Textile Research

http://trj.sagepub.com/
Journal

Effects of Different Structural Parameters on Carpet Physical Properties

Emel Önder and Ömer Berk Berkalp
Textile Research Journal 2001 71: 549
DOI: 10.1177/004051750107100613

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://trj.sagepub.com/content/71/6/549

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Textile Research Journal can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://trj.sagepub.com/content/71/6/549.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2001

What is This?

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

JUNE 2001 549

Effects of Different Structural Parameters on Carpet Physical Properties

EMELONDERAND OMERBERKBERKALP
Mechariical Fncrrlty, Depnrtriierit of Textile Engineering, lsttlrtbiil Techriicnl Uriiversity, Istnnbul, Tirrkey

ABSTRACT
This paper deals with some of the physical properties of face-to-face woven carpets
with different structural parameters. Based on appearance retention, abrasion resistance,
and tuft withdrawal tests, effective parameters of carpet quality are determined by
variance and regression analyses, and the changing characteristics are emphasized in order
to direct attention to weaknesses, which are important for total carpet performance.

Both mechanical and optical characteristics make up
the physical properties of a carpet and ultimately influ-
ence its performance significantly. Mechanical properties
are used to explain walking comfort and abrasion-related
wear, and optical properties are used to explain, carpet
appearance.
A carpet need not retain its original appearance to be
acceptable in use, but the nature andmte of any apparent
change has an important influence on the qssessment of
wear performance. The effects of wear can be character-
ized in terms of texture and’color differences, most
notably phenomena such as pile flattening, reduction in
tuft clarity, shading, soiling, and loss of color. The ability
to resist these changes varies between carpets due to the
vast number of manufacturing variables, for instance,
fiber composition, yam processing route, carpet struc-
ture, tuft morphology, and pile dimensions [21].
Current standardized tests for appearance retention
involve different kinds of testers, like the hexapod tum-
bler tester [4], the WIRA dynamic loading tester [5,6, 131,
the WRONZ carpet wear simulator [3], an abrasion simu-
lator recently developed by Pourdeyhimi et 01. [ 171, and
subjective panels for grading the extent of change in
tested samples from the original [I]. A reliable, repro-
ducible rating method would ultimately require all sub-
jective elements to be measured objectively. To meet the
demands for objective measurements of carpet appear-
ance characteristics, many instrumental methods have
been developed over the past decades, including micros-
copy [22], photography [22], densitometry [ 121, gonio-
photometry [3], glass bead filling [2], and image analysis
[lo, 14-16, 18-20, 231. Of these methods, image anal-
ysis has shown great potential as an automated approach
for quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of carpet
appearance.
Research on the mechanical properties of carpet first
focused on resilience, which depends on the compression
and recovery behavior of each pile. El-Shiekh and Hersh
[8] explained the energies leading to a carpet’s resil-
ience: a pile returns to its original state if the energies
preventing the recovery are smaller than the elastic en-
ergy released during yarn bending. Dynamic-compres-
sion properties of carpets are characterized by several
unique features: the stress/strain compression curve is
nonlinear, there is hysteresis (i.e., energy dissipation)
during a compression-release cycle, and the compression
modulus and energy dissipation per cycle are affected by
the magnitude of the pressure displacement involved [7].
Two other features related to carpet mechanical prop-
erties are inelastic mechanisms and fatigue mechanisms.
Interfiber and interyarn frictional sliding during yarn
bending and viscoelastic properties of pile yarns are two
important inelastic mechanisms influencing the flattening
of carpets. Using a rheological model, Carnaby and
Wood [3] pointed out that the inelastic properties of
fibers become prevalent with increasing compression-
release cycles. A carpet’s fatigue mechanism is one of
pile loss from the carp‘et’s surface due to abrasive wear.
If the fatigue regions are not partial and distributed along
the pile length, the pile weight left after walking on the
carpet depends on the number of repetition cycles, the
pile density, the linear density of the fibers, and the
percent of damaged fibers.
In this study, we examine the effects of important
structural parameters on a carpet’s wear and texture
retention and on the magnitude of tuft withdrawal forces
using standardized test methods. The methods currently
used in the industry are still expensive, and in addition,
there is a lack of experienced specialists, so evaluation
results are highly variable. Our purpose is to show the
general tendencies for the performance characteristics of
widely used machine made carpet constructions.
Materials and Methods
In order to indicate some of the physical properties, we
examined a set of twelve face-to-face woven carpets

Textile Res. J. 71(6), 549-555 (2001) 0010-5 175/%2.00

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

550 TEXTILE
RESEARCH
JOURNAL

varying in pile material, pile height, and weft density.
We focused on three main carpet properties-appearance
retention, abrasion resistance, and tuft withdrawal force.
Other structural parameters, three-shot weave, warp
density, Ne 14/3 PETkOtton warp, Ne 1414 PETICOttOn
filling, and 4800 X 2 dtex jute weft, and conditional
parameters such as the production process and indoor
climate were held constant. The carpets’ construction
parameters are given in Table I.
The pile materials of the wool and acrylic carpets were
staple fiber yarns, Nm 15/3 and Nm 1 0 3 2 , respectively,
whereas that of polypropylene carpets was 1800 dtex
continuous filament yam. All three carpet pile yams had
approximately the same final yam count of Nm 5 . Fur-
thermore, the plied twist levels of the two staple fiber
yams were close to a,,,= 90. Conversely, polypro-
pylene piles had a lower twist of 99 tpm. The fineness
values of wool, acrylic, and polypropylene fibers were 38
microns, 10 denier (36 microns), and 9 denier (38 mi-
crons), respectively. But there were no other similar yam
characteristics, since the experimental study involved
industrial conditions, and commercial carpets were ex-
amined for physical properties. - with a 500 N load cell and an accuracy of 5%. One end
The appearance retention of carpets was tested in a
hexapod tumbler tester and evaluated at two levels: for
short term, 1500 revolutions, and for long term, 8000
revolutions, each according to IWS test method 247 [9].
Afterwards, specimens were evaluated according to
ASTM 2401-D67: wear was assessed visually and the
change in carpet thickness was measured. Two speci-
mens for each carpet construction were tested in the
hexapod.
The fatigued specimen was placed alongside an orig-
inal carpet specimen of similar size, ensuring that both
lay in the same direction relative to the pile lay and that,
if the carpet was patterned, a similar pattern area was
compared. The change in surface structure imparted vi-
sual and tactile changes that could be analyzed by ex-
amining the flattening and crushing of the pile, the loss of
tuft definition (distinctness) and thickness, and the de-
gree of pattern clarity. The reference scale started at 5 ,
corresponding to no or a very slight change, and ended at
1, corresponding to a severe change. Comparisons were
made by a panel of five trained observers, and the indi-
vidual ratings of the panel members were averaged to the
nearest 0.1 grade to obtain a score for each carpet at each
wear level. However, changes in color (tone, depth,
brightness) were assessed against the standard large gray
scales.
The pile thickness of the unworn and worn carpet
specimens was measured with a WRONZ pile-thickness
probe [ 111. Measurements were replicated ten times on
each test specimen for each wear level.
The abrasion resistance characteristics of carpets were
determined on a WIRA carpet abrasion machine [27]. Two
tests were made for each specimen, and abrasion resis-
tance was estimated by the number of rubs required to
reveal the backing.
The withdrawal force to remove tufts (or pile) from
the carpets was determined by a tensile testing machine
of a tuft was gripped and pulled upwards out of the
structure, and the force required to break the bond be-
tween the tuft and the backing structure was recorded [ 13.
Ten tests were made of each carpet type.
Statistical Analysis
Test results were evaluated statistically, and SPSS and
Grapher 2.OD were used for all statistical procedures.
Variance and regression analyses were used to correlate
change in carpet thickness with the level of wear. The
data set was analyzed as’a whole in order to assess the
significance of pile material, and then a variance analysis
for each carpet group (wool, acrylic, and polypropylene)
was made in the form of a factorial design, considering

TABLE
I. Carpets’ construction parameters.
Sample Pile twist, Pile density per m2, Pile height, Pile weight, Total weight,
no. Pile material Pile no. Single/Plied, tpm warp X weft mm g/m2 g/m2
I Wool Nrn 1513 389 ZnOl S 500 x 500 7 1232.0 2252.5
2 Wool Nrn 1513 389 Z 2 0 1 S 500 x 500 9 1545.6 2572.5
3 Wool Nrn 1513 389 a 2 0 1 S 500 X 600 7 .2010.0 3043.0
4 Wool Nrn 1513 389 a 2 0 1 S 500 X 600 9 225 1.6 3269.5
5 Acrylic Nm 10.5/2 277 a 2 0 4 S 500 x 500 7 1276.0 228 1.5
6 Acrylic Nrn 10.512 277 Z 2 0 4 S 500 x 500 9 1367.5 2375.0
7 Acrylic Nrn 10.512 277 Zn04 S 500 X 600 7 1312.7 23 18.4
8 Acrylic Nrn 10.5/2 277 Z 2 0 4 S 500 X 600 9 1568.2 2572.0
9 Polypropylene 1800 dtex 99 z 500 x 500 7 1265.3 2272.5
10 Polypropylene 1800 dtex 99 z 500 x 500 9 1515.6 2527.5
I1 Polypropylene 1800 dtex 99 2 500 X 600 7 1400.0 2406.0
12 Polypropylene 1800 dtex 99 z 500 X 600 9 1525.7 2536.0

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

JUNE 2001 55 1

the weft density at two levels (500 and 600 picks per m),
pile height at two levels (7 and 9 mm), and wear at three
levels (0, 1500, and 8000 revolutions in the hexapod) as
independent variables and the thickness change of the
pile as a dependent variable.
Although two nominal values of unworn pile height
were considered, 7 and 9 mm, respectively, in effect,
actual pile heights varied slightly in a range due to the
shearing process in finishing. In order to determine the
real thickness loss, measurements of the origiFl pile
height were taken into account in the analyses.
Using multivariate regression, we developed three pre-
dictive models relating the tuft thickness of each carpet
group to the varying conditions explained above. Fur-
thermore, data from each of the three groups of carpets
could be regressed individually to estimate the thickness
change over wear levels of 1500 and 8000 revolutions of
the hexapod.
Mean abrasion resistance valuei of two carpet speci-
mens were assessed for each carpet group and subgroups
of pile height and weft density. A similar variance anal-
ysis was also made of the tuft withdrawal force data.
Results and Discussion
RETENTION
APPEARANCE EVALUATIONS
OF CARPETS
Mean values of visual assessments of carpets for ap-
pearance retention are given in Table 11. In the table,
there was no significant change in surface structure and
color after 1500 revolutions of the hexapod tumbler for
all carpet types. After 8000 revolutions of the hexapod
tumbler, changes in the surface structure of carpet spec-
imens graded as a 3 or 4 corresponded to only a slight or
moderate change in structure. Thus, these carpets, espe-
cially the denser types, kept their pattern clarity. On the
other hand, color changes in the carpeJs are influenced by
fiber dullness or brightness, color shade (light or dark),
and pattern type. For these reasons, these results showed
no relationship between wear induced changes in surface
structure and color.
On the other hand, in polypropylene carpet specimens,
we saw a remarkable tuft flattening after 8000 revolu-
tions in the hexapod tumbler. The major deficiency of
polypropylene is appearance retention: the carpet as-
sumes a matted appearance in high-traffic areas [26].
Conversely, the wool carpets, due to their superior resil-
ience properties [25], did not show significant flattening.
The acrylic carpets also lost their appearance without any
flattening.
Variance analyses for each pile material group, shown
as the main effects of pile height and number of revolu-
tions in the hexapod, were significant at the level of a
5 0.05, but the main effect of weft density was insig-
nificant. This might be explained by the respective range
of factor levels: weft density did not change over as great
a range as the others. If we had chosen levels of weft or
pile density further apart (instead of 500 and 600 picks
perm), they might well have contributed to the thickness
loss. Table 111 and Figure 1 show the mean values of tuft
thickness changes, based on data collected from mea-
surements at two weft density levels. Meanwhile, only
the two-way interactions-weft density X number of
revolutions and pile material X number of revolutions of
polypropylene carpets-were significant.
Here, we see that mean thickness loss values of wool
carpets with respect to the original pile height in mm
after 1500 and 8000 revolutions in the hexapod tumbler
were about 0.43 and 2.00 mm, respectively, for the 7 mm

11. Visual assessment grades of carpets.

TABLE

Wool. Wool. Acrylic. Acrylic, PP. PP,

500 x 500" 500 X 600 500 x 500 500 X 600 500 x 500 500 X 600

Pile Height: 7 mm
After 1500 revolutions
Color 4 (0.26) 4.2 (0.22) 4 (0.24) 4 (0.24) 3.6 (0.16) 3.8 (0.34)
Surface structure 4(0.31) 4.2 (0.16) 4 (0.20) 4 (0.39) 4 (0.19) 3.8 (0.26)
After 8000 revolutions
Color 2.6 (0.40) 2.6 (0.43) 3.2 (0.47) 2.8 (0.38) 2.8 (0.25) 3.2 (0.16)
Surface structure 3.2 (0.49) 3.6 (0.35) 3.2 (0.17) 3.4 (0.24) 3 (0.32) 3.2 (0.31)
Pile Height: 9 mm
After 1500 revolutions
Color 4.2 (0.23) 4.2 (0.3I ) 4.2 (0.4) 4 (0.25) 3.8 (0.27)
Surface structure 4.2 (0.26) 4.2 (0.24) 4 (0.32) 4 (0.19) a.;o!;O:s) 4 (0.19)
After 8000 revolutions
Color 2.6 (0.28) 2.8 (0.31) 3.2 (0.29) 3.4 (0.41) 3 (0.39) 3 (0.30)
Surface structure 3.2 (0.26) 4 (0.26) 3.2 (0.19) 3.4 (0.26) 3 (0.20) 3 (0.22)

a Ends per m X picks per rn. Each standard deviation given in brackets, is obtained from five individual assessments.

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

552 RESEARCHJOURNAL
TEXTILE

TABLE
111. hlean tuft thickness changes of cut pile carpets after hexapod tumbler testing.’

0 RevolutioTs 1500 Revolutions 1 8000 Revolutions

Pile material I1 hlean S I1 hlean T I2 hlean S

Wool 7 mrn 16 8.09 0.31 I5 7.66 0.88 15 6.09 * 0.42

9 mm 20 10.08 0.26 20 9.83 0.27 20 8.31 0.56
Acrylic 7 mrn 17 1.74 0.44 20 7.56 0.5 1 20 5.9s 0.53
9 mm 16 9.79 0.43 20 8.87 0.50 20 7.36 0.75
PP 7 nim 20 8.68 0.51 20 7.13 0.43 20 5.93 0.75
9 mm 20 10.42 0.33 15 9.05 0.50 20 6.76 0.51

‘11 = number of observations. s = standard deviation. Pooled estimates of variance of each column are 0.1696. 0.2951. and 0.3933.

12
T),.= - 1.858R2 + 0.0012W + 2.137HP
10

a T,, = -1.971R, - 0.1681V+ 1.613Hp

- - 0.524RI + 8.017 , (2)
f 6
x
-
5
4
T p = -3.201 R, - 0.0684\V + 1 .297Hp
2

0
wool. 7 m WOOI. s mn acryk. 7 mn a c r y k . 9 m
material. pde height (m)
FIGURE
I. hlean tuft thickness changes of cut-pile carpets
after hexapod tumbler tcsting.
pile height, and 0.25 and 1.74 nim, respectively, for the
9 mm pile height (see Table 111). Therefore, especially
for 1500 revolutions in the hexapod tumbler, the mean
thickness loss of 9 mm pile height wool carpets was less
than that of 7 mm pile height wool carpets. But the mean
values of acrylic and polypropylene carpets of longer
pile height were more than carpets of shorter pile height
for both 1500 and 8000 revolutions in the hexapod.
Using multivariate regression, we developed the fol-
lowing equations for each group of carpets to estimate
the tuft thickness change resulting from our hexapod
wear treatment [24]:
where T,,., To, and T,, respectively denote the tuft thick-
PP. 7 nm PD. 9 mn
ness of wool, acrylic, and polypropylene carpets in mm.
Degrees of freedom for Equations 1, 2, and 3 were 102,
108, and 110, and their squared multiple regression co-
efficients ( r 2 )were 0.89, 0.82, and 0.88.
Here, the variables R, and R , were used to define the
conditions after 1500 and SO00 revolutions on the hexa-
pod tumbler, respectively. \V represented carpets of 600
picks per rn, and H, denoted carpets of 9 mm pile height.
If a special condition being considered for predicting tuft
thickness matched any of the variables in the formula,
then the matching variable took the value 1; otherwise it
was zero. Calculation results were well suited to corre-
sponding actual values, so Equations 1, 2, and 3 can be
used to estimate the tuft thickness changes in similar
carpet constructions at different wear levels.
Results of simple regression analyses are given in
Table IV and in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Here, y represented
the predicted tuft thickness of the carpet after the hexa-
pod and s represented the original pile height. Each

TABLE
IV. Results of simple regression analysis.”

TY@C 11 2 Regression equation

Wool carpets tuft thickness after 1500 revolutions 36 0.85 y = 1.IO.r - 1.28 (4)
tuft thickness after 8000 revolutions 36 0.79 y = 1.05s - 2.34 (5)
Acrylic carpets tuft thickness after 1500 revolutions 33 0.82 = 0.71~ + 2.08 (6)
tuft thickness after 8000 revolutions 33 0.59 y = 0.72~ + 0.45 (7)
Polypropylene carpets tuft thickness after 1500 revolutions 40 0.57 y = 0.62.r + 2.50 (8)
tuft thickness after 8000 revolutions 40 0.15 y = 0.30.r + 3.46 (9)

12 = number of observations, r z = squared multiple regression coefficients.

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

 4
JUNE 2001 553
12.0 -, 12.0 1
i I
-1
1500 rpm

/. ..
7
-
E
E
'0
.- 1500rpm

. .... .
x
m
0

0) ' 8000 rpm

a .
& 8.0

7
m ' * *
* , :8000 rpm
..
u) . 9
0
t
0
Y

. ' . ....
._
r
;
r
'* : , m .
1
I- I 0

4.0 7 -
4.0 1 I '
8.0 12.0 8.0 12.0
Tuft thickness before Hexapod(mm) Tufl thickness before Hexapod (rnrn)

2. Simple regression lines for wool carpets,

FIGURE 4. Simple regression lines for polypropylene carpets.
FIGURE

1 regression equation was derived based on the data in-

-1
12.0
cluding 11 observations given in Table IV combined from
four sets of values for carpets of different weft densities
E and pile heights.
E 1500 rprn
v
Wool carpet thickness loss predictions from Equations
4 and 5 were 0.47-0.27 mm after 1500 revolutions and
1.93-1.84 mm after 8000 revolutions. Table V shows
these values together with the calculated means obtained
from measurements given in Table 111. Equations 6 and 7
for acrylic carpets estimated losses slightly less than the
mean value but indicated the general tendency. Hence,
these equations are well adjusted with the data.

. Conversely, for polypropylene carpet data, after 1500

revolutions of the hexapod, the shorter the unworn pile

4.0
II I I
1 I
I I
height, the less the loss under wear: estimated values
(0.80 versus 1.46 mrn) approached mean values (0.95
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 versus 1.37 rnrn). Equation 9 with its low correlation
Tuft thickness before hexapod (mm) coefficient did not represent a reasonable model, but we
obtained comparably good results. Therefore the models
3. Simple regression lines for acrylic carpets.
FIGURE in Table IV, except for Equation 9, are meaningful for

TABLE
V. Thickness loss with respect to original length (mm)."

7 mm Pile height 9 mm Pile height

Thickness loss with respect to original pile
height, mm Estimated Mean loss Estimated Mean loss

Wool carpets R1500 0.47 0.43 0.27 0.25

R8000 1.93 2.00 .I34 1.74
Acrylic carpets R1500 0.16 0.18 0.76 0.92
R8000 1.72 1.76 2.29 2.23
Polypropylene carpets R1500 0.80 0.95 1.46 1.37
R8000 2.62 2.75 3.84 3.66

Estimated values are obtained from the equations given in Table IV, mean losses are obtained from Table 111.

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

554 TEXTILE
RESEARCH
JOURNAL

estimating actual tuft thickness changes obtained from
our experimental study.
A test duration of 1500 revolutions in the hexapod was
considered appropriate to determine a change in appear.-
ance after only a short period of use (e.g., 9 months-I
year). The 8000 revolution test was considered to repre-
sent a period of 4-5 years wear in an average household
of 2 adults and 2 children [9]. From this point of view, all
carpets showed good appearance retention over the short
period of wear, but for the longer time period, pile
material differences became a critical factor in appear-
ance retention.
RESULTSOF ABRASION
RESISTANCE
Abrasion resistance was the property for which the
pile material characteristics became more determinant.
Our results also showed that, as evident in Figure 5 , weft
density played an important role in the- abrasion resis-
tance of all three groups of carpets, and pile height was
less effective.
force for (Y 5 0.05, and only the main effect of pile
height and the two-way interaction of pile height X weft
density changed it significantly.
Tuft withdrawal forces were generally higher for car-
pets with longer pile height (see Table VI). Longer piles
might develop higher frictional resistance to being pulled
out of the carpet. However, despite the availability of a
certain interlacing pattern constructed between pile and
ground yarns, differing float lengths of dead piles in the
backing related to the color design of the carpet led to a
great variation in total pile lengths, and thus in nieasure-
ment values for the same test specimen. This apparently
limited recognition of the main effects of construction
parameters; for instance, the increased weft density of
polypropylene carpets did not greatly contribute forces.
VI. The mean value of tuft withdrawal force
TABLE
for each carpet type.”
Tuft withdrawal force, g

Pile height, 7 mm Pile height. 9 mrn

40030
hlaterial type II hlean 5 II hlean s
35000
\Vool, 500 X 500h 10 350.0 99.4 10 9S9.0 402.5
3 m
Wool, 500 X 600 10 861.0 290.6 10 640.0 140.5
-~ 2 c o o o
$ 2 m Acrylic, 500 X 500
Acrylic, 500 X 600
10
10
651.0
970.0
235.9
317.5
10
10
723.0
9740
314.6
301.1
PP, 500 x 500 10 614.0 182.3 10 1162.0 259.1
5
C
1 m PP. 500 X 600 10 475.0 176.6 10 682.0 313.9
loo00
’11 = nurnher of obwvations, s = standard deviation. Pooled
estimates of \ariance of each column are 6206567 and
0 99153.13. Ends per m X picks per rn
wool, 7mm wool, 9mm acrylic. acrylic. pp. 7mm pp. 9rrm
7mm 9mm

FIGURE5. Abration resistance results of carpets: average number
of rubs to reveal backin:.
In wool carpets, evidence of lack of abrasion was a
partial revealing of backing on each carpet specimen. In
carpets made of synthetic fiber Yarns, this Phenomenon
took place simu~taneouslyall Over the Surface; i n partic-
ular, fibers of polypropylene piles initially flattened and
then melted with rubbing as would a thermoplastic. They
retreated to reveal the backing. Abrasion resistance re-
sults were better for denser carpets. Moreover, increased
pile height normally retarded abrasion.
RESULTSOF TUFTWITHDRAWAL
FORCE
An analysis of variance (AXOVA)for all the data
showed that differences between pile materials did not
cause a great variance in the level of tuft withdrawal
Conclusions
In this study, we have shown that beyond pile mate-
rial, other carpet structural parameters such as pile height
and weft density influence the effective floor life of
carpets.
Since good appearance retention is one of the most
important and desirable attributes of overall carpet per-
formance, it is often regarded as being more critical than
even long term durability. From this point of view, pile
nlaterial and pile density rrlust be considered as critical
construction parameters.
By using three multiple regression models, developed
for commercial three-shot Wilton carpets made from
wool, acrylic, and polypropylene piles, we can predict
the tuft thickness values under varying conditions of
numbers of revolutions in the hexapod, pile height, and
weft density. Moreover, simple regression expressions
can model the experimental data set, relating worn tuft

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014

JUNE2001
thickness to unworn tuft thickness, and these expressions
help us to interpret tuft loss. But these models are inferior
at higher levels of wear, just because the feet of the
hexapod tumble randomly against a carpet specimen,
leading to a greater variation in worn pile heights.
We have observed that a carpet’s abrasion resistance is
mainly determined by the pile yarn characteristics, but no
matter what kind of pile used, an increased amount of
tuft noticeably improves this property. Thus, a carpet’s
abrasion resistance can be improved simply by choosing
appropriate structural parameters to increase pile density.
Our findings about the tuft withdrawal forces of car-
pets imply that this property basically depends on the
carpet’s construction parameters, especially the interlac-
ing design pattern, rather than pile material characteris-
tics such as friction, but further investigation is needed to
find parameters that affect the general tendencies of a
carpet’s tuft withdrawal force more precisely.
In ternis of quality, the advantages of wool, _acrylic,
and polypropylene carpets must be combined with ap-
propriate construction parameters. Describing the nature
of relationships and the correlation between independent
and dependent carpet variables will make a greater con-
tribution to estimates of carpet performance in use.
Hence, carpet manufacturers crtn easily decide the right
structural parameters in their designs to attain high carpet
quality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We wish to thank Giimiipuyu A.S. for providing us
the carpet samples and the use of their laboratory.
Literature Cited
I . American Society for Testing and hlaterials, Annual Book, 21.
of ASThl Standards, vol. 7, Textiles, Philadelphia. 1986.
2. Carnaby, G. A., and Thomas, B. L., A Simple Tcchnique
for hleasuring the Textural Properties of Carpets, Textile 22.
Res. J. 48, 234-248 (1978).
3. Carnaby, G. A., and Wood, E. J., The Physics of Carpets,
J . Te.rfile bzsr. 80, 7 1 ( 1 989).
4. Clegg, D. G., A Test for the Assessment of Compression
During Wear, J . Textile h t . 53, T317 (1962).
5. Clegg, D. G., Correlation Between Floor Trials on Carpets
and Tests on WlRA Dynamic Loading hlachine, J. Texfile 25. Hall, A. J., “The Standard Handbook of Textiles,”
h t . 56, T636 (1965).
6. Dunlop, J. I., and Barher, A., A Wear Simulator for Testing 26.
Carpets, J. Telrile I m t . 62, 108 (1971).
7. Dunlop, J. I., On the Compression Characteristics of Fibre 27. Taylor, A. M.,“Technology of Textile Properties,” 3rd ed.,
hlasses. J. Texrile h s r . 74 (2), 92-97 (1953).
8. El-Shiekh, A., and Hersh, S. P., “Studies in Modern Fab-
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on July 9, 2014
555
rics,” P. W. Harrison, Ed., The Textile Institute, Manches-
ter, 1970, p. 159.
9. IWS Test Method, Thl: 247, September 1992.
10. Jose, D. J.. Hollies, N. R. S., and Spivak, S. M.. Instru-
mental Techniques to Quantify Textural Change in Carpet,
J. Texrile hsr. 77, 591-597 (1986).
I I . Lappage, J., Bedford, J., and Crook. D., The WRONZ
Carpet Pile Thickness Gauge. J. Teirile hist. 75 (3). 229-
234 ( 1 984).
12. hlukhopadhyay, S. K., Sengoul. A., and Wilding, M. A.,
An Optical hlethod of hleasuring Appearance Changes in
Carpet, J. Textile bzst. 93 (3). 429-435 (1993).
13. Onions, W. J., An Assessment of hlethods of Test of
Carpets for Flattening, Change of Appearance and Long-
term Wear, J. Textile I m r . 58, 487 (1967).
14. Pourdeyhimi. B., Sobus, J., and Xu, B., Evaluating Carpet
Appearance Loss: Periodicity and Tuft Placement, Textile
Res. J. 6-1 ( I ) , 21-32 (1991).
15. Pourdeyhirni, B., Nayernouri, A., and Xu, B., Evaluating
Carpet Appearance Loss: Pile Lay Orientation, Textile Res.
J. 64 (3), 130-135 (1991).
16. Pourdeyhimi, B., Sobus, J., and Xu, B., Evaluating Carpet
Appearance Loss: Surface Intensity and Roughness, Tex-
tile Res. J. 63 (9), 523-535 (1993).
17. Pourdeyhimi, B., Ranianathan, R., and Javadpour, S., A
New Carpet Wear Simulator, Tatile Res. J. 61 (9), 528-
533 (1991).
IS. Presley, A. B., Evaluation of Carpet Appearance Loss:
Structural Factors, Textile Res. J. 67 (3). 174-180 (1997).
19. Sohus, J., Pourdeyhirni, B., Gerde, J., and Ulcay. Y., As-
sessing Changes in Texture Periodicity Due to Appearance
Loss in Carpets: Grey Level Co-occurence Analysis, Tex-
rile Res. J. 61 (lo), 557-561 (1991).
20. Sohus, J., Pourdcyliimi, B., Xu, B., and Ulcay, Y., Evalu-
ating Loss of Texture Definition in Carpets Using Mathe-
matical hlorphology: Covariance, Texrile Res. J. 62 ( I ) , 26
( I 992).
Tifcon 92 Carpets-The Changing Environinent, in “Proc.
Textile Institute Floorcoverings Conference,” October 29-
30, 1992.
Wilding, M. A., Lornas, B., and Woodhouse, A. K.,
Changes Due to Wear in Tufted Pile Carpets, Textile Res.
J. 60, 627-640 (1990).
23. Xu, B., Assessing Carpet Appearance Retention by Image
Analysis, Textile Res. J. 61 (12), 697-709 (1991).
24. Neter, J., Wasserman, W.. and Whitmore, G. A., “Applied
Statistics,” 4th ed., Allyn and Bacon, 1992, pp. 599-650.
Newnes-Butterworth, p. 19.
Masson, J. C., “Acrylic Fiber Technology and Applica-
tions,” hlarcel Dekker, 1995, pp. 341-371.
Forbes Publication, 1997, p. 260.
Alonarrripf received December 7. 1999; uccepfrd A i q i i s f 21. 2000.