Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
Articles by Ingvar Holmer
Total Records ( 2 ) for Ingvar Holmer
  Kalev Kuklane , Satoru Ueno , Shin-Ichi Sawada and Ingvar Holmer
  The present Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for safety, protective and occupational footwear EN ISO 20344-20347 classify footwear as cold protective by a pass/fail test where the limits are set for an allowed 10°C temperature drop inside the footwear during 30 min at a temperature gradient of ~40°C. It is questionable if a simple pass/fail test of this kind provides approved footwear that really protects the feet from cooling in exposures ranging from temperatures at +18°C to as low as or even lower than −50°C. This study selected for testing some professional footwear that could certainly not be considered as cold protective. Some footwear that could be used in cold was selected with as low insulation as the not cold-intended footwear. Also, a boot intended for cold was selected to be tested according to a modified standard at a temperature gradient of 70°C. The footwear selection was based on insulation measurements with a thermal foot model. All footwear did pass the test. Although it is clear for the user that a sandal, a mesh shoe or a thin textile shoe is not cold protective, it is not as clear that an item of safety footwear, that has as low insulation as those mentioned above, could be classified as cold protective according to the present standards. Because of this, the user might have a deceptive feeling of safety and may be exposed to higher risks. As practically all professional footwear may pass this cold test, then the method/requirements should be radically changed or such a test should be removed from the standards.
  Faming Wang , Chuansi Gao , Kalev Kuklane and Ingvar Holmer
  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 (Tmanikin = Ta = Tr). 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 (He,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.
Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility