Wang Faming, Gao Chuansi, Kuklane Kalev, Holmér Ingvar
Thermal Environment Laboratory, Division of Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology, Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2011 Aug;55(7):775-83. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mer034. Epub 2011 Jun 13.
This paper addresses selection between two calculation options, i.e heat loss option and mass loss option, for thermal manikin measurements on clothing evaporative resistance conducted in an isothermal condition (T(manikin) = T(a) = T(r)). Five vocational clothing ensembles with a thermal insulation range of 1.05-2.58 clo were selected and measured on a sweating thermal manikin 'Tore'. The reasons why the isothermal heat loss method generates a higher evaporative resistance than that of the mass loss method were thoroughly investigated. In addition, an indirect approach was applied to determine the amount of evaporative heat energy taken from the environment. It was found that clothing evaporative resistance values by the heat loss option were 11.2-37.1% greater than those based on the mass loss option. The percentage of evaporative heat loss taken from the environment (H(e,env)) for all test scenarios ranged from 10.9 to 23.8%. The real evaporative cooling efficiency ranged from 0.762 to 0.891, respectively. Furthermore, it is evident that the evaporative heat loss difference introduced by those two options was equal to the heat energy taken from the environment. In order to eliminate the combined effects of dry heat transfer, condensation, and heat pipe on clothing evaporative resistance, it is suggested that manikin measurements on the determination of clothing evaporative resistance should be performed in an isothermal condition. Moreover, the mass loss method should be applied to calculate clothing evaporative resistance. The isothermal heat loss method would appear to overestimate heat stress and thus should be corrected before use.
本文探讨了在等温条件下(人体模型温度T(manikin)=环境温度T(a)=辐射温度T(r))对服装蒸发阻力进行热人体模型测量时,两种计算方法(即热损失法和质量损失法)之间的选择。选取了五套隔热范围为1.05 - 2.58 clo的职业服装套装,并在出汗热人体模型“Tore”上进行测量。深入研究了等温热损失法产生的蒸发阻力高于质量损失法的原因。此外,采用间接方法来确定从环境中获取的蒸发热能量。结果发现,热损失法得出的服装蒸发阻力值比基于质量损失法的数值大11.2% - 37.1%。所有测试场景中从环境获取的蒸发热损失百分比(H(e,env))在10.9%至23.8%之间。实际蒸发冷却效率分别在0.762至0.891之间。此外,很明显这两种方法引入的蒸发热损失差异等于从环境中获取的热能。为了消除干热传递、冷凝和热管对服装蒸发阻力的综合影响,建议在等温条件下进行人体模型测量以确定服装蒸发阻力。此外,应采用质量损失法来计算服装蒸发阻力。等温热损失法似乎高估了热应力,因此在使用前应进行修正。