International Journal of Occupational Safety and

Ergonomics

ISSN: 1080-3548 (Print) 2376-9130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20

Testing Sleeping Bags According to EN 13537:2002:

Details That Make the Difference

Kalev Kuklane & Valter Dejke

To cite this article: Kalev Kuklane & Valter Dejke (2010) Testing Sleeping Bags According to EN
13537:2002: Details That Make the Difference, International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, 16:2, 199-216, DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2010.11076840

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2010.11076840

Published online: 08 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1345

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2, 199–216

Testing Sleeping Bags According

to EN 13537:2002: Details That Make
the Difference
Kalev Kuklane

Division of Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Valter Dejke

Department of Textiles and Plastics, Swerea IVF AB, Mölndal, Sweden

The European Standard on sleeping bag requirements (EN 13537:2002) describes a procedure to
determine environmental temperature limits for safe usage of sleeping bags regarding their thermal
insulation. However, there are several possible sources of error related to this procedure. The main aim
of this work was to determine the influence of the various measuring parameters on the acuity of the
respective parameters in order to judge the requirements. The results indicated that air velocity, mattress
insulation and time between unpacking the bag and measurement had a significant impact on the result,
with a difference of up to 5–15% in thermal insulation between minimum and maximum allowable
parameter levels. On the other hand, manikin weight, thickness of the artificial ground and presence of a
face mask were found to have a negligible influence. The article also discusses more general aspects of the
standard including the calculation methods used.

sleeping bag mattress thermal manikin insulation European Standard calculation method

1. BackGround temperature limits corresponded to subjective

and objective recordings from human subjects
1
European Standard No. EN 13537:2002 on during wear trials [2,   3]. The calibration procedure
sleeping bag requirements allows an evaluation in which reference sleeping bags are used is an
of the thermal properties of sleeping bags [1]. important part of the method of determining
This evaluation results in comfort, limit, extreme valid temperature limits for sleeping bags in
and upper limit levels of temperature, which the standard. The  benefits of defining and
are the levels of temperature of the ambient air using references have been demonstrated also
that correspond to different thermophysiological for other standards, e.g., within the Subzero
states, and thereby risk levels, of a user lying in a project [4] aimed at improving Standard No.
sleeping bag. Hereafter, these temperature levels EN 342:2004  [5], where reference clothing was
are denoted temperature limits. The measurements selected to calibrate manikins. However, the
have to be carried out on a thermal manikin. original reference bags wore out and are not
Several studies have shown that recommended available any more.

Disclaimer. The views and ideas described in this paper belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the standpoints of the
organisations they represent or CEN/TC 136/WG 11.
The authors appreciate the offer from CEN/TC 136/WG 11 to participate in the Round Robin testing.
Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to Kalev Kuklane, Dept. of Design Sciences, EAT, Lund University, Box
118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: <[email protected]>.
1
Hereafter, Standard No. EN 13537:2002 will be referred to as “the standard”.
200 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

The main aim of the present Round results allowing their respective intervals to be
Robin study on sleeping bags organized by broadened.
CEN/TC  136/WG  112 was to define new refer­ The intention of this paper was to present
ence bags. However, there are uncertainties the findings to people who were not directly
related to the influence of different measuring involved in Round Robin tests or standardisation
parameter settings on the thermal insulation working groups on sleeping bags, but who
results. Factors that may create uncertainties still might have an interest in this area, e.g.,
are specific setup conditions in different labs those using thermal manikins for purposes
and specific manikin parameters. Too large other than testing sleeping bags. Even the
intervals of acceptable values for measuring distributors, resellers and end users could get
parameters with a strong influence on the an understanding on how various factors might
result may have a negative influence on the affect thermal comfort in sleeping bags.
repeatability, reproducibility and reliability of An additional objective of the paper was to
the results. Correspondingly, too narrow intervals initiate a discussion on issues related to the use
for parameters with a small influence on the of the serial and parallel calculation models for
result make it unnecessarily difficult to meet the determining thermal insulation and on ways of
requirements on acuity. Furthermore, it is not dealing with those issues.
obvious which calculation method is preferable
for these kinds of measurements. Recent research
points to considerable differences between the
3. Methods
methods for specific products, test setups and test
The tests in this study were based on Standard
conditions. An erroneously selected calculation
No. EN 13537:2002 although some settings
method may thereby have a large impact on the
were modified for some measurements. The
determination of temperature limits. Hence, it is
conclusions drawn in this paper are based on
important to explain the influence of different
sleeping bag measurement results obtained at
measuring parameters and calculation methods
Lund University and Swerea IVF.
on the total thermal insulation of sleeping bags.
Therefore, additional tests, outside the scope
of the Round Robin test, were made at Lund 3.1. Thermal Manikins
University and Swerea IVF (both in Sweden) to A thermal manikin is a human-shaped dummy
clarify these relationships. that is heated to a set surface (skin) temperature,
e.g., 34   °C, and where power to keep this
temperature is regulated. The required power
2. OBJECTIVES
is equal to heat losses from the manikin surface
(with a correction for possible power losses in
An overall aim of the work presented here was to
the regulation system and cables). Different
contribute to the process of making the standard
regulation modes may allow keeping the heat
more reliable and easy to use for persons
loss constant and letting the surface temperature
operating the test, and possibly also (in the long
float, or allow flexible temperature and heat loss
run) to make the evaluation more generic and
regulation that follows a certain physiological
flexible for the end user. More specifically, the
model. The manikins can be used to evaluate
aim was to quantify the influence of various
insulation of pieces of clothing and complete
measuring parameter settings on the total thermal
ensembles, but also to evaluate more or less
insulation results. Thereby it should be possible
complex environments, e.g., heating, cooling
to identify the test parameters that need to be
and ventilation solutions for indoor climate or in
fixed more strictly in the standard and to point
vehicles. More information on thermal manikins
out those that have a lesser influence on the

2
European Committee for Standardization (CEN)/Technical Committee 136/Working Group 11.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 201

can be found in specific review papers [6, 7] or 3.2. Sleeping Bags and Postures
on the Internet [8].
The tests according to the standard were carried
Both thermal manikins used in this study were
out on six sleeping bags (Table  1). The bags
manufactured in the same Nordic development
were chosen to cover a wide range of thermal
project, and belong to the so-called Tore series
insulation. Four sleeping bags had synthetic
[9]. They are made of plastic foam fixed to a
filling (A, B, C, E), whereas two had down
metal frame and have flexible joints to allow
filling (D, F). One bag (B) was rectangular,
motion simulation. Kuklane, Heidmets and
the rest were mummy-shaped. B and C, and
Johansson described a Tore-type manikin in
D and E were meant to be used in about the
greater detail [10]. The manikins used different
same temperature ranges. Two postures were
regulation systems that were custom-developed
tested (Figure  1). In posture  1 the manikin was
independently for both test locations. During
completely inside the bag, the zip was closed and
testing both manikins were run in constant
any hood was closed tightly leaving only a small
surface temperature mode of 34 °C.
opening in the nose/face area. In posture  2 both

TABLE 1. Sleeping Bags (A–E were acquired in spring 2008, F in spring 2009)
Code Manufacturer Model Colour Filling Shape Weight (g)
A Gold-Eck; Austria Carinthia LITE 850 marine/light blue synthetic mummy 1 116
B VAUDE; Germany Kiowa Comfort 220 yellow/green synthetic rectangular 1 590
C VAUDE; Germany Arctic Basic 220 grey/red synthetic mummy 1 436
D Halti; Finland Air light 2000 black down mummy 1 876
E Mammut, Ajungilak; Denali 5 Seasons yellow/black synthetic mummy 3 856
Switzerland
F Bertoni; Italy Eclipse 100 blue/orange down mummy 678

posture 1

posture 2

Figure 1. Sleeping bag C in postures 1 and 2.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

202 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

Figure 2. Rectangular sleeping bag B in posture 1.

hands were outside the sleeping bag and the zip Both situations may lead to substantial increase in
was left open. A face mask was used for bags A, measuring error. The standard deviation from the
C, D, E and F for posture 1. Bag B (rectangular) set temperature in a stable state for all temperature
was tested without the mask in posture  1 settings was always within ±0.2  °C. The tests at
(Figure  2) according to the requirements in the Swerea IVF were carried out at 3 ± 0.5 °C.
standard. For posture  2 the face mask was not
used for any of the bags. 3.5. Calculation Methods
According to the standard, insulation for
3.3. Underwear
posture  1 is recommended to be calculated
At both test locations the manikin was provided by a serial and for posture  2 by a parallel
with long underwear (a sweater and trousers) model [11], although it is possible to use an
made from a three-layer, cotton (42%) and alternative calculation model if this gives a better
polyester (58%), knitted fabric. At Swerea IVF correlation between measured and reference
the underwear had a thermal resistance of 0.051 values for the reference sleeping bags. In the
and at Lund University 0.046 m2K/W. The latter parallel calculation model the total thermal
could be explained by a longer use of that set of resistance is defined as the ratio between the
the underwear. Knee-length socks were also used temperature difference between the manikin
at both locations. A few tests were carried out and the ambient air, and the electrical power
on the thermal manikin dressed only in standard needed for the manikin temperature to remain
underwear, without a sleeping bag. constant, e.g., at 34  °C. In the serial calculation
model the corresponding calculation is made
3.4. Climate Conditions for each manikin segment individually and
the total thermal insulation value is defined as
The tests at Lund University were carried out
the weighted (with respect to the area of the
at –5, +5, +11 and +20  °C depending on the
respective segment) mean value of each segment.
expected insulation and the need to keep the heat
This model always gives equal or higher values
losses within proper ranges. If high-insulation
of thermal resistance compared to the parallel
bags are tested at high ambient temperature, the
model for measurements carried out in a constant
power requirement for several manikin body
surface temperature mode, and may exaggerate
sections may be very low, reaching the level
the total thermal resistance if the electrical power
of regulation “noise” too closely. At too low
needed for one or a few segments is very low.
temperatures some manikin zones may be at risk
However, this calculation model has sometimes
of reaching their maximum power capacity, and
proved to give better correlation between thermal
not being able to maintain the set temperature.
insulation values of sleeping bags and wear trials.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 203

This paper presents both calculation methods for 3.6.4. Air velocity
all test conditions.
The standard requires air velocity during testing
to stay below 0.5 m/s (0.3 m/s is recommended),
3.6. Test Parameters Studied and 0.3 ± 0.1  m/s in calibration procedures. At
3.6.1. Mattress and artificial ground Lund University the tests were carried out with
a mainly horizontal air flow of 0.32 ± 0.12 m/s,
Several measurements related to the mattress
and in additional tests with bags A and E at 0.15
and the artificial ground (a wooden board)
± 0.07 m/s. At Swerea IVF the tests were carried
were conducted at Lund University; two board
out at an air velocity of 0.22 m/s.
thicknesses and three mattress types were used in
different combinations. The board thickness levels
used were 12  mm (required by the standard) 3.6.5. Position of arms
and 28  mm (a 16‑mm board on top of a 12-mm To determine the upper temperature limit the
board). The mattresses used were a 10‑mm thick manikin has to be tested with the arms outside
foam-rubber mattress with a thermal resistance the sleeping bag (posture  2, cf. Figure  1). If the
of 0.230  m2K/W, a  38‑mm thick Therm-a- shoulder joint of a manikin allows relatively free
Rest® (Cascade Designs, USA) ProLite 4 with arm movement then, depending on the thickness
a thermal re­sist­ance of 0.516 m2K/W (labelled of the sleeping bag, the arms may be spread up
with R 3.2  =  0.496  m2K/W) and a 40‑mm thick to a ~30° angle from the torso. The bags were
older model of Therm-a-Rest® with a thermal tested under two conditions: with the arms freely
resist­ance of 0.868  m2K/W. The standard at the sides and with the arms fixed parallel to the
requires the thermal resistance of the mattress manikin sides with a cord going under the back
to be within the interval 0.79–0.91  m2K/W for from wrist to wrist.
calibration and “mat representative of the habits
of sleeping bag users” for testing. At Swerea IVF 3.6.6. Time between unpacking and
a 40-mm thick McKinley Dalton 180 Air mattress measurement
(Intersport, Germany) with a thermal resistance of
0.845 m2K/W was used. The thermal resistance of According to the standard, the test samples
the mattresses was measured on a tog meter [12] should be taken out from the package and
at Swerea IVF. conditioned for at least 12  h prior to testing.
Shaking the bag is generally recommended as a
common praxis although this is not mentioned in
3.6.2. Manikin weight
the standard. Sleeping bag D (down) was tested
The weight of the manikin is not defined in the after different conditioning times covering the
standard. The manikin body weight was modified range up to 196 h.
to cover two levels: 32 and 49  kg. The original
manikin weight was 32 kg and the 17-kg weight
increase was obtained with lead bars fixed in the 4. Results
torso area. The tests were carried out with bags A
After adjusting all described measuring
and D.
parameters to be as close as possible, the
differences between the results of the standard
3.6.3. Face mask tests from the two laboratories stayed on
According to the standard, a face mask is average at 1.9 and 3.5% for postures  1 and  2,
required in measurements used to define comfort, respectively. The biggest difference was
limit and extreme temperatures of hooded bags observed for bags  D in posture  1 and E in
(posture 1, cf. Figure 1). Bags A and E were also posture 2 where the differences were above 12%
tested without a mask. in both cases. That could be partly related to
possible different time between unpacking and

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

204 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

measurement in the two cases, and in posture  2 4.1. Thermal Insulation at Standard
partly to the possible variation in the position Parameter Settings
of the arms. As the present paper focuses on
Figures  3–4 show insulation values for postures
differences caused by the measuring setup, and
1–2, respectively. The results show that for
to avoid the effects of interlaboratory variation,
a case with even insulation (posture  1), the
the results from Lund University were taken as a
relative differences between the total insulation
basis for discussion and were used in figures.
calculated using the parallel and serial models
stayed essentially the same (with the serial model

Figure 3. Insulation values for posture 1. According to the standard, the total thermal insulation used
to determine the comfort, limit and extreme temperatures is recommended to be calculated by the
serial model.

Figure 4. Insulation values for posture 2. According to the standard, the total thermal insulation used
to determine the upper temperature limit is recommended to be calculated by the parallel model.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 205

giving a ~15% higher insulation level. For uneven 4.2.2. Manikin weight
insulation, on the other hand, when the head,
Figure  6 shows the effect of manikin weight
arms and upper chest were not covered with the
on sleeping bag insulation. Although a clear
sleeping bag whereas the rest of the body was
reduction in insulation was observed locally
highly insulated (posture  2), the corresponding
(back), the total effect stayed slightly above 2%
difference grew with the total insulation value.
and was thus considered insignificant. Also, a
few unpublished tests support this conclusion
4.2. Influence of Test Parameters Studied (Nilsson H, personal communication, 2000;
4.2.1. Mattress and artificial ground Umbach KH, personal communication, 2009).

As can be seen from the results (Figure  5, the

first two and the last two conditions) adding an 4.2.3. Face mask
extra 16-mm board (12 + 16 = 28  mm) under The differences in conditions with and without
the standard mattress did not affect the results. a face mask were insignificant (Figure  7).
Thus, a board thickness within the interval of During these test series the face opening could
12–28  mm could be allowed by the standard. be pulled tightly so that only the nose and the
However, whether a mattress was used or not, mouth area of the manikin stayed exposed to the
the insulation properties of the mattress affected environment. However, in some cases where the
the results considerably (Figure  5, middle four manikin does not allow tight closing, (e.g., due to
conditions). thicker cables or cables coming out in different

Figure 5. The effect of artificial ground (board) thickness (2 first and 2 last conditions) and mattress
(middle 4 conditions) on measurements with underwear only (UW), and sleeping bags A and E
(posture 1).

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

206 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

Figure 6. The effect of manikin weight on insulation of sleeping bags A and D (posture 1).

Figure 7. The effect of a mask on sleeping bags A and E (posture 1).

face areas) the influence of the presence of a face other hand, the air flow in the test chamber was
mask may be larger. generally forced horizontally perpendicular to the
length of the manikin, thus disturbing the air flow
4.2.4. Air velocity due to natural convection.

The difference in air velocity may cause a

4.2.5. Position of arms
difference in the results of ~5% even at quite low
air flows (Figure  8). In this case the sensitivity The position of the arms in posture 2 for finding
might increase also due to a shift from natural the value of the upper temperature limit may
to forced convection at 0.15–0.20  m/s. On the affect the results by 10% (Figure  9). The effect

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 207

Figure 8. The effect of air velocity on sleeping bags A and E (posture 1).

Figure  9. The effect of arms position on insulation of sleeping bags A and E for defining upper
temperature limit value (posture 2).

depends on the flexibility of the manikin 4.2.6. Time between unpacking and
allowing lateral flexion at the shoulder joint. measurement
Leaving the arms outside the bag without
The length of the time from taking the bags out
any possibility of placing them close to the
of the casings before testing (conditioning time)
torso contributes to higher heat losses and
to doing the measurements affected the results
lower insulation both at the arms and the torso
(Figure  10). The total insulation measured after
compared to the case when the arms are fixed
106 h from taking the bags out of the casing was
closer to the body.
JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2
208 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

10 and over 15% higher for parallel and serial 4.3. Summary of Results
values, respectively, compared to the case when
Table 2 shows a compilation of the test param­e­
the corresponding conditioning time was 16 h.
ters studied, their chosen levels and the possible
impact on the total thermal insulation and
corresponding temperature limit values.

Figure  10. The effect of time between unpacking the bag from casing and measurement on the
insulation of the down sleeping bag D (posture 1). Curves have been introduced to roughly indicate
the trend.

TABLE 2. Compilation of the Test Results

Impact on Total Possible Influence
Thermal Insulation on Results in
(% Change From Terms of Change in
Test Parameter Levels Tested Standard Level) Temperature Limits Comments
Artificial ground 12–28 mm board 0 negligible board thickness of 12–28 mm
can be accepted in standard
Mattress 0.1–0.85 m2K/W 10 5–6 ºC a large influence that should be
taken into consideration
Manikin weight 32–49 kg ~2 negligible a wide range of manikin weight
can be considered acceptable
in the standard
Face mask with/without ~1 negligible the result may be strongly
influenced by the size of
the bag face opening and
manikin cabling exiting the
bag
Wind speed 0.15–0.32 m/s 5 2–3 ºC a noticeable influence that
should be addressed in the
standard
Position of arms freely/pulled 10 ~1 ºC applies to posture 2 and upper
together temperature limit
Time between 16 h–2 weeks 15 8 ºC a large influence (especially in
unpacking and down bags) that should be
measurement addressed in the standard

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 209

5. DISCUSSION in that case, not affect the thermal comfort

drastically, since the temperature limits labelled
5.1. Test Parameters Studied on the bag would then have been determined
5.1.1. Mattress and artificial ground using a relatively thin mattress. Correspondingly,
a thicker mattress in real-life use would
The standard allows using a “mat representative influence the outcome towards safer/warmer
of the habits of sleeping bag users” for the side. However, any change in mattresses
measurements. A market survey might be would eventually require the manufacturers to
necessary to define which mattress insulation retest their products to match new temperature
most customers use. When considering various limits. On the other hand, if earlier any mattress
mattresses for the study it turned out that “representing user habits” was allowed for
ordinary sport stores seldom had mattresses with testing, and it is not known from the label which
thermal resistance above 0.79  m2K/W available. one was used; then approving insulation of the
They had mostly those of ~0.55  m2K/W. In standard mattress for testing may require retests
general, the most common assortment ranged anyway. In any case, user information should
from 0.20 to 0.80  m2K/W with an expected point out the value of thermal insulation of the
average of ~0.50  m2K/W. At the same time, standard mattress to make the user aware of the
special outdoor shops offered a wide range importance of considering the mattress type, and
of products. Accordingly, the mattress used that user temperatures are only valid if a mattress
for calibration measurements had a thermal with a thermal resistance similar to the standard
resistance higher than most commonly offered mattress (0.85  m2K/W) is used. Furthermore, a
and used mattresses; however, products with note should be added informing that a mattress
an even higher thermal resistance, e.g., down with low thermal resistance (<0.23 m2K/W, e.g.,
mattresses, are available. Using a thinner 10-mm foam rubber) may increase temperature
mattress for standard testing could be suggested. limit values by 5–6 °C compared to temperature
Using a very thin mattress in reality would, limits on the label.

Figure 11. Relationship between mattress thermal resistance and measured sleeping bag thermal
insulation. The thermal resistance of the board only is negligible in the case of the mattress. Lines
were fitted to the data points to indicate the apparent approximate linear relationships. For the point
without the mattress the thermal resistance of the artificial ground (board) was taken equal to air
layer insulation that was measured with a nude manikin.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

210 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

Another option would be to develop a model and E (extremely high insulation) the use of a
on the effect of the thermal resistance of the mask could be expected. Still, even these bags
mattress on the thermal insulation of the sleeping could be tested without a mask. Otherwise, we
bag (Figure 11) and on its impact on temperature may ask why sleeping bags with higher thermal
limits. For example, comfort temperature of insulation values should not be used with thicker
sleeping bags A and E according to our standard underwear as well. Mask use is related to local
tests was +3.2 and –18.1 °C, respectively, while cold protection, not to hypothermia to which the
with the foam-rubber mattress it would be +8.3 physiological model behind the standard refers.
and –13.8  °C, respectively. A proper prediction Manikin testing of sleeping bags without a mask
model would allow measuring the sleeping bags is safer for users if a mask is used in real life.
even without a mattress (comfort temperature There are some technical points that support
would be about +9.1 for A and –10.6  °C for E) the use of a mask on a manikin, namely, when
and using these values for estimating temperature very warm sleeping bags or sleeping bag systems
limits with warmer mattresses. Also, an effect need to be tested. To keep mean heat losses from
of the underwear might be useful in the model the manikin above 20  W/m2 as required by the
as a recent study on sleeping bags looking standard, there might be a need to use quite low
on auxiliary products reported considerable temperatures. If the hood opening cannot be
differences depending on the combination of fully tightened, especially if the manikin’s face
mattresses and underwear [13, 14]. is a separate zone, the heating power may not
be sufficient and the zone temperature may drop
5.1.2. Manikin weight below the set value and there might be another
type of error.
The minimal effect of manikin weight (Figure 6)
may be related to its rigidity. Specific contact
5.1.4. Air velocity
points at the back, hips and legs take the most
weight. The mattress may already be strongly Air velocity is a factor that has to be considered
compressed at these points; the effect is present as it may cause a difference in results even if
only in a limited area. The outcome might be it is within the range that the standard allows
different (i.e., lower thermal resistance with (Figure  8). From a practical viewpoint higher
higher weight) if manikins with flexible and soft air velocity could be preferred as in nature there
body tissue [15] are used. is seldom a situation with very low air motion,
except if the sleeping bag is used in a tent or an
5.1.3. Face mask igloo. For tent conditions the sleeping bag’s
comfort, limit and extreme temperatures are,
The effect of a mask in this study was negligible
however, not related to the outdoor temperature
(Figure  7), although, there are differences
any more, but to the temperature in the shelter. It
for some manikins (Umbach KH, personal
should be noted that at higher air velocity, e.g.,
communication, 2009). In general, a face
0.5 m/s as allowed by the standard, the insulation
mask is not necessary to measure sleeping bag
reduction could be stronger than that observed in
insulation. The mask makes a relatively unfair
this study [16].
condition for an unhooded sleeping bag (the
From a modelling point of view insulation
mask is not allowed) compared to a hooded
measured in still air would be the highest
one. The values of sleeping bag insulation for
possible for a specific setup, and thus predictions
bags F, A, B and C suggest that most probably
towards any higher air velocities would always
they will not be used with a mask. In real life it
involve a reduction in insulation. This may
could be expected that a user would use a face
simplify acquiring information on any different
mask (or a hat) more probably with unhooded
wind condition. Presently available wind (and
bags than with hooded ones (bag B versus A
motion) corrections on clothing do use this
and C in Figures 1 [posture  1], 2 and 3). For D
approach [5, 17, 18, 19]. However, there does not

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 211

seem to be much information available on wind 5.1.6. Time between unpacking and
effects on sleeping bags. Also, Huang’s recent measurement
review on sleeping bags does not address this
The results shown in Figure 10 indicate a strong
issue [20]. To some extent the wind corrections
time influence even after the required 12  h of
for clothing in a standing position could also
conditioning. The differences are probably
be adapted to sleeping bags, while no clothing
more pronounced for bags with large insulation
system covers the higher insulation range of the
values with a lot of insulating padding (as the
sleeping bags. Thus, a new database on sleeping
tested down bag D). It is difficult to recommend
bags tested at various air velocities needs to
a proper procedure as sleeping bags may arrive
be created to develop and/or validate wind
at the testing laboratory in different shape. For
corrections. On the other hand, usually a shelter,
example, they may be sent in casings or not,
e.g., a tent, hut, igloo, or at least natural wind
having been in casing for a few days or for over a
shelter (between the bushes, behind stones, etc.)
month, etc. The most reproducible method would
is used, and it may be therefore why the need for
be to shake the bags and leave them hanging
wind correction for sleeping bags has not been
free for a week before testing. However, in real
focused on.
conditions sleeping bags are commonly kept
In contrast to the influence of wind, the
packed for 12–16  h. People cannot be expected
moisture aspects in sleeping bags have been
to leave them expanding for several hours before
addressed [15, 21] and methodological bases are
use. The following procedure could possibly be
available [15, 22, 23]. Still, a special standard
recommended for testing:
method for moisture in sleeping bags has not
been proposed. Considerable interlaboratory · take the bag out of the package at least 12  h
variability in test results when moisture is before testing and leave it for conditioning;
involved [24] could be the reason, although · pack it again 1–2 h before testing;
recently a lot of research has been carried out in · take it out of the package and fluff it for a
this area [25, 26, 27], and the test methods are minute;
being improved. · put it on the manikin and test;
· pack and fluff before each independent
5.1.5. Position of arms measurement.

Spreading the arms from the body in posture  2 A simpler suggestion for a standard procedure
affects the results leading to a lower insulation would be to tumble dry for a short time at room
value (Figure  9). This posture is also more temperature, just after taking the bag out of
affected than posture  1 by the changes in air the package, and before conditioning to reach
velocity. The combination of both these factors relatively stable high insulation values within a
may either increase or decrease the observed very short time. However, the exact procedure
differences. The secondary question is how and the effectiveness and reliability of that
useful is the upper temperature limit at all: if it is method have to be thoroughly investigated before
too hot, the sleeping bag may be totally removed it can be considered a suitable solution.
and comfort will be defined by underwear
insulation if used. The 10% difference in 5.2. Consideration on the Influence of
measuring values affects the upper temperature Chamber and Manikin Regulation
limit only by ~1 °C (Table 2). The big difference Cycles
between the bags in posture  1 (Figure  3, serial
values) almost disappears (Figure  4, parallel Low-manikin heat flux may cause an error that is
values) giving upper temperature limit value not related to the mask, bag or posture but rather
differences of under 4 °C (23–26.7 °C). to the temperature regulation of the climatic
chamber and manikin. Fluctuations of the
temperature (which, according to the standard,

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

212 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

should not vary by more than ±0.5  °C) and the Other test procedures and prediction models
electrical power of the chamber and manikin are can be found in the literature [28, 29]. Even
to some extent inevitable. Due to the thermal in those it is important that the test and
inertia of the sleeping bag system (warmer bags calculation method for thermal insulation fit
may be more affected) the chamber temperature the physiological evaluation method. An earlier
change affects manikin heat losses later than study that tested over 40 people in an igloo
ambient temperature recordings, creating at –1  °C [30, 31] gave a comparable fit with
discrepancy that is reflected in calculated the standard method while using the parallel
insulation. The lower the heat loss, the greater calculation method and principles from the IREQ
the error. From this point of view the minimal standard [32]. The sleeping bag in that study had
heat flux requirement in the standard (20 W/m2) an insulation of 0.851 m2K/W calculated with the
should not be lower. Using lower chamber set parallel model. That corresponds to a bag similar
temperature and thus increasing heat losses to B or C where the insulation calculated with the
would reduce the error. A way to diminish such serial method was on average 1.075 m2K/W. The
errors even more is to use data from the full standard thermal insulation table in the standard
regulation cycle (a period that stays between gives a comfort temperature of somewhat below
two similar sinusoidal phases and includes both –1  °C. The subjects commonly used long under­
minimum and maximum temperature readings) wear and estimated their thermal sensation over
to calculate insulation. the night between neutral and slightly warm.
From this it can be concluded that the methods
5.3. Use of Calibration Procedure used in the standard fit well and provide correct
temperature limits for specific test conditions.
The establishment of limit temperatures in the
standard is based on a calibration process, in
5.5. Choice of Calculation Method
which any differences between laboratories
regarding the way measurements are done and Following the discussion in section 5.4.,
measuring equipment are taken into account Wallerström and Holmér’s study can be used
and compensated for. However, this approach as an example [33]. In that investigation the
requires that the settings used at the calibrating insulation of 6 sleeping bags with hoods was
measurements are also used at a regular sleeping measured on human subjects. The measured
bag measurement. Hence, it is not enough to insulation values stayed at 0.96–1.15  m2K/W.
just choose measuring settings according to the The calculated comfort temperature stayed
standard for the calibration measurements and between +1 and –4  °C. Tests were carried out
regular measurements independently. at ~0  °C and toe temperatures at the end of 90-
min tests were on average between 19 and 25 °C.
5.4. Use of Physiological Model The tested sleeping bags were relatively similar
and could be compared in total insulation with
It is very important that the correct thermal
bag C of this study (0.975 and 1.101  m2K/W
resistance from manikin tests is used together
for parallel and serial calculation, respectively)
with the standard’s physiological model to give
which gives comfort temperature of –1.9  °C
proper temperature limits for a sleeping bag.
according to standard. This additionally supports
The present standard method has been worked
the temperature limits defined in the standard.
out and validated at the Hohenstein Institute,
A recent well-defined study by Huang and
Germany [2]. Thus, to obtain reliable results it is
McCullough on sleeping bags included human
required to calibrate the manikin with reference
tests [29]. The paper compared various prediction
bags, and the results may be expected to be
models. The standard method compared well for
corrected against the reference values (however,
both limit and comfort temperatures [3, 20].
these are not given in the present standard).
However, the recent studies that relate to the
differences in serial and parallel calculation

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 213

methods give rise to some concerns [34, 35, 6. CONCLUSIONS

36, 37]. The most extreme case of differences
between the methods was reported recently on The following conclusions could be drawn from
the effects of auxiliary heating systems used this study:
in the cold. A serial method could produce
· The results indicated that for determining
there apparent insulation of more than 80  clo
comfort, limit, and extreme temperatures, air
(1  clo  = 0.155  m2K/W) when using a vest [38].
velocity, mattress insulation and conditioning
Such an extreme case may be an exception, but
time had a significant impact on the total
the development of new technology and smart
thermal insulation. A difference in the range
textiles that use auxiliary heating elements, e.g.,
of 5–15% in total thermal insulation was
PCM (phase change material), may still produce
obtained between minimum and maximum
unrealistic results when the serial calculation
values (allowed by the standard) of the
method is used.
respective parameters.
The serial model raises an additional issue if
· For measuring the upper temperature limit,
one would like to predict total dry heat losses
the position of the arms was found to have the
at specific ambient conditions based on the
largest influence with up to a 10% difference
insulation value, e.g., for human heat balance
in thermal insulation depending on the angle
analysis. In manikin tests, these can be acquired
between the arms and the upper body of the
by adding up heat losses (in watts) from all
manikin.
zones. However, the calculation backwards based
· The thickness of the artificial ground,
on the serial insulation gives a lower value, while
the manikin weight and the presence of a
the parallel insulation would lead to original
face mask were found to have a negligible
quantities. In posture  1 the differences would
influence on the results. The latter two
not be so big due to relatively even insulation
parameters may affect the results differently if
distribution, while in posture  2 the differences
other types of manikins are used.
would be more than twice as big for warmer
· Regarding methods of calculating total
sleeping bags (Figures  3–4). Also, if with even
thermal insulation, a number of issues
insulation the results from parallel and serial
were pointed out. The insulation values
models have a good relationship (Figures 3
obtained from the serial equation may lead
and 7; [16]), then for uneven insulation the
to unrealistic results for bags using auxiliary
relationship changes (Figure 4; [34]). Even after
heating systems or PCM materials, while the
calibration this will affect the measuring results
parallel equation is considered more robust.
towards higher insulation, especially, in the case
· When determining the total thermal resistance
of a faulty sleeping bag where padding has been
according to the standard, it is very important
placed incorrectly or is loose and can shift and
to use the same measurement settings in
collect in certain areas leaving other areas with a
regular and in calibration measurements, for
poor insulation layer.
the obtained temperature limits to be valid.
For research purposes high quality products
are commonly used. During testing, however,
faulty bags may come up. Thus, receiving a References
“good” relationship with a product manufactured
as expected does not mean that the relationship 1. European Committee for Standardization
works as expected with a bag made from smart (CEN). Requirements for sleeping bags
textiles or used with a defective sleeping bag. (Standard No. EN 13537:2002). Brussells,
Belgium: CEN; 2002.
To avoid promoting faulty products or obtaining
unrealistic values for the ones that use smart 2. Umbach KH. Ermittlung des Verwen­
dungs­bereiches von Schlafsäcken [Infor­
technologies the serial insulation calculation
mation on user interval for sleeping
method should be avoided. bags] (Hohensteiner Forschungsbericht

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

214 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

Bekleidungsphysiologie No. 1990:3). (Standard No. EN ISO 15831:2004). Geneva,

Bönnig­heim, Germany: Hohensteiner Switzerland: ISO; 2004.
Institute. 12. International Organization for Standardi­
3. McCullough EA, Huang J, Jones BW. zation (ISO). Textiles—determination of
Evaluation of EN 13537 and other models thermal resistance—part 1: low thermal
for predicting temperature ratings of resistance. (Standard No. ISO 5085-
sleeping bags. In: Holmér I, Kuklane K, 1:2004). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2004.
Gao C, editors. The 11th International 13. McCullough EA, Zuo J, Huang J. The
Conference on Environmental Ergonomics. effect of auxiliary products on the
Lund, Sweden: Lund University; 2005. insulation provided by sleeping bag
p. 425–8. systems. In: International Textile and
4. Meinander H, Anttonen H, Bartels V, Apparel Association’s (ITAA) 2009
Holmér I, Reinertsen R, Sołtyński K, et Annual Conference. Retrieved March  26,
al. Thermal insulation of cold protective 2010, from: http://www.itaaonline.org/
clothing using thermal manikins. Subzero downloads/TAS-McCullough-The_Effect_
project. Final Report. Tampere, Finland: of_Auxiliary.pdf
Fiber Materials Sciences, Tampere 14. McCullough EA. Issues concerning the
University of Technology; 2003. EN 13537 sleeping bag standard. Boulder,
5. European Committee for Standardization CO, USA: Outdoor Industry Association;
(CEN). Protective clothing—ensembles for 2009. Retrieved March  26, 2010, from:
protection against cold (Standard No. EN http://www.outdoorindustry.org/pdf/
342:2004). Brussels, Belgium: CEN; 2004. EN13537Mccullough062209.pdf
6. Wyon DP. Use of thermal manikins in 15. Wu YS, Fan J. Testing sleeping bags using
enviromental ergonomics. Scand J Work a supine sweating fabric manikin. In: 13th
Environ Health. 1989;15 Suppl 1:84–94. International Conference on Environmental
7. Holmér I. Thermal manikin history and Ergonomics [CD-ROM]. Boston, MA,
applications. Europ J Appl Physiol. USA: USARIEM; 2009.
2004;92(6):614–8. 16. Anttonen H, Niskanen J, Meinander H,
8. The Thermal Manikin Network. Retrieved Bartels V, Kuklane K, Reinertsen RE,
January 25, 2010, from: http://hem.passagen et al. Thermal manikin measurements—
.se/nilssons/mer_manikin_network.htm exact or not? International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
9. Hänel SE. A joint Nordic project to develop
(JOSE). 2004;10(3):291–300.
an improved thermal manikin for modelling
and measuring human heat exchange. 17. Havenith G, Nilsson H. Correction of
In: Aspect médicaux et biphysiques des clothing insulation for movement and
vêtements de protection [Medical and wind effects—a metanalysis. Europ J Appl
biophysical aspects on protective clothing] Physiol 2004;92(6):636–40.
[conference proceedings]. Lyon, France: 18. International Organization for Standardi­
Centre de Recherche du Service de Santé zation (ISO). Ergonomics of the thermal
des Armées; 1983. p. 280–2. environment—estimation of the thermal
10. Kuklane K, Heidmets S, Johansson  T. insulation and evaporative resistance of
Improving thermal comfort in an a clothing ensemble (Standard No. ISO
orthopaedic aid: better boston brace for 9920:2007). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO;
scoliosis patients. In: Fan J, editor. The 2007.
6th International Meeting on Manikins 19. Nilsson HO, Anttonen H, Holmér I. New
and Modelling (6I3M). Hong Kong: The algorithms for prediction of wind effects
Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2006. on cold protective clothing. In: Kuklane K,
p. 343–51. Holmér I, editors. NOKOBETEF 6 and
11. International Organization for Standardi­ 1st European Conference on Protective
zation (ISO). Thermal manikin for measuring Clothing. Solna, Sweden: Arbetsmiljö­
the resultant basic thermal insulation institutet; 2000. p. 17–20.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

 EFFECTORS IN SLEEPING BAG TESTING 215

20. Huang J. Prediction of air temperature for 29. Huang J, McCullough EA. Evaluation of
thermal comfort of people using sleeping heat loss models for predicting temperature
bags: a review. Int J Biometeorol. 2008; ratings of sleeping bags (Institute for
52(8):717–23. Environmental Research Technical Report
21. Havenith G, den Hartog E, Heus R. 03-80). Manhattan, KS, USA: Kansas State
Moisture accumulation in sleeping bags University; 2003.
at –7 °C and –20 °C in relation to cover 30. Holmér I. Övernattning i igloo [Overnight
material and method of use. Ergonomics. sleeping in igloo]. In: Holmér I, editor.
2004;47(13):1424–31. Arbete i kyla [Work in cold]. Solna, Sweden:
22. American Society for Testing and Arbetsmiljöinstitutet; 1993. p. 36–38.
Materials (ASTM). Standard method 31. Holmér I. Protection against cold. In:
for measuring the evaporative resistance Shishoo  R, editor. Textiles in sport. Boca
of clothing using a sweating thermal Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2005. p. 262–86.
manikin (Standard No. ASTM F2370‑05). 32. International Organization for Standardi­
Philadelphia, PA, USA: ASTM Inter­ zation (ISO). Ergonomics of the thermal
national; 2005. environment—determination and interpre­
23. Meinander H, Hellsten M. The influence tation of cold stress when using required
of sweating on the heat transmission clothing insulation (IREQ) and local cooling
properties of cold protective clothing effects (Standard No. ISO 11079:2007).
studied with a sweating thermal manikin. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2007.
International Journal of Occupational 33. Wallerström B, Holmér I. Bestämning
Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2004; av värmeisolationsförmågan hos olika
10(3):263–9. sovsäckar [Determination of thermal
24. Richards MGM, McCullough EA. Revised insulation of different sleeping bags]
interlaboratory study of sweating thermal (Report D, No. 5124). Solna, Sweden:
manikins including results from the Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen; 1981.
sweating agile thermal manikin. J ASTM 34. Kuklane K, Gao C, Holmér I,
Int. 2005;2(4):13. Giedraityte  L, Bröde P, Candas V, et
25. Havenith G, Richards M, Wang X, al. Calculation of clothing insulation by
Bröde  P, Candas V, den Hartog E, et al. serial and parallel methods: effects on
Apparent latent heat of evaporation from clothing choice by IREQ and thermal
clothing: attenuation and “heat pipe” responses in the cold. International Journal
effects. J Appl Physiol. 2008;104(1):142–9. of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
26. Kuklane K. Heat loss from a thermal (JOSE). 2007;13(2):103–16.
manikin during wet tests with walking 35. Lee JY, Ko ES, Le HH, Kim JY, Choi JW.
simulation. In: The 7th International Serial and parallel method in calculation
Meeting on Manikins and Modelling of single garments with a thermal manikin.
(7I3M) [CD-ROM]. Coimbra, Portugal: In: Mekjavic IB, Stelios N. Kounalakis,
Faculty of Science and Technology, Taylor NAS, editors. The 12th International
University of Coimbra, Portugal; 2008. Conference on Environmental Ergonomics.
27. Bröde P, Havenith G, Wang X, Candas V, Ljubljana, Slovenia: Biomed; 2007. p. 430–3.
den Hartog EA, Griefahn B, et al. Non- 36. Oliveira AVM, Branco VJ, Gaspar  AR,
evaporative effects of a wet mid layer on Quintela DA. Measuring thermal
heat transfer through protective clothing. insulation of clothing with different
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;104(2):341–9. manikin control methods. Comparative
28. Holand B. Comfort temperatures for analysisof the calculation methods. In: The
sleeping bags. In: Nilsson H, Holmér I, 7th International Meeting on Manikins
editors. In: The Third International Meeting and Modelling (7I3M) [CD-ROM].
on Thermal Manikin Testing; 3IMM. Coimbra, Portugal: Faculty of Science
Solna, Sweden: Arbetslivsinstitutet; 1999. and Technology, University of Coimbra,
p. 25–8. Portugal; 2008.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2

216 K. KUKLANE & V. DEJKE

37. Nilsson H. Analysis of two methods 38. Holmér I, Gao C, Wang F. Can a vest
of calculating the total insulation. In: provide 83 clo? Serial calculation method
Nilsson H, Holmér I editors. Proceedings revisited [abstract]. In: Dezaire J, den
of a European seminar on Thermal Hartog E, Luiken A, editors. European
Manikin Testing. Solna, Sweden: Conference on Protective Clothing. Arnhem,
Arbetslivsinstitutet; 1997. p. 17–22. The Netherlands: TNO; 2009. p. 12.

JOSE 2010, Vol. 16, No. 2