Fl8RE3 & TEXTlLE3 |r Eas|err Europe Apr|| / Jure 2003, vo|. 11, No.

2 (11)
42
|ntroduct|on
The mechanical parameters which inIlu-
ence the handle oI woven Iabrics can be
determined with the use oI KES-E (Ka-
wabata Evaluation System Ior Eabrics)
apparatuses, EAST (Eabric Assessment
System Ior Textiles) apparatuses, and In-
stron tension-testers |1-4|. Kawabata pro-
posed that a given Iabric can be estimated
on the basis oI two Iactors calculated Irom
mechanical parameters determined by the
KES-E system: the Total Hand Value
(THV) which expresses the general han-
dle value, and the Total Appearance Va-
lue (TAV) which determines the Iabric's
appearance. The Iabric's Iormability
coeIIicient, which is deIined as the ratio
oI bending rigidity to the initial modulus,
can be calculated on the basis oI results
obtained by the EAST system. As oI this
writing, a summarised Iactor, which
would be the measure oI the Iabric's han-
dle based on objectiIied instrumental re-
search with the use oI an Instron tension-
tester, has not been developed. Only a gra-
phic multi-axial system Ior presenting the
data which characterise a Ilat textile pro-
duct has been elaborated; in this system,
every quantity measured by the Instron
tension-tester is presented on an indivi-
dual axis |5,6|.
The present work aims at approaching the
elaboration oI a general woven-Iabric han-
dle Iactor on the basis oI the mechanical
parameters obtained by an Instron tension-
tester. It should be emphasised that the
solution presented is the Iirst such regar-
ding this question, and that no similar ana-
lysis or discussions could be Iound in the
research works published up to now which
describe the problem considered.
Exper|mente|
25 variants oI raw woven-Iabrics were
prepared, Irom which 10 cotton Iabrics
manuIactured Irom OE and ring spun
yarns with a linear density oI 20 tex, and
15 Iabrics Irom classical combed cotton/
PES blended yarns oI diIIering polyester
Iibre content (33, 50, and 67). The
test programme was planned in such a way
that the Iabrics were additionally diIIeren-
tiated by weave (plain, twill, and combi-
ned) and by weIt density. All variants oI
the Iabrics manuIactured are speciIied in
Table 1.
The raw Iabrics were Iinished by means
oI two types oI Iinishing: normal starch
Iinishing (S) (in general applied Ior bed
linen), and elastomer Iinishing (E) used
Ior Iabric improvement. In this way, in
general, 75 Iabrics were investigated. The
Iinishings mentioned above were selected
at the experiment planning phase; the in-
tention was to select those kinds oI Iini-
shing which could ascertain the diIIeren-
tiation oI the Iabric's handle aIter proces-
sing, and also a signiIicant diIIerence in
the handle aIter Iinishing in comparison
with that oI raw Iabrics. The mechanical
properties oI all Iabrics listed in Table 1,
6henges |n Febr|c hend|e Resu|t|ng
from 0|fferent Febr|c F|n|sh|ng
Iwona Frydrych
1,2
,
Malgorzata Matusiak
1
1
Institute of TextiIe Architecture
ul. Piotrkowska 276, 90-950 Ldz, Poland
e-mail: iat@iat.formus.pl
2
TechnicaI University of Ldz
ul. Zeromskiego 116, 90-543 Ldz, Poland
e-mail; frydryc@ck-sg.p.lodz.pl
Abstract
A method of calculating the general handle factor (GHF) of a woven fabric was developed
on the basis of mechanical parameters determined at small stresses with the use of an
Instron tension-tester. The influence was estimated of such factors as the kind of finishing,
raw material, weft density, and weave of the fabric on the value of the general handle
factor (GHF) as calculated according to the proposed procedure. From the analysis of
tests, it results that raw woven fabrics are characterised by the lowest value of GHF fac-
tor, whereas woven fabrics with elastomeric finishing have the highest GHF factor value;
this is in accordance with the assumption accepted in the planning phase of the experi-
ments. When considering the type of weave, fabrics with twill and combined weave are
characterised by the best handle, whereas those with a plain weave by the worst. The
highest values of the GHF factor were obtained for fabrics with the lowest weft density.
Key words: handle, woven fabric, general handle factor, weave, finishing, mechanical
parameters.
1able 1. List of fabric variants.
f o t n e c r e P f o t n e c r e P f o t n e c r e P f o t n e c r e P f o t n e c r e P
n o t t o c
e v a e W e v a e W e v a e W e v a e W e v a e W , y t i s n e D , y t i s n e D , y t i s n e D , y t i s n e D , y t i s n e D
m d
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -
o N c i r b a F o N c i r b a F o N c i r b a F o N c i r b a F o N c i r b a F
w a r w a r w a r w a r w a r
) R (
h c r a t s h c r a t s h c r a t s h c r a t s h c r a t s
) S (
c i r e m o t s a l e c i r e m o t s a l e c i r e m o t s a l e c i r e m o t s a l e c i r e m o t s a l e
) E (
E O % 0 0 1
n i a l p
0 2 2 1 6 2 1 5
0 7 2 2 7 2 2 5
0 2 3 3 8 2 3 5
d e n i b m o c 0 2 3 4 9 2 4 5
l l i w t 0 2 3 5 0 3 5 5
% 0 0 1
n i a l p
0 2 2 6 1 3 6 5
0 7 2 7 2 3 7 5
0 2 3 8 3 3 8 5
d e n i b m o c 0 2 3 9 4 3 9 5
l l i w t 0 2 3 0 1 5 3 0 6
% 7 6
n i a l p
0 2 2 1 1 6 3 1 6
0 7 2 2 1 7 3 2 6
0 2 3 3 1 8 3 3 6
d e n i b m o c 0 2 3 4 1 9 3 4 6
l l i w t 0 2 3 5 1 0 4 5 6
% 0 5
n i a l p
0 2 2 6 1 1 4 6 6
0 7 2 7 1 2 4 7 6
0 2 3 8 1 3 4 8 6
d e n i b m o c 0 2 3 9 1 4 4 9 6
l l i w t 0 2 3 0 2 5 4 0 7
% 3 3
n i a l p
0 2 2 1 2 6 4 1 7
0 7 2 2 2 7 4 2 7
0 2 3 3 2 8 4 3 7
d e n i b m o c 0 2 3 4 2 9 4 4 7
l l i w t 0 2 3 5 2 0 5 5 7
43
Fl8RE3 & TEXTlLE3 |r Eas|err Europe Apr|| / Jure 2003, vo|. 11, No. 2 (11)
both in the raw state and aIter Iinishing,
are presented in Table 2.
Then, all the raw and Iinished Iabrics were
tested at small stretching, shearing, com-
pression and bending stresses with the use
oI an Instron tension-tester, in order to
obtain the basic mechanical parameters
which inIluence the handle. The Iollowing
Iabric parameters were determined:
energy of stretching load (WT),
linearity of the stretching process
(LT),
resilience after stretching (RT),
width of the hysteresis loop at
shearing (HG),
width of the hysteresis loop at
bending (HB),
loading energy of compression (WC),
linearity of the compression process
(LC),
resilience after compression (RC),
coefficient of static friction (
s
), and
coefficient of kinetic friction (
k
).
Elaboration of the general handle fac-
tor of fabrics
When elaborating the general handle Iac-
tor, the assumption was made that the Ii-
nished woven Iabrics should have a bet-
ter handle than the raw Iabrics, and that
the elastomerically Iinished Iabrics sho-
uld also be characterised by a better han-
dle (due to the improving Iinish applied)
than those which were Iinished in the clas-
sical way by starch.
In the Iirst investigation phase, the kinds
oI trends in changes to the particular pa-
rameters (determined by the Instron ten-
sile-tester), which exist depending on the
y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P t i n U t i n U t i n U t i n U t i n U / p r a W / p r a W / p r a W / p r a W / p r a W
t f e w
E O % 0 0 1 O C E O % 0 0 1 O C E O % 0 0 1 O C E O % 0 0 1 O C E O % 0 0 1 O C % 0 0 1 O C % 0 0 1 O C % 0 0 1 O C % 0 0 1 O C % 0 0 1 O C % 7 6 S E P / % 3 3 O C % 7 6 S E P / % 3 3 O C % 7 6 S E P / % 3 3 O C % 7 6 S E P / % 3 3 O C % 7 6 S E P / % 3 3 O C
2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T
h s i n i F w a R w a R w a R w a R w a R
h t d i W m c 0 . 4 5 1 2 . 3 5 1 8 . 2 5 1 2 . 2 5 1 7 . 1 5 1 8 . 3 5 1 8 . 2 5 1 2 . 2 5 1 2 . 2 5 1 7 . 1 5 1 2 . 3 5 1 2 . 2 5 1 3 . 0 5 1 1 . 1 5 1 8 . 0 5 1
s d a e r h t f o r e b m u N
m d 1 r e p
p r a w 6 1 3 7 1 3 8 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 9 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 . 8 1 3 9 1 3 1 2 3 7 2 3 9 2 3
t f e w 9 2 2 4 8 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 7 2 3 0 3 2 3 8 2 5 3 3 1 3 3 9 2 3 8 3 2 4 9 2 7 5 3 1 2 3 1 1 3
s d a e r h t f o p m i r C %
p r a w 5 . 6 3 . 7 1 . 0 1 1 . 5 8 . 2 5 . 6 1 . 6 3 . 8 4 . 4 7 . 2 7 . 6 4 . 6 3 . 9 1 . 4 3 . 2
t f e w 3 . 5 0 . 6 7 . 7 0 . 8 1 . 7 5 . 5 3 . 6 9 . 6 0 . 7 7 . 6 2 . 5 2 . 6 0 . 8 9 . 7 3 . 7
r e t e m e r a u q s r e p s s a M m / g
2
5 . 3 2 1 8 . 5 3 1 . 3 . 7 4 1 0 . 5 4 1 7 . 0 4 1 4 . 3 2 1 4 . 5 3 1 8 . 7 4 1 4 . 5 4 1 5 . 3 4 1 4 . 4 3 1 4 . 0 5 1 0 . 3 5 1 9 . 7 4 1 1 . 4 4 1
s s e n k c i h T m m 3 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 8 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 2 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 9 3 . 0 1 4 . 0 2 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 9 3 . 0 8 3 . 0
h s i n i F h c r a t S h c r a t S h c r a t S h c r a t S h c r a t S
h t d i W m c 0 . 2 4 1 5 . 1 4 1 0 . 1 4 1 5 . 1 4 1 7 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 1 1 . 0 4 1 1 . 0 4 1 8 . 0 4 1 5 . 0 4 1 4 . 1 4 1 8 . 9 3 1 3 . 9 3 1 6 . 0 4 1 8 . 1 4 1
s d a e r h t f o r e b m u N
m d 1 r e p
p r a w 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 1 4 3 3 4 3 7 4 3 4 4 3 1 4 3
t f e w 6 2 2 5 7 2 6 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 7 2 2 1 3 6 1 3 0 2 3 . 9 2 2 1 8 2 6 1 3 4 0 3 8 0 3
s d a e r h t f o p m i r C %
p r a w 3 . 3 2 . 4 6 . 4 7 . 2 7 . 1 7 . 2 5 . 3 8 . 3 4 . 2 5 . 1 2 . 4 9 . 4 0 . 5 9 . 2 8 . 1
t f e w 1 . 9 3 . 9 3 . 0 1 5 . 8 6 . 8 6 . 7 4 . 8 4 . 9 2 . 8 6 . 8 4 . 7 1 . 8 6 . 9 3 . 9 8 . 8
r e t e m e r a u q s r e p s s a M m / g
2
3 . 4 1 1 0 . 6 2 1 7 5 . 7 3 1 4 . 5 3 1 1 . 6 3 1 1 . 6 1 1 5 . 8 2 1 9 0 . 7 3 1 8 . 5 3 1 4 . 6 3 1 9 . 3 2 1 4 . 9 3 1 9 . 4 4 1 7 . 2 4 1 9 . 9 3 1
s s e n k c i h T m m
6 2 . 0 8 2 . 0 2 3 . 0 4 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 8 2 . 0 8 2 . 0 1 3 . 0 5 3 . 0 6 3 . 0 8 2 . 0 2 3 . 0 0 3 . 0 9 3 . 0 0 4 . 0
h s i n i F c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E
h t d i W m c 7 . 1 4 1 0 . 1 4 1 4 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 1 5 . 9 3 1 1 . 1 4 1 1 . 0 4 1 8 . 9 3 1 9 . 9 3 1 0 . 9 3 1 8 . 0 4 1 2 . 0 4 1 5 . 9 3 1 9 . 9 3 1 3 . 1 4 1
s d a e r h t f o r e b m u N
m d 1 r e p
p r a w 2 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 7 4 3 5 4 3 2 4 3 7 4 3 6 4 3 2 5 3 8 4 3 . 4 4 3 4 4 3 6 4 3 6 4 3 2 4 3
t f e w 5 2 2 4 7 2 5 0 3 7 0 3 1 1 3 7 2 2 8 7 2 8 0 3 8 1 3 8 1 3 9 2 2 1 8 2 6 1 3 0 2 3 9 2 3
s d a e r h t f o p m i r C %
p r a w 8 . 4 6 . 5 7 . 5 5 . 3 3 . 2 2 . 4 5 . 4 1 . 5 3 . 3 1 . 2 8 . 3 5 . 4 7 . 5 2 . 3 8 . 1
t f e w 2 . 8 1 . 9 0 . 0 1 7 . 9 0 . 0 1 5 . 9 2 . 0 1 3 . 1 1 7 . 0 1 5 . 1 1 4 . 8 8 . 8 5 . 9 4 . 9 9 . 8
r e t e m e r a u q s r e p s s a M m / g
2
9 . 5 1 1 3 . 7 2 1 4 . 6 3 1 8 . 4 3 1 8 . 6 3 1 3 . 6 1 1 1 . 0 3 1 8 . 7 3 1 5 . 9 3 1 3 . 9 3 1 9 . 0 2 1 6 . 4 3 1 5 . 8 4 1 7 . 5 4 1 5 . 4 4 1
s s e n k c i h T m m 3 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 8 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 2 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 9 3 . 0 1 4 . 0 2 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 9 3 . 0 8 3 . 0
y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P y t r e p o r P t i n U t i n U t i n U t i n U t i n U / p r a W / p r a W / p r a W / p r a W / p r a W
t f e w
% 0 5 S E P / % 0 5 O C % 0 5 S E P / % 0 5 O C % 0 5 S E P / % 0 5 O C % 0 5 S E P / % 0 5 O C % 0 5 S E P / % 0 5 O C % 3 3 S E P / % 7 6 O C % 3 3 S E P / % 7 6 O C % 3 3 S E P / % 7 6 O C % 3 3 S E P / % 7 6 O C % 3 3 S E P / % 7 6 O C
2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 2 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 7 2 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - P 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - C 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T 2 3 - T
h s i n i F w a R w a R w a R w a R w a R
h t d i W m c 5 . 0 5 1 1 . 7 4 1 5 . 7 4 1 0 . 8 4 1 1 . 9 4 1 4 . 9 4 1 8 . 6 4 1 8 . 7 4 1 7 . 8 4 1 2 . 0 5 1
f o r e b m u N
s d a e r h t
m d 1 r e p
p r a w
3 2 3 9 2 3 9 2 3 8 2 3 4 2 3 5 2 3 8 2 3 0 3 3 6 2 3 4 2 3
t f e w 2 6 2 6 3 3 1 4 3 7 3 3 5 3 3 3 5 2 6 1 3 5 3 3 6 2 3 2 2 3
f o p m i r C
s d a e r h t
%
p r a w 7 . 0 1 5 . 2 1 5 . 2 1 5 . 6 7 . 3 2 . 8 2 . 9 3 . 1 1 8 . 5 7 . 2
t f e w 7 . 5 2 . 8 2 . 8 8 . 7 7 . 7 0 . 6 8 . 7 7 . 7 9 . 7 3 . 7
r e p s s a M
r e t e m e r a u q s
m / g
2
9 . 7 3 1 8 . 8 5 1 7 . 9 5 1 5 . 4 5 1 2 . 1 5 1 5 . 4 2 1 2 . 8 3 1 6 . 1 5 1 2 . 1 4 1 1 . 9 3 1
s s e n k c i h T m m 1 3 . 0 1 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 2 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 4 3 . 0 3 4 . 0 3 4 . 0
h s i n i F h c r a t S h c r a t S h c r a t S h c r a t S h c r a t S
h t d i W m c 6 . 0 4 1 4 . 9 3 1 9 . 8 3 1 5 . 0 4 1 5 . 0 4 1 5 . 0 4 1 2 . 8 3 1 5 . 8 3 1 1 . 6 4 1 9 . 1 4 1
f o r e b m u N
s d a e r h t
m d 1 r e p
p r a w
0 . 2 4 3 0 . 4 4 3 0 . 6 4 3 0 . 4 4 3 0 . 5 4 3 0 . 5 4 3 0 . 9 4 3 0 . 9 4 3 0 . 4 4 3 0 . 4 4 3
t f e w 0 . 5 2 2 0 . 5 8 2 0 . 3 3 3 0 . 3 3 3 0 . 5 3 3 0 . 2 3 2 0 . 9 9 2 0 . 6 2 3 0 . 2 2 3 0 . 1 3 3
f o p m i r C
s d a e r h t
%
p r a w 9 . 3 9 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 3 5 . 1 8 . 3 8 . 4 6 . 5 6 . 2 7 . 1
t f e w 2 . 8 3 . 9 6 . 9 9 . 8 2 . 9 5 . 9 2 . 0 1 5 . 0 1 7 . 8 4 . 9
r e p s s a M
r e t e m e r a u q s
m / g
2
3 . 7 2 1 1 . 2 4 1 3 5 1 2 . 8 4 1 2 . 0 5 1 7 . 4 2 1 4 . 2 4 1 1 5 1 2 . 5 4 1 2 . 5 4 1
s s e n k c i h T m m
9 2 . 0 2 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 7 3 . 0 1 4 . 0 3 3 . 0 4 3 . 0 6 3 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0
h s i n i F c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E c i r e m o t s a l E
h t d i W m c 6 . 9 3 1 6 . 9 3 1 5 . 9 3 1 5 . 0 4 1 5 . 0 4 1 7 . 0 4 1 0 . 0 4 1 6 . 8 3 1 6 . 9 3 1 1 . 0 4 1
f o r e b m u N
s d a e r h t
m d 1 r e p
p r a w
5 4 3 4 4 3 6 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 6 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3
t f e w 2 4 2 6 8 2 3 3 3 7 3 3 8 2 3 0 4 2 7 8 2 3 3 3 6 2 3 8 2 3
f o p m i r C
s d a e r h t
%
p r a w 7 . 4 1 . 5 3 . 6 5 . 3 7 . 1 4 . 4 9 . 4 2 . 5 1 . 3 0 . 2
t f e w 7 . 9 2 . 9 6 . 9 8 . 9 0 . 0 1 3 . 8 2 . 9 7 . 0 1 7 . 9 0 . 0 1
r e p s s a M
r e t e m e r a u q s
m / g
2
9 . 9 2 1 0 . 5 4 1 7 . 4 5 1 6 . 1 5 1 7 . 7 4 1 4 . 5 2 1 1 . 4 3 1 9 . 5 4 1 9 . 2 4 1 0 . 1 4 1
s s e n k c i h T m m 1 3 . 0 1 3 . 0 3 3 . 0 2 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 3 . 0 2 3 . 0 4 3 . 0 3 4 . 0 3 4 . 0
1able 2. Mechanical properties of fabrics, weave. P - plain, C - combined, T - twill, the Table 2 is composed of two parts. Table 2a and Table 2b.
1able 2a.
1able 2b.
Fl8RE3 & TEXTlLE3 |r Eas|err Europe Apr|| / Jure 2003, vo|. 11, No. 2 (11)
44
type oI Iinishing were estimated. Next,
plots oI values oI the particular mechani-
cal parameters Ior all raw and Iinished Ia-
brics were drawn. The particular test va-
riants were arranged on the abscissa oI
every plot (Ior every parameter), begin-
ning with the test oI Iabric No 1 through
intermediate tests (according to Table 1),
up to the test oI Iabric No 75. The order
was arranged in such a manner that the
Iirst group consisted oI raw Iabrics, the
next oI Iabrics with starch Iinishing, and
the last with elastomer Iinishing. The plots
are presented in Eigure 1.
The arrangement oI samples within one
group oI Iabrics depends on the changes
in quality oI the Iabric's surIace assumed
in the experimental plan. The increase in
weIt density in Iabrics oI plain weave Irom
220/dm, though 270/dm to 320/dm results
in an increase in the warp overlaps per
square unit oI the Iabric's surIace, where-
as the changes oI weave Irom plain thro-
ugh combined to twill cause an increase
in the number oI long links which in turn
improve the smoothness oI the Iabric. The
Iabrics were also arranged according to
the increase in the polyester Iibre content.
The partial trends within one group oI Ia-
brics, e.g. raw or Iinished Iabrics, as well
as Iabrics oI a particular weave, have not
been the subject oI these considerations.
Such trends were and will be the subjects
oI independent analysis.
Straight lines, which characterised the
trends in changes to every parameter de-
termined, were drawn on the plots (begin-
ning Irom the raw Iabrics in the direction
oI the starch (S) and the elastomerically
(E) Iinished Iabrics). The analysis oI the-
se plots allowed us to estimate how the
values oI the particular parameters chan-
ged in dependence on Iinishing, which (in
accordance with the assumption accepted
at the beginning oI our consideration) sho-
uld improve the handle oI Iabrics.
The analysis perIormed allowed us to sta-
te that in the case oI the Iollowing two
parameters:
the stretching linearity (LT) presented
in Figure 1b, and
the resilience after stretching (RT)
presented in Figure 1c
no visible trend occurs in the dependence
oI Iinishing. ThereIore, these two parame-
ters were omitted in Iurther considerations
as having no distinct inIluence on the Ia-
bric's handle.
In the case oI the remaining mechanical
parameters, it was observed that their va-
lues decreased, beginning with the highest
parameter values oI raw Iabrics, through
those oI Iabrics with starch Iinishing (S),
and ending with the parameters oI Iabrics
which were elastomerically (E) Iinished
(Eigures 1a, 1d, 1e, 1I, 1h, 1i, and 1j). Only
in the case oI the linearity oI compression
(LC) was a contrary tendency noted, i.e.
an increase in the parameter value in the
direction oI Iabrics with better Iinishing.
These considerations allowed us to assu-
me that the Iollowing parameters (deter-
mined with the use oI the Instron tensile-
tester) inIluence the Iabric's handle:
energy of stretching load (WT),
width of the hysteresis loop at
shearing (HG),
width of the hysteresis loop at
bending (HB),
energy of compression (WC),
linearity of the compression process
(LC),
resilience after compression (RC),
coefficient of static friction (
s
), and
coefficient of kinetic friction (
k
).
Figure 1. Trends of the particular parameters for fabrics arranged, starting from raw fabrics,
through fabrics finished with starch (S) to fabrics elastomerically finished (E); a) energy of stretching
load WT, b) linearity of the stretching process LT, c) resilience after stretching RT, d) width of the
hysteresis loop at shearing HG, e) width of the hysteresis loop at bending HB, f) loading energy of
compression WC, g) linearity of the compression process LC, h) resilience after compression RC,
i) coefficient of static friction
s
, and j) coefficient of kinetic friction
k
.
W
T
J
5e-4
0,002
0,003
0,004
0,005
0,006
0,007
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
L
T
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
J,00
J,05
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
a) b)
R
T
%
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
H
G
N
-0,J
0,0
0,J
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
c) d)
H
B
N
0,00J
0,003
0,005
0,007
0,009
0,0JJ
0,0J3
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
W
C
J
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
6,0
6,5
7,0
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
e) f)
L
C
$&
%
%$
&
&"
&&

"
$
&

"
$
&

"
$
&
!
!
!"
!$
!&
"
"
""
"$
"&
#
#
#"
#$
#&
$
$
$"
$$
$&
%
%
%"
%$
R
C
%
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
g) h)
K

0,35
0,45
0,55
0,65
0,75
0,85
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
K
I
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
J,00
J,05
J,J0
0
2
4
6
8
J0
J2
J4
J6
J8
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
i) j)
45
Fl8RE3 & TEXTlLE3 |r Eas|err Europe Apr|| / Jure 2003, vo|. 11, No. 2 (11)
Figure 3. General handle factor GHF for raw fabrics in dependence on: a) weft density, - 220/dm, - 270/dm, - 320/dm; b) weave of
the fabric, - plain, - combined, - twill.
GHF
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
CO OE CO CO67/PES33 CO50/PES50 CO33/PES67
GHF
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
CO OE CO CO67/PES33 CO50/PES50 CO33/PES67
A procedure similar to that oI the elabo-
ration oI the general quality Iactor GQE
|5| was applied in Iurther considerations,
approaching the elaboration oI one sum-
marised Iabric handle Iactor (the general
handle Iactor GHE). All the parameters
listed above (determined by the Instron
tensile-tester) were accepted as the indi-
vidual parameters Ior elaborating the ge-
neral Iactor.
Degrees oI importance u (Irom u1 to
u5) were assigned to all parameters de-
termined by the Instron tensile-tester, pro-
portionally to the pitch oI the line which
indicates the trend oI the particular para-
meters (in the direction Irom the raw Ia-
brics to the Iabrics Iinished elastomerical-
ly). The greater the trend deIlection Irom
the horizontal line was noted, the higher
the degree oI importance was assigned.
Next, the weight coeIIicient was calcula-
ted Ior every parameter Irom the Iollowing
Iormula:
(1)
where:
u
i
- degree oI importance oI the i-th para-
meter, and
p
i
- weight coeIIicient oI the i-th para-
meter.
The assigned degrees oI importance (u
i
)
and weight coeIIicients (p
i
) calculated are
speciIied in Table 3.
Next, the relative values oI the particular
Iactors were calculated. These values are
equal to the ratio oI the particular para-
meter's value oI the given variant oI Ia-
bric to the maximum value oI all values
which were obtained in this parameter:

(2)
where:
b
ik
- relative value oI the i-th parame-
ter Ior the k-th Iabric variant,
a - absolute value oI the i-th para-
meter Ior the k-th Iabric variant,
and
a
imax
- maximum value oI the i-th para-
meter Irom all values oI this pa-
rameter determined by the In-
stron tensile-tester.
It should be emphasised that most oIten,
when elaborating the general quality Iac-
tor (GQE), the quotient oI the value oI the
parameter determined is calculated using
the optimal value as a divider. However,
in the case analysed, there has hitherto
been a lack oI data which could allow us
to accept the optimal value as a divider,
and the maximum value obtained by me-
asurement was taken instead oI this.
The value oI the general quality Iactor
(GQE) was calculated Ior each Iabric va-
riant Irom the Iormula:

(3)
where:
GQF
k
- value oI the general quality Iactor
GQF Ior the k-th Iabric variant.
Considering that the trend oI compression
linearity changes (LC) in dependence oI
Iabric Iinishing is contrary to the trends
oI all remaining parameters, the sign oI
the component concerning compression
linearity (LC) in the GQF
k
sum was ac-
cepted as minus. Einally, the equation de-
scribing the general quality Iactor as de-
termined on the basis oI the parameters
measured with the use oI the Instron ten-
Figure 2. Trend of the general handle factor
GHF
IN
for all fabric variants.
max max max max max max max
6 . 15 6 . 15 6 . 15 4 . 9 6 . 15 3 . 6 3 . 6
k
k
s
s
IN
RC
RC
LC
LC
HB
HB
HG
HG
WT
WT
GQF

+ + + + + =
max max max max max max max
6 . 15 6 . 15 6 . 15 4 . 9 6 . 15 3 . 6 3 . 6
1
k
k
s
s
IN
RC
RC
LC
LC
HB
HB
HG
HG
WT
WT
GHF

+ + + + +
=
RAW a) RAW b)
100
8
1
=

= i
i
i
i
u
u
p
max i
ik
ik
a
a
b =

4)
6)
Equations 4 and .

=
=
8
1 i
ik i k
b p GQF
o No No No No N - a r a P - a r a P - a r a P - a r a P - a r a P
r e t e m
e r u g i F e r u g i F e r u g i F e r u g i F e r u g i F
1
- g i s e D - g i s e D - g i s e D - g i s e D - g i s e D
n o i t a n
u uuuu p pppp
1 T W a a
1
2 3 . 6
2 G H d a
2
2 3 . 6
3 B H e a
3
5 6 . 5 1
4 C W f a
4
5 6 . 5 1
5 C L g a
5
3 4 . 9
6 C R h a
6
5 6 . 5 1
7
s
i a
7
5 6 . 5 1
8
k
j a
8
5 6 . 5 1
m u S 2 3 0 0 1
Table 3. Specification of importance degree
u and weight coefficients p.
G
H
F

"
$
&

"
$

"
$
&

"
$
&

"
$
&
!
!
!"
!$
!&
"
"
""
"$
"&
#
#
#"
#$
#&
$
$
$"
$$
$&
%
%
%"
%$
Fl8RE3 & TEXTlLE3 |r Eas|err Europe Apr|| / Jure 2003, vo|. 11, No. 2 (11)
46
sile-tester (GQF
IN
) can be described as
presented in (4).
The procedure which was accepted Ior
calculating the general quality Iactor as-
sumed that the value oI the output para-
meters increases with the increase in the
Iabric's quality. In the case oI the mecha-
nical parameters determined with the use
oI an Instron tensile-tester, a contrary
situation can be observed; that is, with the
increase in the value oI particular output
parameters (excluding the compression
linearity LC), a worsening in handle is
observed.
Considering this behaviour oI the Iinished
Iabrics, the reciprocal oI the general qu-
ality Iactor calculated Irom Iormula (4)
was proposed as a measure oI the Iabric's
handle. This measure was designated as
the 'general handle Iactor' (GHE) oI Ia-
brics, based on the mechanical parame-
ters determined with the use oI an Instron
tensile-tester, and its value can be calcu-
lated Irom the Iollowing Iormula:
(5)
The Iinal shape oI the equation (6), which
allows us to calculate the general handle
Iactor on the basis oI measurements oI the
mechanical Iabric parameters with the use
oI an Instron tensile-tester, was obtained
by the substitution oI GQF
IN
in Iormula
(5) by equation (4).
With the use oI equation (6), the values oI
the general handle Iactors Ior all variants
oI raw and Iinished Iabrics manuIactured
Ior conducting the experimental part oI
this investigation were calculated. The
values obtained are presented in Eigure 3.
According to our expectations, it could be
stated that the values oI the Iactor tend to
increase, beginning with those oI raw Ia-
brics, through those oI Iabrics with starch
Iinishing (S), and Iinally with values Ior
elastomeric Iinishing (E). This conIirms
the rightness oI the procedure we propo-
sed (Eigure 2), as by experimental plan-
ning such kinds oI Iinishing were designe-
dly accepted which could ascertain a diI-
Ierentiation oI the Iabrics' handle, and oI
its improvement compared to the handle
oI raw Iabrics.
However, on the basis oI the values cal-
culated it can be stated that the remaining
Iactors, i.e. the type oI raw material used,
weave, and weIt density, also have an in-
Iluence, independently oI the inIluence oI
Iinishing type.
Ane|ys|s of |nf|uence of weft
0ens|ty, weeve, end F|n|sh|ng
Type on the 0enere| hend|e
Fector
The inIluence oI weIt density and the we-
ave used on the general handle Iactor oI
raw Iabrics is shown in Eigure 3. It was
noted that when considering woven Iabrics
oI plain weave, the Iabrics with the smal-
lest weIt density (220/dm) are characteri-
sed by the best handle, those oI 270/dm
weIt density by a worse handle, and those
oI 320/dm by the worst handle. Among
Iabrics oI 320/dm weIt density, the highest
value oI the general handle Iactor could
be noted Ior Iabrics with twill weave, a
lower value Ior Iabrics with combined
weave, and the lowest Ior those with pla-
in weave. Similar trends could also be ob-
served Ior the majority oI Iinished Iabrics,
although not Ior all (see Eigures 4 and 5).
Eor Iabrics with starch Iinishing (S) ma-
nuIactured Irom cotton rotor yarn and po-
lyester ring spun yarn with a content oI
CO 67/PES 33, the maximum value
oI the general handle Iactor was achieved
Ior Iabrics oI intermediate weIt density
(270/dm). Moreover, the Iabrics manuIac-
tured Irom cotton rotor yarn and polyester
ring spun yarn with a content oI CO 50/
GHF
0.016
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.024
CO OE CO CO67/PES33 CO50/PES50 CO33/PES67
GHF
0.016
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.024
CO OE CO CO67/PES33 CO50/PES50 CO33/PES67
Figure 4. General handle factor GHF for fabrics finished with starch in dependence on: a) weft density, - 220/dm, - 270/dm, - 320/dm;
b) weave of the fabric, - plain, - combined, - twill.
GHF
0.019
0.021
0.023
0.025
0.027
CO OE CO CO67/PES33 CO50/PES50 CO33/PES67
GHF
0.019
0.021
0.023
0.025
0.027
CO OE CO CO67/PES33 CO50/PES50 CO33/PES67
Figure 5. General handle factor GHF for fabrics elastomerically finished in dependence on: a) weft density, - 220/dm, - 270/dm, - 320/dm;
b) weave of the fabric, - plain, - combined, - twill.
ELASTOMER a) ELASTOMER b)
IN
IN
GQF
GHF
1
=
STARCH a) STARCH b)
47
Fl8RE3 & TEXTlLE3 |r Eas|err Europe Apr|| / Jure 2003, vo|. 11, No. 2 (11)
PES 50 and combined weave are cha-
racterised, in the case oI starch Iinishing
(S), by better handle than Iabrics oI twill
and plain weave (Eigure 5).
Using elastomeric Iinishing (E), it was
noted that in two cases (Ior Iabrics oI pla-
in weave manuIactured Irom cotton rotor
yarn and oI blended cotton/polyester ring
spun yarn with a content oI CO 67/PES
33) a distinct diIIerence in the trends
observed Ior raw Iabrics was stated, toge-
ther with opposite trends Ior both oI the
Iabric groups mentioned above.
No explicit inIluence oI the type oI raw
material used on the handle oI raw and
Iinished Iabrics was observed, though Ia-
brics manuIactured Irom diIIerent raw
materials diIIer among themselves by the
value oI the general handle Iactor. Howe-
ver, as a rule it can be stated that the Iac-
tors oI Iabrics with a content oI PES Ii-
bres have a lower value.
The inIluence oI the type oI Iabric Iini-
shing on the value oI the general handle
Iactor (GHE) are presented in Eigure 6.
The results are arranged separately Ior
each group oI Iabrics manuIactured Irom
the same raw material, as listed below:
GIM1 - fabrics from cotton rotor
yarn,
GIM2 - fabrics from cotton ring spun
yarn,
GIM3 - fabrics from blended ring
spun yarn of content Co67/PES33,
G
H
F
CO 100 x OL
0,012
0,014
0,015
0,018
0,020
0,022
0,024
0,025
P 22 P 27 P 82 C 82 1 82
CO 100 x
0,012
0,014
0,016
0,01S
0,020
0,022
0,024
0,026
22 27 32 C 32 1 32
CO 67 x / L5 33 x
0,012
0,014
0,015
0,018
0,020
0,022
0,024
0,025
P 22 P 27 P 82 C 82 1 82
CO 50 x / L5 50 x
0,012
0,014
0,015
0,018
0,020
0,022
0,024
0,025
P 22 P 27 P 82 C 82 1 82
5
A
8
CO 33 x / L5 67
0,012
0,014
0,016
0,01S
0,020
0,022
0,024
0,026
22 27 32C 32 1 32
GIM4 - fabrics from blended ring
spun yarn of content Co50/PES50,
and
GIM5 - fabrics from blended ring
spun yarn of content Co33/PES67.
The highest general handle Iactor oI all
analysed groups oI Iabrics was noted Ior
Iabrics with elastomeric (E) Iinishing,
whereas raw Iabrics were characterised by
the lowest value oI the general handle Iac-
tor, which means the worst handle.
8ummery end 6onc|us|ons
The experimental investigations and the
theoretical analysis carried out allowed us
to state that:
A general factor of handle quality, ba-
sed on mechanical parameters determi-
ned with the use of an Instron tensile-
tester, was elaborated; and the influen-
ce of weft density, weave, raw mate-
rial, and finishing was analysed.
A possibility exists of anticipating the
fabric's handle on the basis of tests per-
formed for obtaining the mechanical
parameters of the fabric with the use of
an Instron tensile-tester.
The authors suggest that a comparative
analysis be carried out between the ge-
neral handle factor (GHF) and the THV
obtained from the KES-F system as a
continuation of this research.
Acknowledgement
The problem was presented on the TEXCI
,
2003 Conference in Liberec, Czech Republic.
References
1. De Boos A.G., Tester D.H., 'The Fast Ap-
proach to Improved Fabric Performance',
CSIRO, Division of Wool Technology,
Australia, Textile Objective Measurement
and Automation in Garment Manufactu-
re, ed. George Stylios, Ellis Horvood,
1991.
2. De Boos A.G., Tester D.H., 'The Fast Ap-
proach to Improved Fabric Performance',
CSIRO, Division of Wool Technology,
Australia, Textile Objective Measurement
and Automation in Garment Manufactu-
re, ed. George Stylios, Ellis Horvood,
1991.
3. Kawabata S., Niwa M., 'Fatigue Pheno-
mena in the Mechanical Properties of Clo-
thing Fabrics During Repeated Shear
Deformation under Constant Extension
Load', J. Textile Mach. Soc. Jpn., 29, T
171-182, 1976.
4. Kawabata S., 'The Standardisation and
Analysis of Hand Evaluation', The Textile
Machinery Society of Japan, Osaka, 1980.
5. Frydrych I., 'Obiektywna ocena chwytu.
Cz. II' (in Polish - 'Objective estimation of
handle'), Przeglqd Wlkienniczy 4, 9-12,
1997.
6. Pna N., Zeronian S.H., Ryu H.S., 'An Al-
ternative Approach to Objective Measu-
rement of Fabrics', Tex. res. J. , T 63 (1),
p. 33.
Figure . Influence of the type of
finishing on the general handle
factor GHF; R - raw, S - starch
finishing, E - elastomer finishing.
R
S
E
CHF COTTON 100% OE CHF COTTON 100%
CHF COTTON 67% / PES 33%
CHF COTTON 50% / PES 50%
CHF COTTON 33% / PES 67%
Peceived 0J.06.2002 Peviewed 09.07.200J