotive vehicles

is more

complicated

than in buildings, The reason is partly the transient conditions after start-up
i n warm o r cold environments and partly the intensive and non-uniform influence
from solar radiation and from the heating o r air conditioning system.

This first investigation indicates that it is insufficient to measure only

the air temperature at floor and breath level.

Duri.ng both winter and summer

conditions this method indicates a cabin temperature several degrees lower than felt by driver
45

and passenger and gives no measure of the infl-uence from solar radiation or the distribution
of hot and cold air over the body surface.

It is impossible to correlate these results

to guidelines expressed in ASHRAE and IS0 standards for indoor climates in buildings.

By means of the comfort meter

it will, however, be possible to have this

correlation a s the influence from all six thermal parameters is considered.

only limitation is that the comfort sensor only measures

in one point.

he

Using

three comfort sensors, it is possible to get a fairly good impression of the

thermal influence on driver and passenger from the complete thermal environment
in a car. It will also be possible to evaluate the difference between head and
feet level,

The thermal manikin measures the integrated equivalent temperature over the
whole body surface as well as over each of the l6 body segments, A manikin is
therefore the best instrument for testing the distribution of h o t and cold air
a s well as for testing the influence from solar gain from different directions,
While the PMV-index may be used to evaluate the thermal comfort for the body as
a whole in steady state conditions, there is a need for additional experimental
studies with subjects to establish guidelines for the transient and nonuniform
conditions in a car.

REFERENCES

1,

ASHRAE

1981-

ANSI/ASARAE

"Thermal

55-1981.

invironmental

Atlanta:

American

conditions

for

Society

Beating,

of

human

occupancy",

Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inco,

2.

I S 0 1984, ESO
PMV and P P D
fort

3.

1985.

Moderate Thermal environments, Determination of the

indices and specifications of the conditions for thermal com-

ISO

7730.

ESO

7726,

Thermal

Environments

- Specifications
-

related

appliances and methods for measuring physical characteristics of the environment.

4.

Fanger, P.O.

1982,

Thermal Comfort MaPabar, F1, Robert E. Krieger ~ u b l i s h -

ing Company.

5.

Dufton, A.F.
ment,

Bldg.

9932, "The equivalent temperature of a room and its measureRes. Technical Paper no.

13 London.

Q,

Madsen, T.L.,

Olesen, B , W . ,

Kristensen, N.R,

1984,

Comparison between Oper-

ative and Equivalent Temperature under Typical Indoor Conditions,

ASHRAE

Tsans. 9 1 . 1 . 1 9 8 4 ,

9.

Madsen, T.L.

1996,

Thermal Comfort Measurements.

8,

Wyon, D,P,, Tennstedt, C,, Lundgren, I,

ASBRAE Trans 8 2 . 1 , 1 9 7 A

and Larsson,

S,

the Detailed Assessment o f Human Heat Balance in Vehicles

Manikin, VOLTMAN.

International Congress

A new Method

for

V o l v o u s Thermal

Exposition, Detroit, Michigan,

&

'1 9 8 5

9.

Umbach, K . H .

Comfort

of

Clothing,

Bekleidungs

physioEoqisches

Pnstitut

Hohenstein, West-Germany.

10.

Petersen, E.:

Experiments with intermittent Heating and Insulation carried

o u t in a test room. Contribution number 2 from the committee for the study
o f domestic heating, Copenhagen 1 9 4 8 ,

19.

Olesen, B.W.

and Madsen, T-L.:

Measurements

clothings by a movable thermal manikin:

of the

thermal insulation of

Proe, of the International Confer-

ence "Medical and Biophysical Aspect of Protective Clothing".

12,

Rohles, F - H . and Wallis, S.B.:

1 9 8 3 Lyon,

Comfort Criteria for Air Conditioned Automo-

t i v e Vehicles. Congress and Exposition, Cobo Hall, Detroit, 1 9 7 9 .

TABLE 1
Setting of Comfort Meter and Clo-value for the Thermal Manikin during Test

warm-up
winter

comfort meter

activity level
vapour pressure
clo-value feet
clo-value abdomen
clo-values head

thermal manikin clo-value

4.2
0,6
0.8

met
pa
clo

cl0

1.2
0.9
0.8

met
pa
clo

TABLE

T e s t s Conducted i n t h e S t e a d y - s t a t e
CooP-down

Conditions established a f t e r

Table 3
D i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n T e m p e r a t u r e s Measured b y T h e r m o c o u p l e and E q u i v a l e n t
T e m p e r a t u r e s Measured b y C o m f o r t M e t e r and T h e r m a l M a n i k i n . ( C a r s p e e d R 0
k m , A i r t e m p e r a t u r e o u t s i d e t h e c a r +40C, D r i v e r ' s s e a t )

max f a n s p e e d max BC
I
- norm AC
II
mean f a n s p e e d norm AC
EII
low f a n speed
- IV
mean f a n s p e e d norm AC
no s o n sun t h r o u g h s i d e
V
and f r o n t pane
mean f a n s p e e d norm AC
no s o l a r r a d i a t i o n
VI

mean v a l u e

4.2

TABLE 4
D i f f e r e n c e s between E q u i v a l e n t Temperature ( t e q )Measured a t D r i v e r ' s
P a s s e n g e r S e a t i n S i x S t e a d y - s t a t e S i u a t i o n s a f t e r Cool-down

thermocouple
max f a n s p e e d max c o o l i n g
max f a n s p e e d norm c o o l i n g
mean
low
mean f a n s p e e d norm c o o l i n g
no sun through s i d e
a n d f r o n t window
mean f a n s p e e d norm c o o l i n g
no s u n r a d i a t i o n

mean v a l u e

I
II
II1
IV

VI

comfort
meter

and

IS0 ( D I S 7730)

PMV=Predicted Mean V o t e
-1-3
+2

+l
0

-1

-2
-3

hot
warm
s l i g h t l y warm
neutral
slightly cool
cool
cold

Cool

Sl~ghtly
Cool

Neutral
PMV (Predjcted Mean Vote)

Slightly
warm

Figure I .

The comfort s c a l e used i n t h e new XO-standard f o r mode-rate thermal

environment. T O t h e r i g h t i s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e PMV-value and
t h e percentage which i s v o t i n g -3, - 2 , 12, or 13, which i s t h e thermally
dissatisfied (PPB)

Figure 2 .

P o s i t i o n o f t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t measuring systems i n t h e c a r . W ) A i r
temperature s e n s o r , B ) Comfort s e n s o r , C) D i f f e r e n t segments o f thermal
manikin

Warm
811405

"t
--k~-

thermocoaspie
comfortmeter
thermal manikin

time

Figure 3 .

Recording o f temperature i n d r i v e r ' s s e a t during warm-up t e s t , I .is mean

o f a i r temperature a t f l o o r and breath l e v e l , IX i s a weighted mean o f t h e
equivalent temperature a t f e e t , abdomen, and head l e v e . X I 1 i s t h e mean
equivalent temperature measured with thermal manikin. The horizontal l i n e s
i n d i c a t e t h e comfort zone f o r 1.2 met and I . 4 c l o ( w i n t e r c o n d i t i o n )

-t h e r m o c e ) W
----

-e-

Figure 4 .

comfortmeter
thermal man&b

Recording o f temperature i n d r i v e r ' s s e a t during coolidawn k e s t rrsiljrg eke

t h r e e d i f f e r e n t measuring systems. The h o r i z o n t a l l i n e s i n d i c a t e t h e comfort
zone f o r 1.2 met and 0.8 c l o (summer c o n d i t i o n )

I
Figure 5.

high blower speed

low blower speed

S t e a d y s t a t e a f t e r warm-up.
C o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t e m p e r a t u r e a t feet a n d h e a d
l e v e l , a s w e l l a s m e a n t e m p e r a t u r e u s i n g t h e three d i f f e r e n t m e a s u r i n g
methods f o r h i g h and l o w fan speed

52

comfortmeter
thermal manikin

87

C
.?l
C -4J
0 C
-4 0
-4Jk
-4 W

'0
0

D
C

D>

.4 -&,

C C
0 0
k

a.,

-4 k

.d

.P(

a - .

C c
0 0

-4J

a - .

..r(

m x C
.ri a 3

E
n

S E

D k C
.P403

~S X m
H
Y

8)

[I)

'

-b,
..r(

T3

.r4

.d

$2

r d d 0
w a d

~3

0 0 3
m c m

E E m
l-i

F i gure 6 .

0 3

C
0

-8-4

w c a , ~a c w
a o a o
a 0 0
au.r(o
a u o
Q
m k
D;
k
m
B' k

0 .

c
a

D
C

.P4
k,

'44

a0aq-r a c a w a ~ a
a o a 0
a 0 a 0
a u a o
a , u . ~ ( oa u . c l o
a,
.pro
Cz:
lok
~ ~ k mQ4 k m k
mk
mk
m .ri
l
,
.
.r(
rd
C rda
c rdrb
m
rd
rd
m
m E rd
OriO
14-140
W 3 0
rd 4
am
9 0

DC
.t-l
C
0

-P( 6,

-4-J W

U4

.d

t-7

C
-4 -4-J
C C
0 0
.t-l k

0 0

@a
a
m
C

W 4 0
C

4 rdb-lc
~
a, 0 3

'CI
'CIC
8) 0
Q)

D-

U 0

vlk

.pl

C
so

C a w
rd
rd
W 4 0
6 rl
G E

m b - t ~
aJ 0 7

E C m

E E m

!S
''

Steady s t a t e a f t e r cool-down.
Comparison between mean temperature measured
w i t h t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t methods i n s i x d i f f e r e n t combinations o f i r
c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t , f a n speed and s o l a r gain
53

high f a n speed
max a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g
s u n Load: s i d e , f r o n t r o o f

h i g h fan s p e e d

normal a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g
side, front, roof.
mean f a n s p e e d
normal a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g
side, front, roof.
Low f a n s p e e d
normal a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g
sun load: s i d e , f r o n t , r o o f ,
mean f a n s p e e d
normal ai.r c o n d i t i o n i n g
sun load: roof.

h
left

mean f a n s p e e d
normal a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g

right

h i g h f a n speed
max i n c o m i n g a i r t e m p e r a t u r e

low f a n s p e e d
ximum i n c o m i n g a i r t e m p e r a t u r e

Figure 7 .

D i f f e r e n c e between t h e e q u i v a l e n t t e m p e r a t u r e s measured w i t h t h e thermal

manikin ' S l e f t and r i g h t l e g and l e f t and r i g h t arm. + i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
l e f t s i d e i s warmer than t h e r i g h t s i d e . A t t h e t o p t h e s i x s t e a d y - s t a t e
c o n d i t i o n s a f t e r cool-down are shown. A t t h e bottom t h e two s t e a d y - s t a t e
c o n d i t i o n s a f t e r warm-up are shown