A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Application of a Sweating 

Manikin Controlled by a Human 

Physiological Model and 

Lessons Learned 

J. Rugh and J. Lustbader 

Presented at the 6th International Thermal Manikin and 

Modeling Meeting 

Hong Kong, China 

October 16–18, 2006 

Conference Paper 

NREL/CP-540-40435 

November 2006 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Application of a Sweating Manikin Controlled by a Human 

Physiological Model and Lessons Learned

John P. Rugh, Jason Lustbader 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, U.S.A. 

Abstract 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed a suite of thermal comfort tools to help 

develop smaller and more efficient climate control systems in automobiles. The tools consist of a thermal 

comfort manikin, physiological model, and psychological model that are linked together to assess comfort 

in a transient non-homogeneous environment. The manikin and models have been validated against 

physiological data that are available in the literature and test subject data that were used to develop the 

psychological model. The manikin was used in NREL’s Vehicle Climate Control Laboratory (VCCL) to 

assess the impact of an automotive ventilated seat on thermal comfort and fuel economy. In a test program 

with NASA, the manikin was used to evaluate liquid cooling garments (LCGs) worn underneath spacesuits. 

1. Introduction 

Our goal at NREL is to help the automotive industry reduce the fuel used for air conditioning (A/C). NREL 

is investigating techniques to reduce the peak soak temperature, which allows the A/C system size to be 

reduced. We are also looking at improved delivery systems and alternative methods to cool the passenger 

compartment, which will reduce the power requirements of a climate control system. 

Since a key requirement is to maintain or enhance passenger comfort, we need to understand how advanced 

cooling techniques will affect human thermal comfort. NREL has developed a portfolio of thermal comfort 

tools, including an ADvanced 

Automotive Manikin (ADAM), Human Thermal Physiological Model, and Human Thermal Comfort 

Empirical Model to assess comfort in automobile passenger compartments1

. 

2. Thermal Comfort Tools 

The integrated human thermal comfort system consists of the thermal manikin controlled by a finite 

element physiological model of the human body. The thermal manikin is a surface sensor that measures the 

rate of heat loss at 120 independently controlled zones. The skin heat transfer rates are sent to the 

physiological model, which computes the skin and internal temperature distribution and surface sweat rates. 

This information is then sent back to the manikin, which generates the prescribed skin temperatures, 

surface sweat rates and breathing rates. As the model steps forward in time, this loop provides a transient 

measurement tool. The psychological comfort model uses temperature data from the physiological model to 

predict the local and global thermal comfort as a function of local skin and core temperatures and their rates 

of change. Using this manikin as a sensor simplifies the complex clothing and environmental heat transfer 

into local heat loss measurements from the skin. 

1
2.1 ADvanced Automotive Manikin 

The manikin is approximately 175 cm tall and was sized to 

comply with the 50th percentile western person. He weighs 

approximately 61 kg; heavy enough to compress an 

automotive seat and give a realistic contact area. The 

manikin’s skeleton is composed of laminated carbon fibre, 

which supports its structure, houses all internal components 

and provides mounting locations for surface zones2

. 

Figure 1 Manikin Segment 

The manikin’s fundamental components are the 126 individual 

surface segments, each with a typical surface area of 120 cm2

. 

Each segment (Figure 1) is a stand-alone device with 

integrated heating, temperature sensing, sweat distribution and 

dispensing, a heat flux gauge, and a local controller to manage 

the closed-loop operation of the zone. The high-thermal 

conductivity of the all-metal sweating surface yields increased 

thermal uniformity and response speed. A high-porosity layer 

within the surface provides lateral sweat distribution while the lower porosity exterior promotes uniform 

sweat across the surface. Distributed resistance wire provides uniform heating across the zone surface. Six 

segments are controlled in pairs, and result in 120 separately controlled zones. A single zone controller, 

including flow control, is mounted directly on the back of each segment. The skin temperature of each zone 

is determined by an array of thermistors (typically four) on each zone. A heat flux gauge, integrated onto 

the internal surface of each zone, measures heat transfer between the surface zones and the internal body 

cavity. 

ADAM was built by Measurement Technology Northwest in Seattle, Washington. The characteristics that 

make ADAM a unique thermal manikin are: 

• High spatial resolution (120 zones) 

• Self-contained 

• Uniform sweating and heating over the entire area of the manikin 

• Finite element physiological model control. 

2.2 Human Thermal Physiological Model 

The NREL Human Thermal Physiological Model is a three-dimensional transient finite element model of 

the human body. The model simulates the human internal thermal physiological systems, such as muscle 

and blood, and thermoregulatory responses. The model was developed with the commercially available 

finite element software ANSYS. This software computes heat flow by conduction, convection and mass 

transport of the blood. The arms and legs consist of bone, muscle, fat and skin. There are additional lung 

and abdominal tissues in the torso and brain tissues in the head. 

Blood flow is modelled with a network of supply and return pipe elements within each body zone. The 

diameter of the pipes decreases from the centre of each zone outward, toward the skin and extremities. The 

thermoregulatory system controls physiological responses, such as vasoconstriction/dilation, sweating, 

shivering, and metabolic changes. 

2.3 Human Thermal Comfort Empirical Model 

The University of California, Berkeley performed 109 human subject tests in its Controlled Environmental 

Chamber under a range of steady-state and transient thermal conditions to explore the relationship between 

local thermal conditions and perception of local and overall thermal comfort. Core and local skin 

temperature data and subjective data were used to develop a predictive model of thermal sensation and 

perception3,4. 

Zhang concluded that overall comfort is not an additive function of all local perceptions, but instead is 

“complaint” driven. This means that the most uncomfortable body parts drive the overall thermal comfort 

perception. We encountered difficulties using this approach. Using the data available, we found a straight 

average to be a better predictor of subjective responses. This topic may warrent further investigation. 

2
3. Validation Tests 

3.1 Steady-State Conditions 

NREL ran a series of tests to compare ADAM’s skin temperatures with steady-state subject data from 

Werner and Reents5

. We placed ADAM nude and horizontal in our Manikin Environmental Chamber. The 

chamber was maintained at a uniform temperature with negligible airflow. We ran ADAM with 

physiological model control. Although the actual metabolic rates of the subjects are unknown, the 

suggested 45 W/m2

 for a reclining human from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Fundamentals Handbook6

 was applied to the human in the model. 

We compared the resulting core and skin temperatures with the Werner and Reents data in Fig. 2 for an air 

temperature of 23.2°C. The manikin/model tended to predict warmer skin temperatures than those 

measured, with a maximum deviation of 4.2°C. The overall trends were encouraging: the core temperature 

agreed within 0.6°C, and skin temperatures decreased in regions further from the torso. 

Figure 3 shows the comparison for an air temperature of 30°C. The core temperature was within 0.1°C, and 

the maximum skin temperature deviation was 2.1°C at the hands. The manikin and model under-predict 

skin temperatures at higher ambient air temperatures. The core temperature matched exactly, but the 

maximum under-prediction was 2.5°C at the hands. 

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Core Head Torso RU arm RL arm R hand LU arm LL arm L hand R thigh R calf R foot L thigh L calf L foot

Temperature (oC)

Werner data

NREL model

Figure 2 ADAM/Human Comparison, Tair=23.2°C 

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Core Head Torso RU arm RL arm R hand LU arm LL arm L hand R thigh R calf R foot L thigh L calf L foot

Temperature (oC)

Werner data

NREL model

Figure 3 ADAM/Human Comparison, Tair=30°C 

Initial results indicate the manikin with physiological model control yields human-like skin temperature 

distribution. Compared to data from Werner, the skin temperatures were within approximately +4.2/-2.5oC 

for a wide range of ambient air temperatures. The core temperatures agreed to within 0.6oC. Details on the 

testing and analysis are available in Rugh and Bharathan7

. 

3
3.2 Transient Conditions 

36

36.5

37

37.5

38

38.5

39

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Time from Start of Hot Environment

Core Temperature (oC)

Subject 1

4

Figure 4 Tcore during Step-up Temperature Test 

Subject 2

Xu & Werner

ADAM

Enter Hot Environment

ADAM

Xu & Werner

Subject 1

Subject 2

During our automotive testing, we noted the 

predicted core temperature responded 

quickly when ADAM was moved into a hot 

passenger compartment environment. Xu 

and Werner8

 and Haslan and Parsons9 show 

a 0.004-0.007 oC/min change in core 

temperature during temperature step-up 

experiments. Similar transient step change 

tests were performed at NREL. ADAM and 

the subject each were dressed in cotton 

pants, short sleeve shirt, undergarment and 

socks. The subject core temperature was 

monitored with a wireless pill that was 

injested ~4 hours prior to the test. The Manikin Environmental Chamber was conditioned to 38oC and 50% 

relative humidity. ADAM and the subject were seated and conditioned in a 21oC office environment for ~ 

3 hr. Then both were moved to the Manikin Environmental Chamber for 2 hr. Figure 4 shows the core 

temperature of the two NREL subjects was similar to the Xu and Werner data, while ADAM’s core 

temperature overshot. We are looking into the reasons, including the model circulation system and the lag 

between commanded sweat and actual evaporation. 

4. Ventilated Seat Application 

Improving the delivery methods for conditioned air in an automobile is an effective way to increase thermal 

comfort with little energy cost. This reduces A/C needs and thus fuel use. Automotive seats are well suited 

for effective delivery of conditioned air due to their large contact area with, and close proximity to, the 

occupants. Normally a seat acts as a thermal insulator, increasing skin temperatures and reducing 

evaporative cooling of sweat. Ventilating a seat has low energy costs and eliminates this insulating effect 

while increasing evaporative cooling. W.E.T. Automotive Systems manufactures a ventilated seat that 

pulls air through the seat cushion and back. We assessed one of these seats using ADAM. 

The VCCL at NREL was developed to simulate the soak and cool-down of a vehicle passenger 

compartment10. The passenger compartment from a compact car, A to C pillar, was heat soaked using a 

963 W/m2

 ± 23% full spectrum solar simulator for 3.5 hours. During this time, the average room 

environment was controlled at 31.6°C ± 0.4°C and 30% ± 5% RH. ADAM and the subjects were 

conditioned in an office environment. The subject entered the heat soaked room, stood for 30 seconds, and 

then did step exercises for one minute to simulate walking to the car. The subject entered the heat soaked 

car and took a pre-cool-down thermal comfort and sensation vote. The A/C system was started 45 seconds 

after the subject entered the vehicle, at which time the first cool-down vote was taken. Thermal comfort 

and sensation votes followed every two minutes for the duration of the test. 

Figure 5 shows that an operating ventilated seat increased the heat loss from ADAM’s back and bottom by 

~ 60 W/m2

 (25-35 minutes into the cool-down) compared to no ventilation (baseline). The seat contact 

temperature was reduced by ~ 4.7oC resulting in an overall thermal sensation improvement of 0.28 (on a +4 

to –4 scale) shown in Fig. 6. We determined that if the A/C system capacity was reduced by 7% and the 

ventilated seat was used, the same thermal sensation and comfort as the baseline seat would result. Using 

NREL’s A/C fuel use model11, an estimated 522 million gal/year or 7.5% reduction in U.S. A/C fuel use 

could be achieved. 
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Cooldown Time (min)

Heat Flux Out [w/m2

]

Seat Off

Seat On

Figure 5 Heat Loss from ADAM’s Back and Bottom 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Cooldown Time (min)

Thermal Sensation Vote

Seat Off

Seat On

Figure 6 ADAM Thermal Sensation 

5. Liquid Cooling Garment Application 

NASA currently uses LCGs under spacesuits to remove heat from the human 

body during a spacewalk. Thermally conditioned liquid is circulated through 

small tubes distributed around the suit. We used ADAM to assess a Shuttle 

LCG (Fig. 7) as well as an Orlan LCG, a Russian-designed cooling garment12. 

NASA uses a comfort curve to determine the inlet flow temperature as a 

function of metabolic rate for the Shuttle LCG. We tested three points on the 

curve and two points off the curve. The test is determined to reach steady 

state when the core temperature stabilizes. 

Figure 7 Shuttle LCG 

The room temperature was set at 27oC, which yielded a spatially averaged air 

temperature of 26.6oC around ADAM. The room humidity was maintained at 

25%. 

A flow rate of 1.81 l/min was used in all tests. It took 3-4 hours to reach steady state for M=275 W and 7 

hours for M=350 W. At the higher metabolic rates and inlet temperatures, the core temperature initially 

overshoots due to a lag in sweat evaporative cooling, which subsequently causes excessive sweating. This 

sweat (deionised water) flows into the segments, evaporates, and causes a resulting undershoot in core 

temperature. 

5
Figure 8 shows the core temperature for the Orlan LCG was an average of 0.06oC lower than the Shuttle 

LCG for all tests. Since the sweat rate is a function of core temperature in the model, the Orlan LCG also 

has lower sweat rates. The heat transfer to the LCG fluid in Fig. 9 was on average 15 W greater with the 

Orlan suit indicating the improved heat transfer compared to the Shuttle LCG. 

36.3

36.4

36.5

36.6

36.7

36.8

36.9

37

37.1

37.2

M=200 W,

T=22.3C

M=275 W,

T=21.3C

M=350 W,

T=19.4C

M=275 W,

T=24.3C

M=275 W,

T=17.5C

Tcore (oC)

Shuttle LCG

Orlan LCG

On NASA Comfort Curve Points Off NASA Comfort Curve Points

Figure 8 Core Temperatures 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

M=200 W,

T=22.3C

M=275 W,

T=21.3C

M=350 W,

T=19.4C

M=275 W,

T=24.3C

M=275 W,

T=17.5C

Heat Transfer to Liquid (W)

Shuttle LCG

Orlan LCG

On NASA Comfort Curve Points Off NASA Comfort Curve Points

Figure 9: Heat Transfer to LCG Fluid 

32.5

33.0

33.5

34.0

34.5

M=275 W, T=17.5C M=275 W, T=21.3C M=275 W, T=24.3C

Average Tskin (oC)

Shuttle LCG

Orlan LCG

Si 3

Average without calf and feet

Average with all regions Shuttle LCG

Shuttle LCG

Orlan LCG

Orlan LCG

Figure 10 Skin Temperatures 

The skin temperature results are not as 

consistent. While the Orlan LCG 

resulted in a lower average skin 

temperature in two cases, a higher 

average skin temperature resulted 

during the lowest fluid inlet 

temperature cases. This is because 

the Orlan LCG does not have cooling 

tubes in the calf region. The Shuttle 

LCG has tubes and subsequently 

lower calf temperatures. This also 

lowers the foot temperatures due to 

cooler blood flow and results in a 

lower overall average skin 

temperature. The dashed lower curves 

in Figure 10 present the average skin 

temperature for three inlet temperature cases at M=275 W. At Tinlet=17.5oC, the Orlan LCG has a higher 

average skin temperature. Taking the calves and feet out of the average (solid lines), the Orlan LCG has 

significantly lower skin temperatures for the M=275 W cases, as well as for the M=350 W and M=200 W 

cases. 

6
7

6. Conclusions 

Results of validation testing of NREL’s thermal comfort tools indicate the manikin with physiological 

model control yields human-like skin temperature distribution. Comparison with subject data shows the 

predicted skin temperature distribution of the manikin and model is similar to that of the human subject 

except for the hand and foot. The manikin and subject data were used in NREL’s VCCL to assess the 

impact of an automotive ventilated seat on thermal comfort and fuel economy. Results show an 

improvement in thermal comfort with the ventilated seat. This yields a potential 7% reduction in A/C 

compressor power and 7.5 % reduction in vehicle fuel use. ADAM was successfully used to assess the 

thermal performance of Shuttle and Orlan LCGs. Comparing results with the same manikin and room 

conditions, the Orlan LCG had slightly better heat transfer, which resulted in lower core and skin 

temperatures. 

During these previously discussed test programmes, a number of challenges with the manikin and 

physiological model were encountered. At high metabolic rates or high temperature/humidity 

environments, it took a long time for the system to reach steady state due to an oscillation in the predicted 

core temperature. This may be caused by a lag in evaporative cooling compared to the commanded sweat 

rate or an artifact of the model responding too quickly to changes in skin heat loss. A few segments failed 

due to broken heaters and controllers, but the large number of segments allowed testing to continue using 

data from adjacent segments. We reviewed the psychological results (sensation and comfort) and 

determined an average of local comforts was a better method to calculate the overall comfort than the 

original correlation. 

7. Acknowledgements 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in developing, 

fabricating, and testing the thermal manikin and physiological model. DOE’s Office of FreedomCAR and 

Vehicle Technologies (OFCVT) supported this work. The authors appreciate the support of Lee Slezak, 

DOE Program Manager; Terry Penney, NREL’s OFCVT Technology Manager; and Barbara Goodman, 

Director of the NREL Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems. The authors also thank Rob 

Farrington, Charlie King, and Desikan Bharathan at NREL; Heather Paul and Luis Trevino at NASA; and 

Goran Bajic at W.E.T. Automotive Systems. 

8. References 

1. Rugh, J.; Farrington R.; Bharathan, D.; Vlahinos, A.; Burke, R.; Huizenga, C.; and Zhang, H. (2004) 

Predicting Human Thermal Comfort in a Transient Non-Uniform Thermal Environment, European 

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 92, Number 6, pp. 721-727. 

2. Burke, R.; Rugh, J.; and Farrington R. (2003) ADAM – the Advanced Automotive Manikin, 5th 

International Meeting on Thermal Manikins and Modeling, Strasbourg, France. 

3. Zhang, H.; Huizenga, C.; Arens E.; and Wang, D. (2004) Thermal Sensation and Comfort in Transient 

Non-Uniform Thermal Environments, European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 92, Number 6, 

pp. 728-733, September 2004. 

4. Zhang, H. (2004) Human Thermal Sensation and Comfort in Transient and Non-Uniform Thermal 

Environments, Ph.D. Thesis, U.C. Berkeley. 

5. Werner, J. and Reents, T. (1980) A Contribution to the Topography of Temperature Regulation in 

Man, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1980, 45:87-94. 

6. 2001 ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, p. 8.7. 

7. Rugh, J.; and Bharathan, D. (2005) “Predicting Human Thermal Comfort in Automobiles,” 

Proceedings of the 7th Vehicle Thermal Management Systems Conference, Paper # 2005-01-2008, 

May 10-12, 2005, Toronto, Canada, Society of Automotive Engineers. 

8. Xu, X; and Werner, J. (1997) A Dynamic Model of the Human/Clothing/Environment System, 

Applied Human Science-Journal of Physiological Anthropology, Vol. 16, Num. 2, pp. 61-75. 
8

9. Haslam, R.; and Parsons, K. (1994) Using Computer-Based Models for Predicting Human Thermal 

Responses to Hot and Cold Environments, Eurgonomics, Vol 37, Num 3, pp. 399-416. 

10. Lustbader, J. (2005) “Evaluation of Advanced Automotive Seats to Improve Thermal Comfort and 

Fuel Economy,” Proceedings of the 7th Vehicle Thermal Management Systems Conference, Paper # 

2005-01-2056, May 10-12, 2005, Toronto, Canada, Society of Automotive Engineers. 

11. Rugh, J.; Hovland, V.; and Andersen, S. (2004) Significant Fuel Savings and Emission Reductions by 

Improving Vehicle Air Conditioning, Mobile Air Conditioning Summit, Washington, D.C., April 14-

15, 2004. 

12. Rugh, J.; King, C.; Paul, H.; Bue, G.; and Trevino, L. (2006) “Phase II Testing of Liquid Cooling 

Garments Using a Sweating Manikin, Controlled by a Human Physiological Model,” Proceedings of 

the 36th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Paper # 2006-01-2239, July 17-20, 

2006, Norfolk, VA, Society of Automotive Engineers. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

November 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Application of a Sweating Manikin Controlled by a Human 

Physiological Model and Lessons Learned 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-540-40435 

5e. TASK NUMBER

FC06.5000 

6. AUTHOR(S)

J. Rugh and J. Lustbader 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/CP-540-40435 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Discusses two applications of NREL's suite of thermal comfort tools: one to assess impact of an automotive 

ventilated seat on comfort and fuel economy, and another to evaluate liquid cooling garments for NASA spacesuits. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

thermal comfort tools; ADAM; thermal manikin; NASA liquid cooling garments; NASA spacesuits; automotive 

ventilated seating 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18