Journal of the Human-Environmental System

Review Article Vol. 5; No. 2: 69–77, 2002

Air and Air Spaces—the Invisible Addition to Thermal Resistance

C. A. Wilson, R. M. Laing and D. J. Carr1)

1)
C. A. Wilson and D. J. Carr are Lecturers and R. M. Laing an Associate Professor in Clothing and
Textile Sciences at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
E-mail: c.wilson@otago.ac.nz

(received on December 21, 2001, accepted on April 20, 2002)

Abstract
The aim of this review is to examine the contribution which air makes to the overall thermal resistance of
garments (primarily) when in use. Issues related to i) air contained in fabrics, between fabric layers, between
fabrics and the body, ii) garment design and the presence and effectiveness of closures and vents, and iii) the
effects of wind and body movement are addressed. How these issues are affected by changes to body posi-
tion, movement of air within the garment microclimate and exchange of the garment microclimate air with am-
bient air are also discussed. Indicators of a change in thermal resistance have generally been restricted to a
change in microclimate air movement or to a change in energy required to maintain a thermal plate/manikin
at a fixed temperature.

Key words: thermal resistance, air, textiles, layers, gaps, garment fit

Introduction ers of fabrics, between fabrics and the human body

During development of many types of garments,
fabrics which are essentially two-dimensional are
transformed into three-dimensional shapes. The ac-
tual measurements of the finished garments and those
of the intended user are not only related to appear-
ance, but also to the thermal resistance of that gar-
ment. The size and shape of air layers and their ef-
fects on thermal resistance vary depending on factors
such as some physical characteristics of the fabrics,
configuration of the clothing e.g. posture and cover or
wrapping arrangement, activity of the wearer, and
ambient environmental conditions. The aim of this
review is to examine published research on the con-
tribution which air makes to the overall thermal re-
sistance of garments (primarily) when in use. In this
review, indicators of a change in thermal resistance
have been restricted to evidence of a change in move-
ment of microclimate air or to a change in energy re-
quired to maintain a thermal plate/manikin at a fixed
temperature. Generally no attempt has been made to
review the extensive literature on changes in human
performance resulting from a change in thermal re-
sistance of a garment or garment assembly, as this
was part of a comprehensive review on clothing, tex-
tiles, and human performance currently in press
(Laing and Sleivert, 2002).
There are three main parts to the present review: 1)
issues related to air contained in fabrics, between lay-
and movement of air within a garment microclimate
and exchange with ambient air; 2) issues related to
garment design such as posture of the wearer, gar-
ment fit, and the presence and effectiveness of clo-
sures and vents; and 3) the effects of wind and body
movement.
1. Air
Air in textiles
All yarn and fabric arrangements consist largely of
fiber and air (ignoring most finishes), with fiber dom-
inating in terms of mass and visibility and air domi-
nating in terms of volume. For example, the volume
of air present in woven fabrics ranges from 60–90%
and in knits from 85–95%, while products such as
quilts are reportedly comprised of as much as 95–
99% air (Schneider and Holcombe, 1988). As the
thermal conductivity of fibers ranges from 5–20
times that of air (Holcombe, 1984; Holcombe, et al.,
1988), it is the air trapped within the yarn, fabric, and
garment (or product) itself that contributes most to
the overall thermal resistance.
The major contribution of still air to thermal resist-
ance of flat textiles has lead to thickness of materials
being used to estimate thermal resistance. However,
thickness is only an appropriate predictor if a stan-
dard value of thermal resistance per unit thickness is
appropriate, and thickness of materials (difficult to
70 C. A. Wilson, R. M. Laing and D. J. Carr
determine), is measured accurately. For example,
many fabrics considered to be effective insulators,
have a high proportion of projecting surface fibers
which trap air and instruments commonly used to
measure thickness cause compression of the speci-
men. These factors affect the reliability of the thick-
ness:thermal resistance relationship (Bogaty, et al.,
1953). The linearity of the relationship between
thickness and ‘dry’ thermal resistance was ques-
tioned as early as 1955 and in the case of multiple
layers of thin, lightweight materials (and the air lay-
ers between them), has been shown to be non-linear
under certain conditions (Epps and Song, 1992; Mor-
ris, 1955).
The air layer—effect of thickness of air layers on
thermal resistance
Air layers may form under, between, and over fab-
ric surfaces contributing to the thermal resistance of
multiple-layer materials. The properties of these air
layers are affected by their thickness, shape, and dis-
tribution. When two-dimensional fabrics are wrapped
around the human body the geometry of the surface
changes, while stacking fabrics one over another may
result in additional air being enclosed between fab-
rics, and not necessarily uniformly distributed. Tex-
tile covers are typically non-homogeneous as the
proximity of the fabric layers to each other and the
number of layers may vary over the surface of body.
For example, the head and hands are often covered
only with stable still air (i.e. the boundary layer),
which contributes approximately 0.02–0.12 m2K/W
to the thermal resistance of the body (Goldman,
1988; Holcombe, 1984). This boundary layer thus
provides some thermal protection to both clothed and
nude bodies (although the contribution of the bound-
ary layer to thermal resistance is considerably re-
duced in moving air).
Thermal properties of fabrics with enclosed or un-
derlying air layers have been investigated using labo-
ratory techniques, both flat (e.g. Cain and Farnworth,
1986; Wilson, et al., 1999a; Wilson, et al., 2000;
Woo, et al., 1994), those simulating the 3-dimen-
sional arrangement of materials during use (e.g. Bo
and Nakajima, 2001; Fonseca, et al., 1965), and in
actual use (e.g. Lotens, 1989; Nielsen, et al., 1985).
As the size of the air gap increases the relationship
between thermal resistance and the number of layers
has been shown to become non-linear (Epps and
Song, 1992; Wilson, et al., 1999a; Wilson, et al.,
2000). Wilson, et al., (1999a) showed the magnitude
of this difference was affected by the thickness of the
underlying air gap, the arrangement of the layers, the
number of layers, and the distribution of air layers
within the assembly. Air gaps between the component
layers in form-fitting clothing are considered to in-
crease thermal resistance from 5 to 50% (increases
are particularly apparent in relatively small air
spaces) (Havenith, et al., 1990; Holcombe, 1984;
Morris, 1953; Morris, 1955; Weder, et al., 1996).
In infant bedding, where air spaces of 180 mm in
height have been reported, increases of up to 100% in
‘dry’ and 300% in ‘wet’ thermal resistance of dry
fabrics have been attributed to the air layer (Wilson,
et al., 1999a; Wilson, et al., 2000). Using a trace gas
method, the introduction of an air layer under a jacket
(size and volume not specified) by the use of a spacer
showed the exchange of the jacket microclimate air
with air from the ambient environment increased by
140–300% (Lotens and Havenith, 1988). Several
smaller air spaces have also been shown to provide
greater thermal resistance when distributed through-
out the bedding than when the same total thickness
occurred as one large air space under the first layer
(Wilson, et al., 1999a). Both the size and distribution
of air layers affect thermal resistance.
Variables affecting distribution of air layers within
fabrics and garments
Many investigators have attempted to define vari-
ables which affect the distribution and thickness of
air spaces within, and thermal resistance of, a gar-
ment assembly. Variables such as i) fabric character-
istics (including packing density, fabric mass, fiber
fineness, yarn count and twist, hairiness, compress-
ibility) (e.g. Holcombe, et al., 1983; Obendorf, et al.,
1986); ii) fabric manufacturing processes (such as
surface napping and application of finishes); iii) style
of garment (including fit, multiple layers) (e.g.
Lotens, 1989), fit and product design (e.g. Fan and
Keighley, 1989; McCullough, et al., 1983), and sur-
face area and geometry effects (e.g. Spencer-Smith,
1977) and iv) conditions of use (such as the ambient
environment, air movement; and intensity and type of
activity of the wearer/user) are some of those that
have been evaluated. Many of these issues/variables,
as they relate to the textile, have been addressed in
the literature (Holcombe, 1984; Peirce and Rees,
1946; Ukponmwan, 1993). However, garment design
(McCullough, et al., 1983), the trapping of air, and
conditions of use (Havenith, 1999; Havenith, et al.,
1990; Lotens, 1989) have become the focus of sys-
tematic research only from the 1980s.
Convection within air spaces
Convection involves the transmission of energy or
mass by movement of the medium and occurs as a re-
sult of the movement of large masses of molecules in
the form of air currents (Parker, 1994). Air move-
ment occurs as a result of natural or forced convec-
 Air and Air Spaces—the Invisible Addition to Thermal Resistance
tion with the rate of convective heat loss affected by
the air velocity and the temperature gradient. The ef-
fect of convection in air spaces on thermal resistance
has been investigated, generally using thermal hot-
plates (e.g. Fowle, 1933; Hassenboehler and Vigo,
1982; Hollands, et al., 1975; Hollands, et al., 1976),
humans (e.g. Ruckman, et al., 1999), and articulated
manikins (e.g. Fan and Keighley, 1991; Weder, et al.,
1996).
Air spaces 6–8 mm are associated with reduced
thermal resistance per unit thickness (demonstrated
using a guarded hot plate apparatus) (Bomberg,
1992). Changes to the thermal resistance of the air
space may be due to convection within the space (al-
though losses have been considered negligible in air
spaces less than 10–13 mm thick) (Gretton, et al.,
1998; Spencer-Smith, 1977). Air spaces 13 mm
have been linked to a significant reduction in thermal
resistance of assemblies of various types (e.g. infant
bedding (Wilson, et al., 1999a; Wilson, et al., 2000),
single- and multiple-layer arrangements of thin fab-
rics (Cain and Farnworth, 1986) and unspecified sur-
faces (Fowle, 1933)).
Thickness, orientation and height of air layers
Most published test methods used to measure ther-
mal resistance of fabrics attempt to minimize the air
space (International Organization for Standardiza-
tion, 1993(E)) or specify a standard air space (e.g. an
air space of 13 mm (Gretton, et al., 1998)) in an at-
tempt to control the variability when air spaces are
incorporated into the test structure. The effects of in-
troducing either standard or non-controlled air layers,
both small (0.2–6.3 mm) (e.g. Belding, et al., 1947;
Gretton, et al., 1998; Kerslake, 1991) and large (up to
atmosphere) (e.g. Fujimoto, et al., 1989; Kerslake,
1991; Ruckman, 1997; Wilson, et al., 1999a; Wilson,
et al., 2000; Woo, et al., 1994) have been investi-
gated, presumably because of the wish to better ap-
proximate real conditions. Results suggest thermal
resistance of the fabric and air space differs accord-
ing to the characteristics of the air gap. For example,
gaps may be irregularly shaped, of varying thickness
and/or distributed in varying ways throughout the as-
sembly (Wilson, et al., 1999a; Wilson, et al., 2000),
orientated horizontally or vertically (Fowle, 1933;
Hollands, et al., 1976; Spencer-Smith, 1977), and/or
open or closed to the ambient environment (Sat-
sumoto, et al., 1991).
Wilson, et al., (1999a) suggested convection in
very large air space, over a critical thickness of hori-
zontal air space, may reduce thermal resistance
(‘dry’) per unit thickness of the air space. A maxi-
mum thermal resistance at approximately 20mm was
reached and then declined slightly as the thickness of
71
the air space increased. ‘Wet’ thermal resistance pro-
vided by an air space under a standard dry fabric in-
creased to a point (40 mm) beyond which any fur-
ther increases in the thickness of the air space did not
increase thermal resistance (Wilson, et al., 2000).
The orientation and thickness of the air layers ap-
pears to also affect the tendency for convective cur-
rents to form within air spaces as does whether the
space is open to the ambient environment or en-
closed. Differences in heat loss through layers is also
dependent on the orientation of the layers. For exam-
ple, heat transfer in horizontal air layers has been
shown to be greater than that occurring in vertical
layers (Fowle, 1933; Spencer-Smith, 1977) and in in-
clined layers 700 (Hollands, et al., 1976). Fowle
(1933) provided some insight into the behavior of
narrow, vertical layers of air (presumably within en-
closed systems) when one vertical surface is heated.
Heat transfer through horizontal air spaces was re-
portedly twice that of vertical ones for air spaces up
to 12 mm (Fowle, 1933). The rate of convective heat
transfer was independent of the thickness of the layer
(or distance between the surfaces) but proportional to
the square of the temperature difference between the
heated and unheated surfaces and also to the cube of
the distance between the two surfaces (Fowle, 1933).
At a critical flow speed (which occurred above 20°C
temperature difference and a width of 12 mm) turbu-
lence affected the relationship. This is consistent with
the onset of convection observed by Cain and Farn-
worth (1986) at an air space thickness of approxi-
mately 13 mm. Fowle (1933) considered smooth ver-
tical surfaces, and a closed system was implied
(which may account for the differences between these
findings and those from several studies on textiles in
which heat transfer through horizontal air spaces has
been more common).
Spencer-Smith (1977) also reported greater heat
loss in horizontal than vertical air layers between fab-
rics, using a hot plate and a range of different fabric
types (i.e. linen drill, cotton mesh, worsted and
blends of ‘Leavil’ and wool). Differences increased
with increasing difference between the surface and
the air temperatures (Differences range from 10–
45°C). Spencer-Smith (1977) appears to summarize
published findings on the movement of heat through
clothing under dry steady-state conditions providing
a useful summary of the effect of air layers and their
orientation on thermal resistance. Equations for cal-
culating heat loss through clothing layers (in the ab-
sence of moisture) under differing conditions are
given, although the extent to which they have been
validated is unclear.
Hollands et. al. (1976) investigated the effect of
varying the Rayleigh number (sub-critical to 105) of
72 C. A. Wilson, R. M. Laing and D. J. Carr
horizontal and inclined air layers (0–700) with a large
aspect ratio and which were heated from below. A
theoretical result was compared to the experimental
data. The theoretical solution predicted Nusselt num-
bers in good agreement (maximum error approxi-
mately 5%) for all experimental data except that ob-
tained for air layers inclined at 700. (Note the theoret-
ical result was confirmed experimentally for air lay-
ers inclined at 150 only and the materials used to
form the confining surfaces were metallic rather than
fabric). Theory suggested that if the fluid flow was
independent of the x direction, the Nusselt number
was a function of the relationship Ra cos f (where,
Ra is the Rayleigh number and f the angle of the in-
clined air layer).
2. Multiple layer assemblies
Garments and garment design
Differences in the thermal resistance of garments
have been related to differences in fit (i.e. the size of
the air space) (Fan and Keighley, 1991; Havenith, et
al., 1990), and garment length and the amount of
body surface covered by garments (McCullough, et
al., 1983). Wearing garments increases the external
surface area and therefore theoretically increases the
capacity for heat loss. In addition, the rate of micro-
climate air exchanged with the surrounding atmos-
phere using different designs of lightweight cloth
coats has shown that although designs may differ
greatly, the conditions of use (especially the func-
tional position of the arm) may result in comparable
microclimate volumes and exchange rates (Shivers, et
al., 1977). Thus, surface configurations and fabric
arrangements affect the thermal resistance of the gar-
ments. Differences may be comparatively small
(Goldman, 1977; Spencer-Smith, 1977), but increase
in importance as the thickness of the assembly, and
thus the surface area available for heat exchange, in-
creases.
Posture
Changes in posture alter the contact between body
surfaces and thus affect the surface area available for
heat exchange and the relative importance of the vari-
ous modes of heat transmission (Wheldon, 1982).
The posture of a wearer/user also affects the arrange-
ment of the material layers and air spaces. When
standing (with garments hanging freely) there are dif-
ferences in the extent and pattern of air trapping. For
example, a slight increase in total thermal resistance
of ‘light’ clothing and a slight decrease for ‘heavy’
clothing has been observed when sitting compared to
standing (Lotens, 1989). Nielsen, et al., (1985) and
Havenith, et al., (1990) showed the intrinsic thermal
resistance of clothing was 6–18% less when sitting
than when standing. Compression of clothing over
the back, seat and thigh by the weight of the body or
the clothing itself, may account for some of these ob-
served differences (Havenith, et al., 1990). Nielsen,
et al., (1985) suggested the increase in thermal resist-
ance resulted from the boundary layer being thicker
in the region of much of the body (i.e. seated com-
pared to standing) reflecting the Grashof number.
Whether the thermal resistance of the clothing is al-
tered measurably by changes in the boundary layer is
not entirely clear. The findings of Nielsen, et al.
(1985) confirm earlier work by Belding, et al., (1947)
and Olesen, et al., (1982).
Fit
The distribution and thickness of air layers and the
ratio of air to fiber depend on the fit and design of
garments. Geometric factors are associated with fit
also affect thermal resistance because fit affects the
extent, thickness, and distribution of air trapped.
Radiation differences as a result of garment fit have
also been identified (Kakitsuba, et al., 1987). The
volume of enclosed air also changes with differences
in the fit of the assembly. Differences in microclimate
volume within infant bedding have been identified.
The extent of differences in microclimate volume
was affected by the product type and the fit/wrapping
arrangement (Holland, et al., 1999). Weder et al.,
(1996) showed (using both a sweating and moving
arm and a sweating guarded hotplate) that wide
sleeves provided on average 30% greater thermal re-
sistance than narrow, more fitted sleeves. A greater
reduction in ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ thermal resistance during
movement in narrow compared to wide sleeves was
also found (Weder, et al., 1996).
Literature on the effects of use/fit on the size,
shape and distribution of air layers within three-di-
mensional products is sparse. Wilson, et al., (1999b)
measured and documented the formation of air layers
in infant bedding during use and Havenith, et al.
(1990) attempted to identify differences due to fit by
comparing lean and obese persons wearing the same,
identically designed and sized garments (the gar-
ments therefore tighter and looser for the obese and
lean persons respectively). Tight clothing resulted in
6–31% lower thermal resistance than clothing which
was loosely fitted (Havenith, et al., 1990). The differ-
ences were reduced when an additional impermeable
rain cover of coated nylon was used, perhaps because
the air space under the garment collapsed under the
weight of the added garment or because of a reduc-
tion in the air and water vapor permeability of the
material. The number of people included in the study
was also small (n2 lean and 2 obese), so what these
findings mean is not entirely clear.
 Air and Air Spaces—the Invisible Addition to Thermal Resistance
Lotens (1989) suggested that the effect of fit (pos-
ture and other variables) were predictable (from
mathematical calculations) and proposed that the in-
trinsic thermal resistance of the loosely-and tightly-
fitted clothing did not necessarily differ. Rather, the
space formed below the outer garment contributed to
differences in total thermal resistance (Lotens, 1989).
From a practical perspective though, Fan (1989) re-
ported that loose clothing seemed to be more affected
by wind and body movement than tight clothing.
However, this study was conducted using a hollow
cylinder and the representative clothing assembly
evaluated (two-layer fabric combinations) are not di-
rectly comparable with those investigated by Lotens
(1989).
Closures and vents
The rate and volume of air exchanged between the
assembly microclimate and the ambient environment
is affected by the extent of air flow through the fabric
itself and/or through openings in the garment (Ruck-
man, et al., 1999). Many examples of the effects of
vents have been published between 1980–2000 ap-
proximately. The effect of sleeve, side and sleeve and
side openings on the thermal resistance of two walk-
ing jackets (PTFE laminated and polyurethane
coated) worn by six persons simulating fell-walking
in a controlled environmental chamber was investi-
gated by Ruckman (1999). At rest, in a non-venti-
lated condition, both jackets performed similarly.
Under these conditions the type of fabric had a
greater effect on the thermal resistance than the use
of ventilation, although during exercise, ventilation
was the primary factor. Thermal resistance was most
affected by the position of the pit zip as evidenced by
the change in skin temperature. Pit zip openings at
both the sleeve and side seams had the greatest effect
followed by sleeve openings, side openings and no
openings. Weder, et al., (1996) also found a strong
fabric effect when examining ‘wet’ thermal resist-
ance of wide and narrow sleeved garments in the ab-
sence of arm movement.
There is fairly clear evidence that air flow through
vents depends partly on the extent to which the fabric
is permeable to air (as demonstrated by Weder (1996)
examining sleeves, and Reischl and Stransky (1980)
and Bridgman et al., (1990) in garment assemblies
for firefighters). Similar results have been reported
with impermeable materials as well (e.g. Holland, et
al., (2002) in industrial helmets with a variety of vent
arrangements; and Weder, et al., (1996) in sleeves).
The effect of openings may be countered by the re-
sistance of underlying air spaces adjacent to or under
the opening. Where smaller narrower air spaces (3
mm: (1/8 inch)) were formed over a heated cylinder,
73
less air reportedly passes through open closures than
occurred with wider spaces (19 mm: (3/4 inch)) (Fon-
seca and Breckenridge, 1965). Spacing that mini-
mized the effects of air penetration through the fabric
were less effective when air movement was through
an open closure. Differences in penetration through
closures when the underlying space was narrow com-
pared to large were attributed to increased resistance
to air flow associated with narrow air spaces and re-
duced penetration of air in wind. Yet where air move-
ment occurs due to forced bellowing as a result of
movement lower thermal resistance was reported in
narrow than wide sleeves (Weder, et al., 1996). Thus
the source of air movement and the type of fabric
may affect thermal resistance derived from the under-
lying air spaces.
3. Effects of wind and body movement
Convective heat flow
Air movement in and around the clothed person
has been referred to as: i) bellows ventilation and
pumping (i.e. the circulation of air through the cloth-
ing as a result of rhythmic movement such as walk-
ing) (Ruckman, et al., 1999; Vokac, et al., 1973); ii)
a ‘chimney effect’ (Goldman, 1977; Vokac, et al.,
1973; Weder, et al., 1996); and/or iii) ambient air
motion (Vokac, et al., 1973). Whether there is suffi-
cient evidence for the existence of three separate
‘processes’ is unclear. Irrespective of the mode of air
movement exchange of garment microclimate “air”
(generally warmed and partly or fully saturated with
water vapor) with that of the ambient environment
occurs through garments. An investigation into dif-
ferences between black and white robes worn in hot
climates demonstrated the effectiveness of heat trans-
fer resulting from air movement through assemblies
as a case study (n1)(Shkolnik, et al., 1980). In spite
of additional heat absorbed by black robes (indicated
by the surface temperature of 47°C compared to
41°C in white robes), total heat gain did not differ be-
tween black or white robes. Skin temperature under
both robes was similar 37°C. Enhanced convective
transfer of heat in the air space under the black robe
either by enhanced bellows and/or chimney ventila-
tion was the explanation provided.
Variables affecting heat loss during air movement
Variables affecting the rate of heat loss and the
magnitude of air exchange due to air movement have
been attributed to many factors including: i) fabric
properties, such as thickness, weight, fiber arrange-
ment, structure, permeability to air (Babus’Haq, et
al., 1996; Epps and Song, 1992; Shoshani, et al.,
1993) and product type (Holland, et al., 1999), ii)
temperature differences between the skin and ambi-
74 C. A. Wilson, R. M. Laing and D. J. Carr
ent air (Goldman, 1977), iii) clothing design, such as
the number of layers with low air permeability, fit and
drape, fiber density, flexibility of layers and adequacy
of closures (Babus’Haq, et al., 1996; Breckenridge,
1977; Shivers, et al., 1977), and iv) mode and condi-
tions of use such as tucking method, posture, body
motion, and wind (Crockford, et al., 1972; Havenith,
et al., 1990; Holland, et al., 1999; Lotens and
Havenith, 1988).
Differences in thermal resistance among various
fiber types when exposed to wind has been attributed
to the presence of loose fibers on the surface of the
fabric (e.g. cotton compared to viscose or polyester)
which act to extend the thickness of the boundary air
layer (Babus’Haq, et al., 1996). Thus, the thermal re-
sistance of fabrics with raised surfaces are likely to
decrease more when exposed to wind than fabrics
lacking fibrous extensions, resulting from erosion of
the thicker air layer with increasing wind speed.
However, in the study by Babus’Haq, et al. (1996) the
cotton, viscose and polyester fabrics were selected as
summer-appropriate textiles and seem not to have
been matched for other properties such as weight,
density or thickness. Complete information on fabric
structure was not provided.
In knit fabrics, the major reduction in thermal re-
sistance has been linked to wind speeds up to 2 m/s.
Higher velocities had a minimal effect on the thermal
resistance of knitted fabrics of various fiber types
(acrylic and wool), and stitch densities (39.11 to 63.5
loops/cm2) and structures (n17) (Shoshani and
Shaltiel, 1993). Whether these findings apply to a
wider range of knit structures is unclear. However, re-
sults are consistent with those of Fan and Keighley
(1989) who suggested that once the microclimate and
surface air was disturbed, further air movement may
have only a reduced effect on thermal resistance.
Two layers of the same fabric were more thermally
resistant than one layer. However, this effect was not
additive, probably reflecting the greater proportion of
total thermal resistance accounted for by the bound-
ary air layer in one-layer arrangements (Wilson, et
al., 1999a; Wilson, et al., 2000). The work of Wilson,
et al. (1999a; 2000) was carried out under standard
conditions (20°C, 65% R.H. and 35°C, 40% R.H for
‘dry’ and ‘wet’ thermal resistance respectively) and
an air speed of 1 m/s. At air speeds greater than 6
m/s, the thermal resistance of two (and also three)
layers approached that of one layer (Babus’Haq, et
al., 1996) suggesting that the effectiveness of layered
textiles in wind may be affected by the air permeabil-
ity of the outer layer.
Altering the air permeability of inner fabric layers
has been shown to affect the thermal resistance of
fabrics wrapped around a cylindrical model exposed
to wind (Fan, 1998; Fan and Keighley, 1989) (the
magnitude of the effect was described as ‘minimal’).
Air permeability of fabrics and convection was also
considered important in still air when vertical air
spaces were 10 mm (Satsumoto, et al., 1991).
Under these circumstances convection may occur in
the air space because the heated air in the air space is
of lower air pressure than that of the ambient envi-
ronment. The permeability of the materials to air is
therefore important as this property affects air move-
ment through the material and with a consequential
effect on thermal resistance. This has been shown ir-
respective of whether the lower perimeter of the air
space was open or closed. In wider spaces (i.e. 19
mm), permeability of the material to air was impor-
tant only if the air space was closed (Satsumoto, et
al., 1991), possibly due to reduced or negligible air
flow through the wider air space than would occur if
the bottom of the space was open.
Changing some properties of underlying layers in-
cluding the distribution of air layers also affects ther-
mal resistance as shown by Wilson, et al. (1999a;
2000) using bedding materials. A single large space
was less thermally resistant than a number of smaller
air spaces of comparable total thickness. This differ-
ence may be due to the greater convective heat losses
and bellows when fewer larger air spaces are formed
than when there are a greater number of smaller air
spaces. Increasing the thickness of inner layer fabrics
also resulted in significant changes to thermal resist-
ance on the windward side of a hollow cylinder cov-
ered in an inner batting fabric and an outer fabric
(Fan, 1998; Fan and Keighley, 1989). Thermal resist-
ance increased by 200% when the thickness of inner
layer fabrics was increased from 5 to 40 mm (Fan,
1998; Fan and Keighley, 1989).
Body motion and wind
The boundary layer, clothing, and hence the total
thermal resistance of an assembly are maximized in
still air without body movement (Fan and Keighley,
1991). In wind, the thermal resistance of the bound-
ary air layer has been shown to decrease by 56% (de-
termined using a thermal manikin) possibly due to
changes in the pattern of convective heat loss due to
increased air velocity (Olesen, et al., 1982).
However, the effect of body movement and wind
velocity on intrinsic clothing, boundary air layer and
total thermal resistance suggests that body movement
and wind velocity cannot be considered in isolation.
For example, air movement has a minimal or no ef-
fect on the intrinsic thermal resistance of clothing
when the wearer is standing in light wind (1.1m/s)
(Breckenridge, 1977; Nielsen, et al., 1985). Instead
of affecting the intrinsic insulation of the clothing,
 Air and Air Spaces—the Invisible Addition to Thermal Resistance
wind strips away the boundary air layer (Forbes,
1968) and thus decreases total thermal resistance.
Such a decrease reportedly occurs irrespective of
whether it is the effect of body or air movement that
is being examined (Goldman, 1988; Holcombe,
1984).
Motion (cycling and walking) and its effect on the
thermal resistance of clothing and the boundary air
layer were compared by Lotens (1989) and Nielsen,
et al., (1985). The intrinsic thermal resistance of the
clothing and the boundary air layer were both higher
when cycling (at 40 rpm 20 W) than when walking
(3.6 km/h) (Nielsen, et al., 1985) and both lower than
when standing. Tests were conducted in a controlled
chamber where the chambers mean environmental
temperature was not specified but reported as equal
to ambient temperature, relative humidity was ap-
proximately 50% and air movement 0.05 m/s. The
thermal resistance of clothing, boundary layer and
total resistance was measured on human participants
using indirect calorimetry. Differences were attrib-
uted to the different patterns of body movement typi-
cal of the two activities and possibly also to posture.
Walking moves air layers external to the garment,
disturbs air enclosed between the body of the wearer
and the garment, and reduces the thickness of the
boundary air layer. Walking in light wind (1.1 m/s)
reduces the thermal resistance of both intrinsic ther-
mal resistance of clothing (by 35%) and the thermal
resistance of the boundary air layer (by 63%)
(Nielsen, et al., 1985) (estimated from dry heat loss,
mean skin, clothing and ambient air temperature). A
similar decrease in intrinsic thermal resistance of
clothing when walking in still air has been observed,
suggesting body movement has a larger affect on in-
trinsic thermal resistance of clothing than increasing
air velocity (Nielsen, et al., 1985).
Increasing wind speed, reduces thermal resistance
of both the clothing and the boundary layer (Fan and
Keighley, 1991). The thermal resistance of a nude
and clothed manikin was determined and total, intrin-
sic, and boundary thermal resistance calculated for
the clothing. The effect of wind on the thermal resist-
ance of clothing seems to be overshadowed by the ef-
fect of body movement while wind has a greater ef-
fect on thermal resistance of the boundary layer than
movement does (Havenith, et al., 1990). Consistent
with the effect of walking, wind modifies the air
spaces within and over the assembly surface. The
magnitude of the wind effect appears to depend on
the air permeability of wind-breaking layers, the ef-
fectiveness of closures, and whether or not the fabric
layers were spaced so air could pass freely through
them, and escape, without penetrating deeply into the
clothing system (Breckenridge, 1977; Fan and Keigh-
75
ley, 1989; Fonseca and Breckenridge, 1965). Body
movement and wind may also introduce forced air
flow and thus increase convection within air spaces.
Forced air flow varies, depending on the characteris-
tics of the underlying layers. When the air space is
narrow, resistance to penetration of air on the wind-
ward side is greatest and more air is forced into mid-
dle layers than when resistance to air movement is
lower (Fonseca and Breckenridge, 1965).
Wind penetration into air gaps in the garment re-
sults in changes from laminar to turbulent flow as the
size of the space or temperature gradient increases
(Spencer-Smith, 1977). The presence of such air
movement, possibly also associated with turbulent air
flow due to body movement (Hassenboehler and
Vigo, 1982; Kerslake, 1991), may decrease the ther-
mal efficiency of an assembly.
Conclusions
The size and shape (and thus volume), and the dis-
tribution of air layers affect thermal resistance of
three-dimensional fabric arrangements such as gar-
ments, when they are being used. The posture and
body movement of the wearer, the relationship of gar-
ment dimension to those of the body, and product de-
sign, as well as wind velocity also affect thermal re-
sistance by modifying the characteristics of those air
spaces. An apparently simple concept, this review
shows how complex the variables affecting thermal
resistance are, and highlights the care required when
attempting to examine the contribution which each
makes to total thermal resistance.
References
Babus’Haq, R. F., Hiasat, M. A. A. and Probert, S. D.
‘Thermal Insulating behaviour of single and multiple
layers of textiles under wind assault’, Applied Energy, 54
(4), 375–391, 1996.
Belding, H. S., Russell, H. D., Darling, R. C. and Folk, G.
E. ‘Analysis of factors concerned in maintaining energy
balance for dressed men in extreme cold: effects of activ-
ity on the protective value and comfort of an Arctic uni-
form’, The American Journal of Physiology, 149, 223–
239, 1947.
Bo, Q. and Nakajima, T. ‘A numerical study on the heat
loss from clothed humans—effects of air space and
clothing properties’, Journal of the Human-Environment
System, 5 (1), 33–40, 2001.
Bogaty, H., Hollies, N. R. S., Hintermaier, J. C. and Harris,
M. ‘The nature of a fabric surface: thickness-pressure re-
lationships’, Textile Research Journal, 23 (2), 108–114,
1953.
Bomberg, M. (1992). ‘Application of three ASTM test
methods to measure thermal resistance of clothing’. In
Performance of protective clothing: ASTM STP 1133,
Fourth volume. Edited by McBriarty, J. P. and Henry, N.
W. Philadelphia, American Society for Testing and Mate-
76 C. A. Wilson, R. M. Laing and D. J. Carr
rials, 399–426.
Breckenridge, J. R. (1977). ‘Effects of body motion on con-
vective and evaporative heat exchanges through various
designs of clothing’. In Clothing comfort. Interaction of
thermal, ventilation, construction and assessment fac-
tors, Edited by Hollies, N. R. S. and Goldman, R. F.
Michigan, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., 153–166.
Bridgman, L. E. 1990. The effect of vents on garment mi-
croclimate air exchange. Unpublished Honours Disserta-
tion, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Cain, B. and Farnworth, B. ‘Two new techniques for deter-
mining the thermal radiative properties of thin fabrics’,
Journal of Thermal Insulation, 9 (April), 301–322, 1986.
Crockford, G. W., Crowder, M. and Prestidge, S. P. ‘A trace
gas technique for measuring clothing microclimate air
exchange rates’, British Journal of Industrial Medicine,
29 (4), 378–386, 1972.
Epps, H. H. and Song, M. K. ‘Thermal transmittance and
air permeability of plain weave fabrics’, Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 11 (1), 10–17, 1992.
Fan, J. ‘Heat transfer through clothing assemblies in windy
conditions’, Textile Asia, 29 (10), 39–45, 1998.
Fan, J. and Keighley, J. H. ‘Theoretical and experimental
study of thermal insulation of clothing in windy condi-
tions’, International Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology, 1 (1), 21–29, 1989.
Fan, J. and Keighley, J. H. ‘An investigation on the effects
of: body motion, clothing design and environmental con-
ditions by using a fabric manikin’, International Journal
of Clothing Science and Technology, 3 (5), 6–13, 1991.
Fonseca, G. F. and Breckenridge, J. R. ‘Wind penetration
through fabric systems. Part I’, Textile Research Journal,
35 (2), 95–103, 1965.
Forbes, W. H. (1968). ‘Laboratory and field studies. Gen-
eral principles’. In Physiology of heat regulation and the
science of clothing, Edited by Newburgh, L. H. New
York, United States of America, Hefner Publishing Co.,
320–325.
Fowle, F. E. (Ed.). (1933). Smithsonian physical tables.
Washington, Smithsonian Institute, 327.
Fujimoto, T., Niwa, M. and Seki, N. ‘Effect of an air layer
on thermal insulation of clothing of materials’, Journal
of the Textile Machinery Society of Japan, 35 (4), 28,
1989.
Goldman, R. F. (1977). ‘Thermal comfort factors: concepts
and definitions. Invited review paper’. In Clothing com-
fort. Interaction of thermal, ventilation, construction and
assessment factors, Edited by Hollies, N. R. S. and Gold-
man, R. F. Michigan, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
3–8.
Goldman, R. F. (1988). ‘Standards for human exposure to
heat’. In Environmental ergonomics, Edited by Mek-
javic, I. B., Banister, E. W. and Morrison, J. B. London,
Taylor and Francis Ltd., 99–136.
Gretton, J. C., Brook, D. B., Dyson, H. M. and Harlock, S.
C. ‘Moisture vapor transport through waterproof breath-
able fabrics and clothing systems under a temperature
gradient’, Textile Research Journal, 68 (12), 936–941,
1998.
Hassenboehler, C. B. and Vigo, T. L. ‘A mixed flow ther-
mal transmittance tester for textiles’, Textile Research
Journal, 52 (8), 510–517, 1982.
Havenith, G. ‘Heat balance when wearing protective cloth-
ing’, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 43 (5), 289–296,
1999.
Havenith, G., Heus, R. and Lotens, W. A. ‘Resultant cloth-
ing insulation: a function of body movement, posture,
wind, clothing fit and ensemble thickness’, Ergonomics,
33 (1), 67–84, 1990.
Holcombe, B. ‘The thermal insulation performance of tex-
tile fabrics’, Wool Science Review, 60 (April), 12–22,
1984.
Holcombe, B. V., Brooks, J. H., Schneider, A. M. and Watt,
I. C. (1988). ‘The objective measurement of clothing
comfort’. In The Textile Institute 1988 Annual World
Conference, Sydney, The Textile Institute, 436–445.
Holcombe, B. V. and Hoschke, B. N. ‘Dry heat transfer
characteristics of underwear fabrics’, Textile Research
Journal, 53 (6), 368–375, 1983.
Holland, E., J., Laing, R. M., Lemmon, T. L. and Niven, B.
E. ‘Helmet design to facilitate thermoneutrality during
forestry harvesting’, Ergonomics, (In press) 2002.
Holland, E. J., Wilson, C. A., Laing, R. M. and Niven, B. E.
‘Microclimate ventilation of infant bedding’, Interna-
tional Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 11
(4), 226–239, 1999.
Hollands, K. G. T., Raithby, G. D. and Konicek, L. ‘Corre-
lation equations for free convective heat transfer in hori-
zontal layers of air and water’, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, 18 (7–8), 879–884, 1975.
Hollands, K. G. T., Unny, T. E., Raithby, G. D. and Kon-
icek, L. ‘Free convective heat transfer across inclined air
layers’, Journal of Heat Transfer, 98 (2), 189–193, 1976.
International Organization for Standardization, 1993(E).
ISO 11092: Textiles—Physiological effects—Measure-
ment of thermal and water-vapour resistance under
steady-state conditions (sweating guarded-hotplate test).
Geneve: International Organization for Standardization.
Kakitsuba, N., Michna, H. and Mekjavic, I. B. ‘Clothing
surface area as related to body volume and clothing mi-
croenvironment volume’, Aviation, Space, and Environ-
mental Medicine, 58 (May), 411–416, 1987.
Kerslake, D. M. ‘The insulation provided by infants bed-
clothes’, Ergonomics, 34 (7), 893–907, 1991.
Laing, R. M. and Sleivert, G. G. Clothing, textiles, and
human performance. Textile Progress, 32 (2), 1–122,
2002.
Lotens, W. A. ‘The actual insulation of multilayer cloth-
ing’, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment &
Health, 15 (Suppl. 1), 66–75, 1989.
Lotens, W. A. and Havenith, G. (1988). ‘Ventilation of rain-
wear determined by a trace gas method’. In Environmen-
tal ergonomics: sustaining human performance in harsh
environments, Edited by Mekjavic, I. B., Banister, E. W.
and Morrison, J. B. London, Taylor and Francis Ltd.
McCullough, E. A., Jones, B. W. and Zbikowski, P. J. ‘The
effect of garment design on the thermal insulation values
of clothing’, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 89 (2A), 327–352,
1983.
Morris, G. J. ‘Thermal properties of textile materials’,
Journal of the Textile Institute Transactions, 44 (10),
 Air and Air Spaces—the Invisible Addition to Thermal Resistance
T449–T477, 1953.
Morris, M. A. ‘Thermal insulation of single and multiple
layers of fabrics’, Textile Research Journal, 25 (9),
766–773, 1955.
Nielsen, R., Olesen, B. W. and Fanger, P. O. ‘Effect of phys-
ical activity and air velocity on the thermal insulation of
clothing’, Ergonomics, 28 (12), 1617–1631, 1985.
Obendorf, S. K. and Smith, J. P. ‘Heat transfer characteris-
tics of nonwoven insulating materials’, Textile Research
Journal, 56 (11), 691–696, 1986.
Olesen, B. W., Sliwinska, E., Madsen, T. L. and Fanger, P.
O. ‘Effect of body posture and activity on the thermal in-
sulation of clothing: measurements by a movable thermal
manikin’, ASHRAE Transactions, 88 (4), 791–805,
1982.
Parker, S. P. (Ed.). (1994). McGraw-Hill dictionary of sci-
entific and technical terms (5th ed.). New York, Mc-
Graw-Hill Inc.
Peirce, F. T. and Rees, W. H. ‘The transmission of heat
through textile fabrics—Part II’, Journal of The Textile
Institute, 37 (9), T181–T204, 1946.
Reischl, U. and Stransky, A. ‘Assessment of ventilation
characteristics of standard and prototype fire fighter pro-
tective clothing’, Textile Research Journal, 50 (3),
193–201, 1980.
Ruckman, J. E. ‘Water vapour transfer in waterproof
breathable fabrics. Part 1: under steady state conditions’,
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technol-
ogy, 9 (1), 10–22, 1997.
Ruckman, J. E., Murray, R. and Choi, H. S. ‘Engineering of
clothing systems for improved thermophysiological com-
fort. The effect of openings’, International Journal of
Clothing Science and Technology, 11 (1), 37–52, 1999.
Satsumoto, Y., Takeuchi, M. and Ishikawa, K. ‘The effect
of air permeability and radiation property on free
convective heat transfer of clothing system’, Sen-I
Gakkaishi, 47 (6), 263–270, 1991.
Schneider, A. M. and Holcombe, B. V. (1988). ‘The role of
radiation in fabric warmth’. In Advanced workshop on
the application of mathematics and physics in the wool
industry proceeding, Edited by Carnaby, G. A., Wood, E.
J. and Story, L. F. Lincoln, New Zealand, 488–502.
Shivers, J. L., Yeh, K., Fourt, L. and Spivak, S. M. (1977).
‘The effects of design and degree of closure on microcli-
mate air exchange in lightweight cloth coats’. In Cloth-
77
ing comfort. Interaction of thermal, ventilation, con-
struction and assessment factors, Edited by Hollies, N.
R. S. and Goldman, R. F. Michigan, Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, 167–181.
Shkolnik, A., Taylor, C. R., Finch, V. and Borut, A. ‘Why
do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts?’, Nature,
283, 373–375, 1980.
Shoshani, Y. and Shaltiel, S. ‘Effect of wind velocity on the
thermal resistance of knitted fabrics’, Knitting Tech-
nique, 15 (2), 91–93, 1993.
Spencer-Smith, J. L. ‘The physical basis of clothing com-
fort. Part 2: heat transfer through dry clothing assem-
blies’, Clothing Research Journal, 5 (1), 3–17, 1977.
Ukponmwan, J. O. The thermal-insulation properties of
fabrics. Textile Progress, 24 (4), 1–57, 1993.
Vokac, Z., Køpke, V. and Keül, P. ‘Assessment and analysis
of the bellows ventilation of clothing’, Textile Research
Journal, 43 (8), 474–482, 1973.
Weder, M. S., Zimmerli, T. and Rossi, R. M. (1996). ‘A
sweating and moving arm for the measurement of ther-
mal insulation and water vapour resistance of clothing’.
In Performance of protective clothing. ASTM STP 1237,
Fifth volume. Edited by Johnson, J. S. and Mansdorf, S.
Z. West Conshohocken, American Society for Testing
and Materials, 257–268.
Wheldon, A. E. ‘Energy balance in the newborn baby: use
of a manikin to estimate radiant and convective heat
loss’, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 27 (2), 285–296,
1982.
Wilson, C. A., Laing, R. M. and Niven, B. E. ‘Estimating
thermal resistance of multiple-layer bedding materials -
re-examining the problem’, Journal of the Human-Envi-
ronment System, 2 (1), 69–85, 1999a.
Wilson, C. A., Laing, R. M. and Niven, B. E. ‘Multiple-
layer bedding materials and the effect of air spaces on
‘wet’ thermal resistance of dry materials’, Journal of the
Human-Environment System, 4 (1), 23–32, 2000.
Wilson, C. A., Niven, B. E. and Laing, R. M. ‘Estimating
thermal resistance of bedding from thickness of materi-
als’, International Journal of Clothing Science and Tech-
nology, 11 (5), 262–276, 1999b.
Woo, S. S., Shalev, I. and Barker, R. L. ‘Heat and moisture
transfer through nonwoven fabrics. Part II: moisture dif-
fusivity’, Textile Research Journal, 64 (4), 190–197,
1994.