The effects of using different type of inlet vents on the thermal characteristics of the automobile cabin and the human body during cooling period

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The effects of using different type of inlet ventson the thermal characteristics of the automobile cabinand the human body during cooling period

Muhsin Kiliç & Gökhan Sevilgen

Received: 26 October 2010 /Accepted: 6 May 2011 /Published online: 26 August 2011# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Abstract A three-dimensional (3-D) transient numericalanalysis was performed inside an automobile cabin duringcooling period. A three-dimensional vehicle cabin includ-ing glazing surfaces was modelled by using the realdimensions of a car. A virtual manikin with real dimensionsand physiological shape was added to the model of thevehicle cabin, and it was assumed that the manikin surfaceswere subjected to constant temperature. The virtual manikinwas divided into 17 parts in standing posture to evaluate thelocal heat transfer characteristics of the human body duringtransient cooling period. We considered three different casesthat the cooling capacity of the automobile cabin was samefor all cases. Three-dimensional fluid flow, temperaturedistribution and heat transfer characteristics inside theautomobile cabin were calculated with different type ofinlet vents. Comparisons of the numerical results werepresented and discussed.

Keywords Inlet vents . CFD .Manikin . Transient cooling

1 Introduction

The automobile is considered as the most common mode oftransportation in the world. People spend great amount oftime per day in automobiles. Researchers and engineersshould design more effective HVAC systems than theclassical ones to ensure passengers thermal comfort evenin extreme conditions by considering consumers' demand.

For all needs described above, more numerical andexperimental studies should be performed under differentenvironmental conditions to get more effective HVACsystems for automobiles. However, the complexity ofhuman thermo-physiological model and physiologicalshape of the human body and highly transient conditionsin the vehicle cabin make the CFD analysis more difficult[1]. In previous researches, many numerical and experi-mental studies for the fluid flow and the thermal character-istics of passenger compartments have been carried out forcooling processes. Lin et al. [2] studied steady-state coolingprocess in a simplified model of a passenger compartment.Aroussi and Aghil [3] used a passenger compartment withone-fifth scale model of a vehicle cabin and they studiedthe characteristics of the fluid flow inside the cabin.However, many researches existing in the literature didnot take account the dimensions of a real car and

the literature are very limited. Sevilgen and Kilic[4]reported a three-dimensional (3-D) transient numericalanalysis of airflow and heat transfer in a vehicle cabinduring heating period. In their study, they used a virtualmanikin divided into 17 parts with real dimensions andphysiological shape and they modelled an automobile cabinin 1:1 scale. This computational model consisted oftetrahedron volume cells. Kilic and Sevilgen [5] alsodeveloped their model and used hex-core mesh structurefor getting more precious results in terms of computingtime. In their study, they used different types of boundaryconditions on the human body surfaces to determine the

M. Kiliç (*) :G. SevilgenFaculty of Engineering and Architecture,Department of Mechanical Engineering, Uludağ University,TR-16059 Bursa, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2012) 60:799–809DOI 10.1007/s00170-011-3594-x

physiological shape of human body. In addition, the numberof the transient numerical analyses of the automobile cabinincluding a virtual manikin, thermal characteristics of thehuman body, velocity, temperature distributions of theautomobile cabin and the calculation of three modes ofheat transfer, i.e. radiation, convection and conduction in

suitable boundary condition for evaluating thermal comfort.Their numerical results were in good agreement with theexperimental and theoretical data. In this study, transientnumerical analyses of standard cooling period of anautomobile were performed with different types of inletvents considering that the cooling load of the automobileHVAC system was same in all cases. Therefore, the effectsof selecting different type of inlet vents on the air flow andthe temperature distributions of the automobile cabin were

investigated during the cooling period. We also employedlocal heat transfer characteristics of the human body andcabin interior. The flow and the temperature distributions atdifferent planes were computed and discussed for all cases.The present study shows that different climate controlstrategies as they relate to human thermal comfort will bedeveloped with 3-D CFD analysis.

2 Numerical simulation

In this study, Fluent software package was used fortransient numerical analysis of air flow and heat transferin the automobile cabin. Fluent software solves continuum,energy and transport equations numerically with naturalconvection effects. In numerical solution, second-orderdiscretization method was used for convection terms andSIMPLE algorithm was chosen for pressure velocitycoupling. In the numerical analysis, we used renormaliza-tion group (RNG) k-ε model for modelling the turbulentflow. This turbulence model is generally used for such

Fig. 1 3-D CAD model of the vehicle cabin

Table 1 Segments and surface areas of the manikin

Surface name Surface area (m2)

1- Head 0.119

2- Neck 0.020

3- Left shoulder 0.016

4- Chest 0.237

5- Left arm 0.113

6- Left hand 0.018

7- Left thigh 0.096

8- Left leg 0.139

9- Left foot 0.027

10- Right shoulder 0.016

11- Right arm 0.113

12- Pelvis 0.005

13- Right hand 0.018

14 –Right thigh 0.096

15- Right leg 0.139

16 –Right foot 0.027

Total surface area: 1.20 m2

Fig. 2 The slide of volume cells at Z=−0.28 m

800 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2012) 60:799–809

calculations due to stability and precision of numericalresults in literature [6–8]. The RNG-based k-ε turbulencemodel is derived from the instantaneous Navier–Stokesequations, using a mathematical technique called RNGmethods. This model is different from standard k-ε model,and additional terms and functions in the transportequations for k and ε. A more comprehensive descriptionof RNG theory and its application to turbulence can befound in the references [9]. In the computational domain, a3-D hex-core mesh was generated which contained trian-gular elements at the surfaces of the cabin parts andhexahedron elements in the central-volume region. In thisstudy, the calculations of radiation heat transfer betweencabin interior surfaces and human body surfaces wereperformed by using surface-to-surface radiation modelincluding calculation of view factor(s) in Fluent. Thecomputing time of the view factors between the humanbody surfaces and the cabin interior surfaces were tookabout 1 or 2 days. More detailed information on this modelcan be obtained in reference [10].

2.1 Modelling geometry

In this study, 3-D computer-aided design (CAD) model ofthe vehicle cabin was modelled by using the dimensions ofthe automobile which was a 2005 model 1,600 cc FIATAlbea.

The CAD model of the vehicle cabin and the main cabininterior surfaces are shown in Fig. 1. To predict andevaluate the thermal characteristics of the human body, avirtual manikin was added to the CAD model. Thesegments of the human body are shown in Table 1. Themanikin had a standard height (1.70 m) and weight (70 kg),

and it had a total surface area (1.81 m2) suitable for astanding posture. In the automobile cabin, the free surfacearea of the virtual manikin with sitting posture reduces to1.20 m2 as shown in Table 1. The rest of the area (0.6 m2) iscontact with the solid surfaces.

2.2 Mesh structure

In numerical calculations, mesh structure of the computa-tional domain is very important for getting accurate

Table 2 Initial conditions of the simulations

The initial cabin temperature 41°C

Operating conditions(HVAC system) Standard mode

Simulation time 30 min

Time step of numerical solution 1 s

Table 3 Mean velocity values in all cases

Cases Type of inletvents

Vx (m/s) Vy (m/s) Mean value(m/s)

I Console type 1.58 1.58 2.50

II Console type 1.50 0.00 1.50

Defrost type 0.85 0.85 1.20

III Console type 2.00 0.00 2.00

Defrost type 0.42 0.42 0.60

Table 4 Boundary conditions used in the numerical calculations

Surface Boundary Condition

Manikin surfaces Constant temperature

Glass surfaces Convective

Outer surfaces Convective

Other surfaces Adiabatic surfaces

Console type inlet vents

Momentum: Vx (m/s), Vy (m/s)

Heat transfer: Tinlet=T(t) (temperatureprofile (T(t)) is shown in Fig. 4.)

Defrost type inlet vents

Momentum: Vx (m/s), Vy (m/s)

Heat transfer: Tinlet=T (t)

Outlet vents (backflow properties)

Gauge pressure : 0 Pa

Fig. 3 Horizontal (a) and vertical (b) plane of the vehicle cabin

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2012) 60:799–809 801

predicted results and reducing computing time. Sevilgenand Kilic[4, 5] used tetrahedral and hex-core meshstructures to calculate the thermal environments of thevehicle cabin. In this study, a 3-D hex-core mesh was usedin the present computations. This mesh structure containstriangular elements on the surfaces, hexahedron elements inthe volume region. The computational grid used in thisstudy consists of about 900,000 volume cells. The sectionview of volume cells at Z=−0.28 m is shown in Fig. 2. Anexamination of the grid independence of the numericalsolution has shown that such a grid system can obtain anearly grid independent solution. Computations carried outwith a finer mesh, which includes about two million hex-core volume cells, showed no significant difference to thecomputed results but required a large increase in computingtime and memory. Time step was chosen as 1 s for alliterations. Computations were performed on a workstationwith two Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor. Computationtime for one case presented in this study was approximately4 days. The convergence is assumed when the normalizedresiduals of flow equations are less than 10−4 and theenergy and radiation equations are less than 10−7.

2.3 Boundary conditions and method

In the numerical calculations, constant temperature bound-ary condition was applied at the manikin surfaces. The

temperature of the surfaces without clothes such as headand hands was set to 33.7°C and the temperature of thesurfaces with clothes was set to 33°C. This valuecorresponds to the thermal resistance of the summerclothes.

Heat interactions between human body and the immedi-ate surroundings occurs by several modes of heat exchange:sensible heat flow from the skin by convection and

(a) (b) (c)

(a) Console type inlet vents

(b) Defrost type inlet vents

(c) Outlet vents

Fig. 4 Temperature profile for all type of inlet vents

(a) Case-I (t=600s)

(b) Case-II (t=600s)

(c) Case-III (t=600s)

Fig. 5 Velocity (metres per second) predictions at the horizontal planeof the vehicle cabin at 10 min of cooling period


radiation; latent heat flow from the evaporation of sweatand from evaporation of moisture diffused through the skin;sensible heat flow during respiration and latent heat flowdue to evaporation of moisture during respiration. In orderto predict the latent heat loss from the body, the moisturetransport equation must be solved. However, parametersrelated to dry or evaporative heat flows are, generally, notindependent because they both rely, in part, on the samephysical processes. The Lewis relation describes therelations between convective heat transfer and mass transfercoefficients for a surface [11]. The Lewis relation can beused to relate convective and evaporative heat transfercoefficients. Therefore, latent heat loss was not consideredand respiration was neglected in the present computations.We assumed that the boundary conditions for the areascontact with the solid surfaces were adiabatic; thus, weconsidered sensible heat which is transferred from humanbody to the environment by convection and radiation.

In transient numerical simulations, initial conditions arealso very important to get precise results. The initialconditions used in the numerical calculations are shown inTable 2. In the first case, we just used console type inlet

vents for cooling analysis and we assumed that the defrostinlet vents were turned off. In the second and third cases,both defrost and console inlet vents were used for coolinganalysis but different velocity components were employedfor inlet vents. In this study, we assumed that the coolingcapacity of the HVAC system of the automobile was thesame for all three cases. Thus, we calculated the velocitycomponents in x, y direction for all inlet vents. Thesevelocity components and mean values are shown in Table 3.

The boundary conditions used in this study are shown inTable 4. Convective boundary condition was considered atthe glass surfaces and outer surfaces of the cabin.Convective heat transfer coefficient at outside of the cabinwas set as 15 W/m2°C.

We defined virtual planes in the vehicle cabin forevaluating the flow and thermal characteristics of thevehicle cabin in different aspects during standard coolingsimulation. The locations of these planes are shown inFig. 3.

The transient temperature inlet boundary condition wasemployed for all inlet vents and this temperature profileobtained from the measured data is shown in Fig. 4.

t=1s

t=1800s

Fig. 6 Temperature (°C) predictions at the horizontal plane of thevehicle cabin during cooling period (case I)

t=1s

t=1800s

Fig. 7 Temperature (°C) predictions at the horizontal plane of thevehicle cabin during cooling period (case II)


3 Results and discussion

The velocity fields at the horizontal plane for all casesare shown in Fig. 5. In the front region of the horizontalplane, the calculated velocity values varied between 0.08and 2.33 m/s for case I. On the other hand, in the rearregion, these values ranged from 0.08 to 0.21 m/s. Fromthese results, we can conclude that the uniform velocitydistribution occurred in the rear region of the horizontalplane.

We obtained a different velocity distribution for case IIand the air flow divided into two regions in the front part ofthe horizontal plane. The calculated velocity values in thisregion varied between 0.07 and 1.47 m/s. These valuesranged from 0.07 to 0.16 m/s in the rear region and thesevalues were lower than the values obtained for case I. Avelocity value of 0.56 m/s was computed near the leftshoulder surface for case II and this value was calculatedabout 0.08 m/s in that region for case I. The main reason forthis was that strong air motion occurred near the leftshoulder surface in case II. The general structure of thevelocity distribution obtained for case III is very similar to

the case II. In the front region of the horizontal plane, thecalculated velocity values changed between 0.07 and 2 m/sin case III. These values ranged from 0.10 to 0.78 m/s inthe rear region.

The temperature fields at the horizontal plane of thecabin for case I is shown in Fig. 6. The maximumtemperature difference at the horizontal plane was computedabout 10°C for case I at 1 min of cooling period. This valuewas raised to 15°C at 5 min of cooling period. In thefront region of the horizontal plane, computed tempera-ture values were quite different. In contrast to temperaturevalues obtained in the front region of the horizontalplane, the temperature values were slightly different inthe rear region of this plane. The maximum tempera-ture occurred near the manikin surfaces and it wascomputed about 30°C at 5 min of cooling period. Withincreasing time, the interior of the automobile cabinwas cooled continuously and the predicted temperaturevalues ranged from 12°C to 28°C at 30 min of coolingperiod.

From the comparison of the temperature valuescomputed at 20 and 30 min of cooling periods, we conclude

t=1s

t=1800s

Fig. 8 Temperature (°C) predictions at the horizontal plane of thevehicle cabin during cooling period (Case-III)

t=1s

t=1800s

Fig. 9 Temperature (°C) predictions at the vertical plane of thevehicle cabin during cooling period (case I)


that the temperature values computed for same locations wereslightly different; thus, steady-state conditions wereapproached after 30 min of cooling period in terms oftemperature distribution. Predicted temperature distributionat the horizontal plane for case II is shown in Fig. 7. Themaximum temperature difference value was computed about16°C at 5 min of cooling period in case II. The predictedtemperature values for case II were higher than thetemperature values obtained for case I.

The predicted temperature distribution at the horizon-tal plane for case III is shown in Fig. 8 From the resultsof the numerical simulation of this case, the predictedtemperature values at same locations in case II wereslightly different; thus, the same statements can also bemade for case III. The temperature distributions computedat the vertical plane are shown in Fig. 9 for case I. At5 min of cooling period, the predicted temperature valuesranged from 30°C to 36°C at this plane. Above the headregion, temperature value was computed about 33°C at30 min of cooling period. The predicted temperaturevalues were decreased with cooling time and in the frontregion of the vertical plane, a temperature value of 27°C

was calculated at the chest level. The maximum temperaturevalue at 30 min of cooling period was computed in the frontregion of the vertical plane in case I.

The temperature distributions computed at the verticalplane for cases II and III are shown in Figs. 10 and 11.In contrast to numerical results obtained for case I, themaximum temperature value computed at 30 min ofcooling period was obtained in the rear region of the

t=1s

t=1800s

Fig. 10 Temperature (°C) predictions at the vertical plane of thevehicle cabin during cooling period (case II)

t=1s

t=1800s

Fig. 11 Temperature (°C) predictions at the horizontal plane of thevehicle cabin during cooling period (case III)

Fig. 12 Total sensible heat flux change during cooling period


vertical plane for cases II and III. At the chest level, thetemperature value was predicted about 30°C at 30 min ofcooling period and this value was higher than thetemperature value obtained for case I. A temperaturevalue of 38°C was obtained above the head region at5 min of cooling period in case III. With increasingcooling time, temperature values were decreased, and thepredicted temperature values ranged from 22°C to 36°C at30 min of cooling period for case III.

Total sensible heat flux variation with the coolingtime for the whole body in all cases is shown inFig. 12. From these results, at the beginning of the coolingperiod, heat flux values were negative due to hightemperature values of the cabin interior. At 5 min ofcooling period, the heat flux values were positive because

ambient temperature was lower than the surface temperatureof the manikin surfaces for all cases. At 30 min of coolingperiod, the predicted minimum mean ambient temperaturevalue was obtained for case I and it was about 27°C. In theother cases, this value was computed about 30°C. Heat fluxcurves shown for all cases have same trend but the sign of totalheat flux value turned positive before 5 min of cooling periodin case I.

The computed mean surface temperature values ofthe cabin surfaces are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7 for allcases. Results listed in Tables 6 and 7 are nearly same forcases II and III. Temperature values computed at the outersurfaces, which had convective boundary condition, werehigher than the other surfaces for all cases. The differencebetween ambient temperatures computed at 1 and 30 min

Table 5 The mean surface tem-perature values of the cabinsurfaces during cooling period(case I)

rs right side, ls left side, F, ffront, b back, R right, B back

Surfaces of the vehicle cabin T(°C)

t=60 s t=120 s t=240 s t=360 s

Windshield 37.7 37.6 37.2 36.7

Rglass surface 37.5 36.5 34.7 33.4

Fdoor glass (rs) 37.6 37.3 36.5 35.9

Fdoor glass (ls) 37.5 37.1 36.4 35.8

Bdoor glass (rs) 37.5 36.8 35.2 34.1

Bdoor glass (ls) 37.4 36.5 35.1 34.0

Driver seat 35.3 33.0 31.2 30.3

Passenger seat(f) 35.6 32.4 30.3 29.4

Passenger seat(b) 35.7 32.8 30.5 29.4

Console 36.8 35.5 34.2 33.7

Centre console 36.3 34.2 32.6 32.0

Steering wheel 40.3 38.1 36.4 36.1

Floor 36.8 35.3 34.2 33.6

Ceiling 36.5 35.3 34.1 33.4

Ambient temp. 35.6 32.8 30.7 29.8


t=600 s t=1,200 s t=1,800 s

Windshield 35.9 34.8 34.4

Rglass surface 31.9 30.5 30.1

Fdoor glass (rs) 35.0 33.8 33.5

Fdoor glass (ls) 35.0 34.0 33.7

Bdoor glass (rs) 32.6 31.2 30.8

Bdoor glass (ls) 32.7 31.4 31.1

Driver seat 29.4 28.4 28.0

Passenger seat(f) 28.4 27.3 26.9

Passenger seat(b) 28.5 27.5 27.1

Console 32.9 32.0 31.7

Centre console 31.1 30.1 29.7

Steering wheel 34.8 34.3 34.3

Floor 32.9 31.9 31.4

Ceiling 32.5 31.3 30.8

Ambient temp. 28.8 27.8 27.4


of cooling period was about 11°C for cases II and III;however, this value was about 13.5°C in case I.

4 Conclusions

From the velocity distributions obtained at the horizontalplane of the vehicle cabin, we can say that computed valuesaround the manikin surfaces were about 0.1 m/s for allcases, in general, but near the left shoulder surface, airvelocity was calculated higher than this value and it wasabout 0.56 and 1.12 m/s, respectively for cases II and III.Another important result is that the steady-state conditionswere reached at 10 min of cooling period in terms ofvelocity distributions for all cases. From the results of

predicted temperatures at the horizontal plane, the calculatedtemperature values ranged from 38°C to 41°C at thebeginning of the cooling period and the temperature ofthe vehicle cabin interior was continuously decreasingwith time for all cases. Lower temperature values occurrednear the inlet vents at the horizontal plane in all cases. Fromthe comparison of the results for temperature distributions atthe vertical plane of the vehicle cabin, we conclude that aregion which had high temperature values was obtained at30 min of cooling period for all cases, but the location of thisregion was different in all cases.

From the comparison of the temperature values computedat 20 and 30 min of cooling periods, we conclude that thetemperature values computed for same locations wereslightly different; thus, steady-state conditions were

Table 6 The mean surface tem-perature values of the cabinsurfaces during cooling period(Case-II)



t=60 s t=120 s t=240 s t=360 s

Windshield 39.7 38.0 35.1 32.6

Rglass surface 40.8 40.8 40.6 40.4

Fdoor glass (rs) 40.7 40.3 39.4 38.3

Fdoor glass (ls) 40.7 40.5 40.0 39.4

Bdoor glass (rs) 40.6 40.2 39.1 37.9

Bdoor glass (ls) 40.8 40.5 40.1 39.5

Driver seat 37.1 35.1 33.8 32.6

Passenger seat(f) 37.3 35.3 33.6 32.1

Passenger seat(b) 36.6 34.4 33.1 31.6

Console 36.9 34.4 32.3 31.0

Centre console 37.4 35.1 33.2 32.3

Steering wheel 41.5 39.6 37.9 37.5

Floor 39.3 37.9 36.9 35.8

Ceiling 40.2 40.1 39.6 39.1

Ambient temp. 37.8 36.2 34.9 33.5


t=600 s t=1,200 s t=1,800 s



Fdoor glass (rs) 37.1 35.6 35.1

Fdoor glass (ls) 38.6 37.5 37.0

Bdoor glass (rs) 36.6 35.1 34.6

Bdoor glass (ls) 38.8 37.7 37.2

Driver seat 31.4 30.4 29.8



Console 29.8 28.6 28.2



Floor 34.9 33.4 32.7

Ceiling 38.5 37.5 37.0

Ambient temp. 32.2 31.0 30.5


approached after 30 min of cooling period in terms oftemperature distribution.

Non-uniform temperature distributions obtained in thevehicle cabin and highly transient conditions occurred,especially in the first 5 min of cooling period for allcases.

This study shows that different velocity and temper-ature distributions can be obtained by selecting differenttype of inlet vents for cooling period without changingHVAC cooling load. We also show that the meanambient temperature, computed at the end of the coolingperiod, can be changed with selecting different type ofinlet vents.

Although, the present study is focused on the resultsof the numerical computations, experimental measure-

ments are also performed, and the results of these areleft as a subject of further studies.

References

1. Ambs R (2002) Improved passenger thermal comfortprediction in the preprototype phase by transient interiorCFD analysis including mannequins. SAE paper 2002-01-0514

2. Lin H, Han T, Koromilas CA (1992) Effects of HVAC designparameters on passenger thermal comfort. SAE technical paperseries, paper 920264

3. Aroussi A, Aghil S (2000) Characterisation of the flow fieldin a passenger car model. Optical Diagnostics in Engineering4(1):1–15

Table 7 The mean surface tem-perature values of the cabinsurfaces during cooling period(case III)



t=60 s t=120 s t=240 s t=360 s

Windshield 40.1 38.9 36.7 35.2

Rglass surface 40.7 40.3 39.6 39.1

Fdoor glass (rs) 40.7 40.2 39.4 38.7

Fdoor glass (ls) 40.6 39.9 39.0 38.4

Bdoor glass (rs) 40.6 40.1 39.1 38.3

Bdoor glass (ls) 40.6 40.0 39.1 38.5

Driver seat 36.6 34.2 32.9 32.1

Passenger seat(f) 37.0 33.8 32.1 31.3

Passenger seat(b) 35.9 32.7 31.0 30.5

Console 37.8 35.2 32.9 32.3

Centre console 37.9 35.0 33.0 32.5

Steering wheel 41.4 39.6 37.7 37.4

Floor 39.2 37.6 36.5 35.8

Ceiling 39.6 39.2 38.6 38.2

Ambient temp. 37.2 34.7 33.3 32.6


t=600 s t=1,200 s t=1,800 s



Fdoor glass (rs) 37.7 36.2 35.7

Fdoor glass (ls) 37.6 36.5 35.9

Bdoor glass (rs) 37.1 35.6 35.1

Bdoor glass (ls) 37.7 36.5 36.0

Driver seat 31.2 30.2 29.6



Console 31.3 30.0 29.5



Floor 34.9 33.5 32.7

Ceiling 37.4 36.2 35.6

Ambient temp. 31.6 30.3 29.9


4. Sevilgen G, Kilic M (2010) Transient numerical analysis ofairflow and heat transfer in a vehicle cabin during heating period.International Journal of Vehicle Design 52:144–159

5. Kilic M, Sevilgen G (2009) Evaluation of heat transfer characteristicsin an automobile cabin with a virtual manikin during heating period.Numer Heat Tran 56:515–539

6. Chen Q (1999) Comparison of different k–ε models for indoorairflow computations. Numer Heat Tran B 28(3):353–369

7. Costa JJ, Oliveira LA, Blay D (1999) Test of several versions forthe k–ε type turbulence modeling of internal mixed convectionflows. Int J Heat Mass Tran 42(23):4391–4409

8. Kilic M, Sevilgen G (2008) Modelling airflow, heat transfer andmoisture transport around a standing human body by computa-tional fluid dynamics. Int Comm Heat Mass Tran 35(9):1159–1164

9. Choudhury D (1993) Introduction to the renormalization groupmethod and turbulencemodelling. Fluent Inc. TechnicalMemorandumTM-107

10. Fluent 6 user's guide (2001) Lebanon. NH, USA, Fluent Inc11. ASHRAE Handbook–Fundamental (1997), Chapter 8, American

Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers,Atlanta, CA, USA


Documents

The effects of using different type of inlet vents on the thermal characteristics of the automobile cabin and the human body during cooling period