30.04.2013 Views

2007, Piran, Slovenia

2007, Piran, Slovenia

2007, Piran, Slovenia

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 2. Difference in heat transfer<br />

with and without the heat lamp for the<br />

indicated manikin sections and helmets<br />

without visors, with standard deviations<br />

shown, and ordered according to the<br />

total value.<br />

Manikins<br />

Figure 3. The same as Fig. 2, with the<br />

visors mounted on the helmets. Note<br />

that the ordering has changed, due to<br />

the variable effects of the visors.<br />

of significant correlation, and suggests that the face is equally well shielded by most visors in<br />

this configuration, and in general has a limited exposure to the impinging heat flow. It is<br />

clear that for helmet 28 changing the visor position had a minor effect in the given lighting<br />

configuration, whereas for helmet 16 there is a significant difference between the two<br />

positions (p < 0.005). Since 16u and 16s show no significant difference (as is the case for 16d<br />

and 16i), the Al foil played no significant or relevant role on the heat transfer in these cases,<br />

suggesting that the heating of the passing air by the visor was unimportant.<br />

Focusing first on the helmet without a visor, many helmets which deliver a large convective<br />

heat transfer (Brühwiler et al., 2006) allow more radiant flow to penetrate to the scalp, and<br />

vice versa, illustrating a fundamental conflict in optimizing helmets for net heat transfer.<br />

Figs. 2 & 3 also indicate that the major influence on the variations in overall transmission of<br />

radiant flow through the helmet is the scalp section, pointing to the importance of vents in that<br />

section. The transmitted radiant flow is physically expected to be proportional to the manikin<br />

surface area visible through the helmet, ignoring reflection from odd surfaces and the angular<br />

variations. Thus the present ensemble encompasses a span varying over a factor of three in<br />

vent area presented to the heat lamp, or from about 0.7 to 2.4 W (see Fig. 2, scalp section).<br />

Forced convection is expected to be much more sensitive to the overall structure of the vents<br />

and surrounding area (Brühwiler et al., 2006). Fig. 4 illustrates that this correlation can be<br />

427

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!