Textile Research Journal

http://trj.sagepub.com/

Investigation on the impact and compression-after-impact properties of warp-knitted spacer fabrics

Xiaofang Guo, Hairu Long and Li Zhao
Textile Research Journal 2013 83: 904 originally published online 22 November 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0040517512461682

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://trj.sagepub.com/content/83/9/904

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/83/9/904.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 21, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 22, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com by Narayanan Gokarneshan on March 20, 2014

Original article
Textile Research Journal
83(9) 904–916

Investigation on the impact and ! The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

compression-after-impact properties sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0040517512461682

of warp-knitted spacer fabrics

trj.sagepub.com

Xiaofang Guo, Hairu Long and Li Zhao

Abstract
The paper reports an experimental study on the influence of spacer fabrics’ structures, that is, different surface
stitches, fabric thicknesses, and diameters of spacer yarns, on the impact and compression-after-impact properties
of warp- knitted spacer fabrics. Low-velocity impact tests, damage deformation characterizations, and compression
tests after impacts were performed on six spacer-fabric specimens knitted on a double needle bar Raschel knitting
machine. The impact method was flat-sphere (a flat striker contacted with a fabric wrapped on a hemispherical
steel anvil). Deformation processes of typical spacer fabrics, force–displacement/time and energy–time curves,
impact damage, and residual strength were analyzed and discussed; moreover, peak force, absorbed energy,
damage depth, and the drop-off rate of residual strength were involved to estimate impact and compression-after-
impact properties of the spacer fabrics with different structures. The results show that with the closed surface
structure and coarser spacer yarns, the fabrics have the characteristics of lower peak forces, higher energy-absorption
ability, lower damage depths, and higher drop-off rates of residual strength. Fabrics with higher thickness are of the
features above but they do have lower drop-off rates

Keywords
impact, compression after impact, warp-knitted spacer fabric, residual strength, damage

Warp-knitted spacer fabrics are three-dimensional tex- 11

fabrics were explored based on Van Wyk’s equation.
tile structures consisting of two separate outer fabric
The indentation force deflection (IFD) properties of
layers joined together while being kept apart by
1 different warp-knitted spacer fabrics were studied in a
spacer yarns. As a cushion material, warp-knitted 12
paper by Miao and Ge. Mechanical and the stress–
spacer fabrics have much better moisture
2 strain model of single spacer yarn of warp-knitted
transmission features, better pressure relief 13
spacer fabric were found by Chen Y and Chen
properties, higher air permeability, and lower heat 14 2
3 HL. Energy efficiency and non-linear compression
resistance than polyureth- ane (PU) foam; thus, they 15
behavior of spacer fabrics were investigated as well.
have been widely used in areas such as automobile
3 4 5 The static compression properties of warp-knitted
textiles (cushions or car seats ), sports textiles, and
spacer fabrics have been investigated in many
foundation garments (bra cups, pads for swimwear),
6 researches, as mentioned above. However, few of the
etc. Many studies have been conducted on warp- 6–15
researches focus on the impact behaviors of spacer
knitted spacer fabrics, which mainly focus on their
fabrics. The impact method in the study is flat-sphere,
static compression properties, as well as sound
7 3,8,9
absorption behavior, pressure distri- bution, air
2
permeability, heat resistance, etc.
Studies on static compression behaviors of warp- College of Textiles, Donghua University, China
knitted spacer fabrics are as follows. Some effect fac-
tors, that is, material, pattern, and threading, as well as Corresponding author:
location angle and the number of spacer yarns, on the Hairu Long, College of Textiles, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin
Road, Songjiang District, Shanghai, China.
compression behaviors were investigated by Armakan
10 Email: hrlong@dhu.edu.cn
and Roye. Lateral compressive behaviors of spacer
Guo et al. 905

which is quite different from the impact method (flat- spacer fabrics can be divided into two types: closed
16
flat) in a previous study. As a cushion material, structures without meshes and open structures with
spacer fabric is expected to be sewn into some parts of small/large-size meshes according to their different
cloth- ing, corresponding to injury-prone joints of the shapes. As their typical representatives, pillar +
human body, such as the elbow, femoral greater weft insertion, rhombic mesh, and hexagonal mesh
trochanter, knee, and so on, in order to reduce were used for the surface layers, as shown in Figures
fractures after fall- ing, especially for elderly people 1(a)– (c), respectively.
17
while in motion. A simplified model of the event was It can be seen from Figure 1 that the fabric surface
that of spacer fabric wrapped on a hemispherical steel with pillar + weft insertion is plain, while there are
anvil (joints of human body) impacted with a flat smaller meshes on the fabric with rhombic mesh surface
striker (ground). layers and larger meshes on that with hexagonal mesh
surface layers. The chain notations and materials for
these samples are shown in Table 1.
Experimental details Three different fabric thicknesses were involved in
this study, and the distances between the two needle
Samples bars were 7.2 mm (F4), 10.2 mm (F1), and 13.2 mm
Six warp-knitted spacer fabrics were used in this study. (F5). The distances for the other specimens (F2, F3,
They were produced on a double needle bar Raschel and F6) were all 10.2 mm. In addition, two different
knitting machine (GE 296, E18) at Wuyang Textile diameters of spacer yarns, 0.16 mm (F6) and 0.2 mm
Machinery Co., Ltd, China. Surface structures of

Figure 1. Three different surface structures. (a) Pillar + Weft-insertion, (b) Rhombic mesh, (c) Hexagonal mesh.

Table 1. Chain notations and materials for fabrics with different surface structures
Structure Details of the lapping movements

Pillar + weft insertion GB1: 0-0, 0-0/5-5, 5-5//fully threaded A

GB2: 1-0, 0-0/1-0, 0-0//fully threaded A
GB3: 1-0, 3-2/3-2, 1-0//one B one empty
GB4: 3-2, 1-0/1-0, 3-2//one B one empty
GB5: 0-0, 1-0/0-0, 1-0//fully threaded A
GB6: 5-5, 5-5/0-0, 0-0//fully threaded A
Rhombic mesh GB1: 1-0, 0-0/1-2, 2-2/2-3, 3-3/2-1, 1-1//one A one empty
GB2: 2-3, 3-3/2-1, 1-1/1-0, 0-0/1-2, 2-2//one A one empty
GB3: 1-0, 3-2/3-2, 1-0//one B one empty
GB4: 3-2, 1-0/1-0, 3-2//one B one empty
GB5: 1-1, 1-0/0-0, 1-2/2-2, 2-3/3-3, 2-1//one A one empty
GB6: 2-2, 2-3/3-3, 2-1/1-1, 1-0/0-0, 1-2//one A one empty
Hexagonal mesh GB1: (1-0, 3-3/3-2, 1-1) x 2/1-0, 3-3/3-2, 4-4/(5-4, 3-3/3-2, 4-4) x 2/5-4, 3-3/3-2, 2-2//two A two empty
GB2: (5-4, 3-3/3-2, 4-4) x 2/5-4, 3-3/3-2, 1-1/(1-0, 3-3/3-2, 1-1) x 2/1-0, 3-3/3-2, 4-4//one empty two A one empty
GB3: 1-0, 3-2/3-2, 1-0//one B one empty
GB4: 3-2, 1-0/1-0, 3-2//one B one empty
GB5: (1-1, 1-0/3-3, 3-2) x 3/(4-4, 5-4/3-3, 3-2) x 3//two A two empty
GB6: (4-4, 5-4/3-3, 3-2) x 3/(1-1, 1-0/3-3, 3-2) x 3//one empty two A one empty
Materials ‘A’ and ‘B’ represent 33.3 tex/96 f polyester multifilament and polyester monofilament, respectively.
906 Textile Research Journal 83(9)

(F1), were also included in the investigation. All the sam-

The drop hammer falls freely and is automatically
ples were heat set at 180o C for 3 minutes. The arrested by a secondary impact preventer after
resultant details of all the samples are listed in Table 2.
rebounding to keep it from a second strike. The striker
Despite the same distances between two needle bars face is made of polished steel with dimensions of
(10.2 mm) in warping, actual thicknesses of F1, F2, F3,40 mm x 80 mm and 5 mm radius edges. The weight
and F6 were slightly different, but they were all near of the drop hammer is 6.3080 kg. A polished steel
7 mm; thus, it was considered that thicknesses of theseanvil, set on a firm plane support, is hemispherical
fabrics were close to each other. Similarly, the actualwith a radius of 50 mm. The warp-knitted spacer
thicknesses of F4 and F5 were less than the theoreticalfabric was wrapped on the hemispherical steel
ones on the machine. anvil and four sides of the fabric are caught by
eight clamps on the plane support. Incident impact
energies used for the work were 3.51, 6.51, 10.49,
Impact tests
and 15.44J. For each spacer fabric type, three
The impact tests referred to BS EN1621-1:1998 samples were tested, and every sample was
(Motorcyclists’ protective clothing against mechanical impacted one time. The ultimate value of each type
impact) and were conducted with an Instron Dynatup was the average of the three tests. The samples were
9250HV, which is shown in Figure 2. conditioned in an atmosphere with a temperature of (20
± 2)o C and a relative humidity (RH)

Table 2. Details of all the spacer fabrics

Density

Both surface Thickness Diameter Angle of spacer Weft-wise Warp-wise

Fabric layers (mm) (mm) yarn (degrees) (wale/cm) (course/cm)

F1 Pillar + weft insertion 7.38 0.20 82.27 7.03 5.42

F2 Rhombic mesh 6.96 0.20 80.33 7.07 5.84
F3 Hexagonal mesh 7.26 0.20 77.09 7.08 5.79
F4 Pillar + weft insertion 5.47 0.20 79.30 6.69 5.41
F5 Pillar + weft insertion 10.30 0.20 83.97 7.03 5.61
F6 Pillar + weft insertion 7.02 0.16 82.27 6.84 5.64
Angle of spacer yarn is defined as the acute or right angle between the spacer yarn and the fabric surface.

Figure 2. Impact instrument structure.

Guo et al.
of 65 ± 5%. After positioning a sample on the
steel anvil well, the test was completed within 3 min.
An XSM-LC three-dimensional laser scanner was
used to evaluate damage deformations and depths of
all the specimens after impact. The working principle of
the scanner is shown in Figure 3. A transmitter sent out
a laser to the top surface of a fabric and collected the
reflection to calculate the distance between the fabric
and transmitter; thus, the height of each point on the
fabric surface could be obtained. By a given
scanning area, the laser beam, guided by the
transmitter, moved along the X-axis and Y-axis
directions alternately. The interval of the X-axis was
0.001 mm and that of the Y-axis was 0.1 mm.
Compression-after-impact tests
The compression-after-impact tests were carried out
using a TexLab Precision Instrument CT250, as shown
in Figure 4. The compression curves were obtained from
all the fabrics after conditioning at 20o C and 65%
RH for at least 16 h based on Chinese standard
FZ/T01051.2-1998.
The instrument was composed of a presser foot with
2
a contact area of 20cm , which moved vertically at a
speed of 12 mm/min. The maximum compressibility
was 20%. The size of all the samples was a circle with
2
an area of 50cm .
Analysis of significance tests
The values of peak force, absorbed energy, and
damaged depth of the specimens in the tests were eval-
uated by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA,
Matlab) for each dependent variable. Any difference for
Figure 3. Working principle of XSM-LC three-dimensional
scanner.
907
each dependent variable was considered to be signifi-
cant if the p-value was equal to or less than 0.05.
Results and discussion
Impact behaviors of spacer fabrics
The deformations of fabric during an impact event are
shown in Figure 5. Figure 5(a) presents the side eleva-
tion of an original sample: the top and bottom surfaces
of the fabric are plane and all the spacer yarns bend
slightly on their nature state. When it is wrapped on a
steel anvil (Figure 5(b)), tensile and compressive stres-
ses are produced on the top and bottom surfaces,
respectively. During the loading stage of the impact
process (Figure 5(c)), the spacer fabric stores and
absorbs energy given by the striker, meanwhile, it pro-
duces elastic and plastic deformations so as to reduce
the force transmitted to the steel anvil. Stress in the
contact area is non-uniform due to the specific contact
method (flat-sphere); in particular, the maximum stress
smax occurs at the center of the contact zone (x ¼ 0)
and spacer yarns in the central zone are compressed
more seriously than those in surrounding zone.
In the unloading process (Figure 5(d)), the striker
is rebounded and elastic energy stored in the
spacer fabric is released, the spacer fabric recovers
to some extent as well. After removing the
specimen from the steel anvil (Figure 5(e)), under
the compressive and tensile stresses on the top and
bottom surface, an
Figure 4. Compression-after-impact test instrument.
908
approximate circular pit is formed on the surface of the
specimen and irrecoverable deformation occurs on
spacer yarns in the contact zone, which is shown in
Figure 5(f).
To analyze typical curves of samples during impact
tests, F1 is taken as an example: its force–time and
force–displacement curves are shown in Figures 6(a)
and (b), respectively.
It can be seen from Figures 6(a) and (b) that these
curves vary by increasing incident energy levels both
in magnitude and configuration. At peak forces
(Figures 6(a) and (b)), the maximum displacement
(Figure 6(b)) increases while contact duration
(figure 6(a)) decreases with the rising of impact
energy in the loading stage. Forces drop sharply and
displace- ments decline to some degree in the
unloading stage (Figure 6(b)). Accompanied by
vibrations of the
Figure 5. Deformation of fabric during an impact process.
Figure 6. Typical force-time/displacement curves.
Textile Research Journal 83(9)
machine, force values fluctuate around zero and incline
ultimately to their value. Moreover, the vibrations occur
between the drop hammer and secondary impact
preventer (Figure 2). Since they are both rigid bodies,
the drop hammer cannot stop immediately after
rebounding and being arrested by the preventer; instead,
it will stop gradually with the reducing of vibrations or
collisions (Figure 6(a)).
The change of force is related with two factors
as follows. First is the variation of displacement.
Compression strength increases with the increasing of
2
displacement. The change of contact area resulted
from that of displacement, shown in Figure 7, also
has effects on force values.
It can be seen from Figure 7 that when the striker falls
from Pos. 1 to Pos. 2, its displacement increases from D1
to D2, then the contact area ascends from S1 to S2.
Guo et al. 909

Contact area and displacement satisfy the following to the failure of spacer yarns resulted from the change
relationship: of contact area during loadings.
The energy–time curves of F1 impacted under differ-
2
S ¼ -nD þ 2nðR þ TÞD ð1Þ ent energies are shown in Figure 9.
When the striker impacts with the specimen surface,
where S is the contact area, D is the displacement of the given impact energy by the striker can be classified
the striker, R is the radius of the steel anvil, and T is into two quantities. One is rebounded energy (elastic
the thickness of specimen. energy), which is stored elastically in the specimen
Thus, contact area increases with the increasing of and transferred back to the striker. The other is
displacement. That more spacer yarns exert force on absorbed energy, which is the sum of absorbed
the striker produces a rising force on the striker. energy in the specimen by forming irrecoverable
Second is failure of spacer yarns in the central zone. deformations, and the energy absorbed by the impact
Due to the non-uniform stress on the contact zone, system in vibra- tion, heat, inelastic behavior of
spacer yarns in the center are damaged more striker, and supports; thus, the following relationship
18
seriously than others. The declination of load-bearing exists:
capacities of these damaged spacer yarns leads to the
decrease of the force. Normal spacer yarns and Etotal ¼ Ereb þ Eabs ð2Þ
damaged spacer yarns impacted under lower (3.51J)
and higher energy (15.44J) are shown in Figures 8(a)– where Etotal is the total impact energy, Ereb is
(c), respectively. rebounded energy, and Eabs is absorbed energy.
The two factors above have an effect on the total There is an assumption that the energy absorbed by
force exerted on the striker and the change of force the impact system can be ignored; thus, the total
depends on which factor plays a major role. A contin- energy is the sum of rebounded energy and absorbed
ual rise of force in the loading stage for fabric energy by specimen. In particular, the energy-
subjected to lower impact energy is the result of absorption rates (Eabs/Etotal) of fabric subjected to
increasing of displacement and relatively slight different energies
failure of spacer yarns (Figure 8(b)). While spacer
yarns are damaged more seriously when they are
impacted under higher energy (Figure 8(c)), the force
drops at some instants where the specimen is subjected
to higher energy is due

Figure 7. Variation of contact area with displacement. Figure 9. Typical energy-time curves.

Figure 8. Failure of spacer yarns.

910
are also shown in Figure 9; the ratio decreases with the
increase of impact energies, and the undamaged mater-
ial still can absorb a substantial proportion of the
impact energy for all energy levels.
With the aim of examining the effects of fabric
struc- ture, thickness, and yarn diameter on the impact
behav- ior, force–displacement curves for all samples
subjected to different impact energies are shown in
Figure 10.
It can be seen from Figure 10 that change of forces
for each specimen impacted under different energies has
a tendency of that force’s drop at some instants in the
loading stage in higher energies. For different fabrics
subjected to the same impact energy, an ideal spacer
fabric is considered to absorb more energy, and thus
has lower peak force. The values of peak force and
absorbed energy for all samples impacted under differ-
ent energies are shown in Figures 11(a) and (b),
respect- ively. Significance test results are shown in
Table 3.
F1, F2, and F3 represent spacer fabrics with the
same needle bar distance and same fineness of spacer
yarns, but different surface structures, which are
pillar + weft insertion, rhombic mesh, and
hexagonal
Figure 10. Force-displacement curves for all samples.
Textile Research Journal 83(9)
mesh, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 11(a)
that the Fmax value of fabric with the large-size
meshes on surface layers is higher than that of fabric
with the small-size ones, so the former can be used to
absorb less energy (Figure 11(b)). Two main factors can
account for this phenomenon. Firstly, spacer yarns’
angles of the three samples are AF1 > AF2 > AF3,
which can be seen from Table 2. The fabrics with
higher spacer yarn inclination angles can be used to
absorb more energy in compression behaviors.
2
Secondly, spacer yarns of fabric with large-size
meshes are more inclined to collapse and fail to
deform normally to absorb impact energies; in add-
ition, these spacer yarns are easier to damage, since
parts of them are exposed in the open air and are not
covered by surface layers perfectly.
F1, F4, and F5 represent spacer fabrics with the same
surface structure and same fineness of spacer yarns, but
different needle bar distances, which are 10.2, 7.2, and
13.2 mm, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 11(a)
that the Fmax value of fabric with the larger thickness is
lower than that with the smaller one, so the former can
Guo et al. 911

be used to absorb more total energy than the latter,

which can be seen from Figure 11(b).
F1 and F6 represent spacer fabrics with the same
surface structure and same needle bar distance, but
different finenesses of spacer yarns, which are 0.2 and
0.16 mm, respectively. It can be seen from Figure 11(a)
that the Fmax value of fabric with the coarser spacer
yarns is lower than that with the finer ones, so the
former can be used to absorb more energy than the
latter, which can be seen from Figure 11(b).
Table 3 shows that the effects of surface structure,
fabric thickness, and spacer yarns’ fineness of fabrics
impacted under different energies on peak force and
absorbed energy are all highly significant.
Damage deformation and depth
Although the same method (flat-sphere) was adopted
for all impacts, the damaged surfaces of specimens and
their depth values differed from each other. However,
deformation and depth give an indication of a fabric’s
ability to resist impact: small damage depth demon-
strates good impact resistance in the same conditions.
Typical damaged surface deformations of specimens
examined with the XSM-LC three-dimensional scanner
are shown in Figure 12.
Figures 12(a)–(d) show that surface deformations of
fabrics with the same surface layers (F1) under four
different impact energies resemble each other in shape

Figure 11. Peak forces and absorbed energies for all specimens.

Table 3. Significance test results

Impact energy

Category Specimen Test 3.51J 6.51J 10.49 J 15.44 J

Peak force F1, F2, F3 F(2, 6) 358.123 836.742 13.798 43.632

p <0.001 <0.001 0.006 <0.001
F1, F4, F5 F(2, 6) 20.411 208.358 127.581 347.871
p 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
F1, F6 F(1, 4) 3795.006 289.183 853.265 656.556
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Absorbed energy F1, F2, F3 F(2, 6) 111.026 401.060 44.239 143.820
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
F1, F4, F5 F(2, 6) 150.283 301.647 186.251 96.665
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
F1, F6 F(1, 4) 237.222 647.464 155.348 418.918
p <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
912 Textile Research journal 83(9)

(a) (b)

I e .,
. -·I.S
E " :r::
f ·U ·2

·2

)0
.. . . : u

)0

F1 (impact F1 (impact energy=6.51J)

energy=3.51J)

(c) (d)

I
...
·• I .
E "
E"
··1.S
f ·15
::z: ·2

lO

F1(impact energy=10.49J) F1 (impact elllergy=15.44J)

(e)

F2 (impact energy=15.44J) F3 (impact energy=15.44J)

Figure 12. Typical damaged surface deformations.

Downloaded from t•js agepub.com by Nar av anan Gokarneshan on March 20, 2014
Guo et al.
Figure 13. Surfaces of damaged fabrics with different stitches. (a) Pillar + Weft-insertion, (b) Rhombic mesh, (c) Hexagonal mesh.
Figure 14. Damage depths of all samples.
but not in dimensions. The deformations of fabrics with
different surface structures (F1, F2, and F3) impacted
under the same energy (15.44J) vary from one another
(Figures 12 (d)–(f)). In addition, there are many height
lines around the damaged areas for F2 and F3. As the
surface layers of F1 are plain and tight, while those of
F2 and F3 have many meshes on the outer layers, laser
beams derived from the transmitter could irradiate the
closed top surface of F1, while parts of them irradiated
directly to the inner or even the bottom of the fabrics
F2 and F3 because of the open structures on outer
layers. The damaged deformation of specimen F1
(Figures 12(a)–(d)) reveals that the damaged zone
tends to become localized and is more or less a round
pit in shape: the deepest point occurs in the center of
the pit. Figures 12(d)–(f) show that the damaged area
appearances of F1 and F2 are similar (a round pit);
however, for F3, the hexagonal sides have been
broken. To more clearly demonstrate this, the photo-
graphs of damaged fabrics (impact energy: 15.44J) are
shown in Figure 13.
Figures 13(a)–(c) show that the outer layers of F1
and F2 are still fine, while the appearance of F3
shows the breakage of hexagonal sides and collapse of
spacer
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com by Narayanan Gokarneshan on March 20, 2014
913
yarns around them, since higher stress concentrates on
the mesh sides and parts of spacer yarns are exposed in
the open air.
Damage depths for all the samples can be calculated
based on the laser scanner, the results of which are
shown in Figure 14.
Depth values of different specimens impacted under
the same energy (15.44J) and those of the same sample
(F1) subjected to different impact energies are shown in
Figures 14(a) and (b), respectively. Figure 14(a) shows
that, for F1, F2, and F3, the depth of F1 is smaller than
that of F2. This means that the impact resistance of
fabric with a closed surface layer (F1) is better than
that with small-size meshes on surface layers (F2)
(significance test F(1, 4) ¼ 71.525, p < 0.001). While
the damage depth of F3 (with large-size meshes on the
sur- face layers) has no comparability with that of F1
and F2, for their damage conditions are different, the
sur- face yarns of F3 are broken while those of F1
and F2 are not (Figures 13(a)–(c)). Almost all absorbed
energy is converted into irrecoverable deformation
energy of spacer yarns. Thus, a pit is produced on the
fabric sur- faces for F1 and F2. While part of the
absorbed energy of F3 is consumed on the breakage of
surface yarns, the
914
Figure 15. Typical pressure-compressibility curves before-
and-after impacts for F1.
depth of damage zone for F3 decreases. Viewed
from this perspective, fabric with hexagonal meshes
is not a perfect protector for the surface is easy to
be damaged, and that large-size meshes on outer
layers cannot protect spacer yarns in the middle layer
effectively. The depths of fabrics with larger thick-
ness and coarser spacer yarns are less than those of
their opposites (significance test F(2, 6) ¼ 227.953,
p < 0.001; significance test F(1, 4) ¼ 32.272, p <
0.001). The results reveal that the former have better
impact resistance.
Depth values of F1 subjected to different energies are
shown in Figure 14(b); it can be concluded that depths
increase with the increasing of impact energies.
Moreover, depth values of fabrics under two lower
impact energies (3.51 and 6.51J) approximate to each
other, and those under the two others (10.49 and
15.44J) are similar, while the latter is larger than the
former. The results show clearly that the damage of
fabrics impacted under higher energies is more serious
than those under the lower ones.
Compression-after-impact behavior
Typical pressure-compressibility curves before and
after impacts for F1 are shown in Figure 15.
In Figure 15, the ‘0J’ curve represents that of the
sample before impacts (undamaged fabric), while the
others indicate those of fabrics after impacts under dif-
ferent energies. It can be seen that the two types of
curves, before and after impacts, have similar configur-
ations but different magnitudes.
All curves can be divided into two stages, that is,
initial stage (stage I) and elastic stage (stage II), accord-
ing to slope changes of the curves. Moreover,
compres- sion resistances of fabrics before and after
impacts are
Textile Research Journal 83(9)
Figure 16. Residual strength values of damaged and
undamaged specimens versus impact energy.
not obviously different in stage I, while in stage II,
those of the damaged fabrics decline by a large
margin. Since the compression in stage I derives from
fastening the multifilament loops and monofilaments,
while that in stage II is mainly due to bending of
spacer yarns, unfortunately, the spacer yarns have
been damaged and their load-carrying capacities were
diminished after impacts.
Residual strength
The residual strength is normalized with respect to
damaged and corresponding undamaged compression
strength of each specimen type under the compressibil-
ity of 20%. This is graphically presented as a function
of impact energy in Figure 16. All related test results
are given in Table 4.
It can be seen from Figure 16 that residual strength
values of fabrics before impacts (RB) are RBF3 <
RBF2 < RBF1, RBF5 < RBF1 < RBF4 and RBF6 < RBF1.
This demonstrates that undamaged fabrics with smaller
size meshes on outer layers, smaller fabric thickness,
and coarser spacer yarns have better compression
resistance. However, residual strength values for each
specimen under various impact energies (except 0J)
vary within a small range. In other words, these
values incline to be stable, and damage of a specimen
impacted under relative smaller energies tends to satur-
ation. Therefore, the average residual strength value of
each sample in various impact energies (except 0J) is
used to evaluate the compression resistances after
impacts (Table 4).
It can be seen from Table 4 that the sequence of aver-
age residual strength after impacts (RA) is RAF3 <
RAF2 < RAF1, RAF5 < RAF1 < RAF4, RAF6 < RAF1.
The logics remain coherent with those of RB.
Guo et al. 915

Table 4. Residual strength values of fabrics before and after impacts and drop-off rates

Residual strength Average residual strength Drop-off

Samples before impacts (kPa) after impacts (kPa) rate (%)

F1 96.442 66.090 31.471

F2 89.292 64.252 28.042
F3 68.054 51.150 24.840
F4 98.708 66.354 32.778
F5 60.315 42.843 28.969
F6 45.299 33.639 25.741

Therefore, fabric with better compression resistance yarns), fabrics with coarser spacer yarns and close
before an impact performs better after it as well. The surface structure have several satisfying results, such
drop-off rates (DO) of compressive strength for all the as lower peak force, larger absorbed energy, and
specimens can be calculated (DO ¼ (RB – RA)/RB), as lower depth value, but higher drop-off rate of resi-
shown in the last column of Table 4, and the sequence is dual strength. While considering the specific impact
DOF3 < DOF2 < DOF1, DOF5 < DOF1 < DOF4, DOF6 < method (flat-sphere), fabric with a mesh structure is
DOF1, which is identical to the two above. This demon- body-fitted, for meshes can open and shut more
strates that fabrics with better compression resistance freely according to the shape of wrapped objects.
also have higher drop-off rates. For fabrics with the However, meshes that are too large on surface
same thickness, higher drop-off rates of fabrics (closed layers makes the mesh sides inclined to collapse
surface structure and coarser spacer yarns) mean that and means that spacer yarns cannot be protected
these fabrics can absorb more energy in an impact perfectly.
event by forming irrecoverable deformation to reduce 3. For fabrics with different needle bar distances (same
peak force. For fabrics with different thicknesses, those surface structure and fineness of spacer yarns), fabric
with higher thicknesses can absorb more energy and with higher thickness performs perfectly in the
have lower drop-off rates. experiments (lower peak force, more absorbed
energy, lower damage depth, and lower drop-off
rate), but a person’s body may feel uncomfortable
Conclusions if the protector is too thick. The balance between the
protective performance and comfort should be taken
As a cushion material, the impact behavior and dam- into consideration by selecting a suitable thickness of
age characteristic after impacts of warp-knitted spacer fabric for the specific protective application.
fabrics were investigated in this study. Four param-
4. For a fabric subjected to different energies, peak
eters, including peak force, absorbed energy, damage
force, absorbed energy, and damage depth increase
depth, and drop-off rate of residual strength, were
with the increasing of energy levels, while
involved to evaluate the two behaviors above of
residual strengths approximate to each other.
spacer fabrics with different structures. A spacer
fabric with good protection performance was con-
sidered to have lower peak force, more absorbed
energy, lower damage depth, and a lower drop-off Funding
rate of residual strength. According to the experimental This research received no specific grant from any funding
results and analysis, the following conclusions can be agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
drawn.

1. The variation of force in an impact event is the References

result of the co-effect of two factors: displacement
and fail- ure of spacer yarns in the center zone. In
addition, force increases with the increasing of the
former and decreases because of the latter.
2. For fabrics with the same needle bar distance (dif-
ferent surface structures and finenesses of spacer
1. Liu YP and Hu H. Compression property and air perme-
ability of weft-knitted spacer fabrics. J Textil Inst 2011;
102: 366–372.
2. Liu YP, Hu H, Zhao L, et al. Compression behavior of
warp-knitted spacer fabrics for cushioning applications.
Textil Res J 2012; 82: 11–20.
916
3. Ye XH, Hu H and Feng XW. Development of the warp
knitted space fabrics for cushion applications. J Ind
Textil 2008; 37: 213–223.
4. Ye XH and Hu H. Application of warp-knitted space
fabric in car seats. J Textil Inst 2007; 98: 337–344.
5. Bruer SM and Smith G. Three-dimensionally knit spacer
fabric: a review of production techniques and applica-
tions. J Textil Apparel Technol Manag 2005; 4: 23–25.
6. Yip J and Ng SP. Study of three-dimensional space fab-
rics: physical and mechanical properties. J Mater Process
Technol 2008; 206: 359–364.
7. Liu YP and Hu H. Sound absorption behavior of warp
knitted spacer fabrics. Textil Res J 2010; 80: 1949–1957.
8. Chen Y, Jiang GM and Chen HX. Research on the pres-
sure relief of warp knitted spacer fabric. Knitting Ind
2008; 4: 26–28.
9. Ye XH, Hu H and Feng XW. Research on pressure relief
of warp knitted spacer fabric. J Donghua Univ 2006; 32:
88–91.
10. Armakan DM and Roye A. A study on the compression
behavior of space fabrics designed for concrete applica-
tions. Fiber Polym 2009; 10: 116–123.
Textile Research Journal 83(9)
11. Sheikhzadeh M, Ghane M, Eslamian Z, et al. A modeling
study on the lateral compressive behavior of spacer fab-
rics. J Textil Inst 2010; 101: 795–800.
12. Miao XH and Ge MQ. Vibration behavior of cushioning
warp knitted spacer fabric. J Textil Res 2008; 29: 57–60.
13. Chen Y. Compression resistance of warp knitted spacer
fabric. Dissertation, Jiangnan University, 2007, p.19.
14. Chen HL. Development and research on two-bed Raschel
spacer fabrics. Dissertation, Donghua University, 1998.
15. Hou XN, Hu H, Liu YP, et al. Nonlinear compression
behavior of warp-knitted spacer fabric: effect of sandwich
structure. Textil Res J 2011; 23: 119–134.
16. Liu YP, Hu H, Long HR, et al. Impact compressive
behavior of warp-knitted spacer fabrics for protective
applications. Textil Res J 2012; 82: 773–788.
17. Douglas P, Magaziner J, Zimmerman S, et al. Efficacy of
a hip protector to prevent hip fracture in nursing home
residents. J Am Med Assoc 2007; 298: 413–422.
18. Tae JK and Cheol K. Energy-absorption mechanisms in
Kevlar multiaxial warp-knit fabric composites under
impact loading. Compos Sci Technol 2000; 60: 773–784.