Original article

Textile Research Journal

81(2) 205–214

Stab and cut resistance of knitted ! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
structures: a comparative study DOI: 10.1177/0040517510383617
trj.sagepub.com

Tuba Alpyildiz1, Maryline Rochery2,3, Arif Kurbak1

and Xavier Flambard2,3

Abstract
A new double-face knitted structure has been developed which is composed of tuck stitches and has the same back and
front faces. The newly derived structure, manufactured from p-aramid fibers with and without inlay yarns, has been
compared with jersey and plush structures of these same fibers in terms of cut and stab performances. Not only have
new structures been proposed, but the effect of the inlay yarns has been investigated also. In order to manufacture the
plush structure on a V-bed Flat Knitting Machine instead of a traditional circular knitting machine a new design has been
developed. The results show that the newly derived structure with inlay yarns has the best cut and stab performances
when a comparison is made between samples of different structures with the same mass per unit area and thickness
values.

Keywords
Stab, cut, knitted, inlay, aramid

Flexible stab and puncture-resistant materials are
required for a range of applications, but the most chal-
lenging application is stab-resistant body armor.
Flexibility and comfort are required, while protection
for law enforcement and security personnel against stab
attacks must be provided by the armor. Textile rein-
forcements have been widely used as they provide flex-
ibility, comfort and protection as flexible stab-resistant
materials, in particular with the introduction of
high-performance fibers in the 1970s and the new
possibilities they offered. For the construction of flexi-
ble stab-resistant materials, high-performance fibers
such as aramid and ultra-high-molecular weight poly-
ethylene are preferred due to their inherent mechanical
properties and cut resistances.1,2 These fibers can be
manufactured into fabrics by weaving, knitting or non-
woven technologies.
There are a number of commercial stab-resistant
fabrics available under brand names including ArgusÕ
(Barrday Inc.), Kevlar MTPÕ (DuPont), and TwaronÕ
SRMÕ (Teijin-Twaron), which are polymer-coated
or film-laminated woven fabrics, DuPontÕ
CorrectionalÕ Kevlar, which is a high yarn count
woven fabric, or SpectraShieldÕ (Honeywell Inc.) and
DyneemaÕ UniDirectional (DSM Dyneema B.V.),
which are thermoplastic laminated unidirectional fiber
mats, and PerfosemÕ which is a multilayered knitted
fabric.
In addition to these commercial fabrics, stab pene-
tration of body armor materials has been studied in the
literature. Gadow and von Niessen3 coated the woven
fabrics of high-tenacity aramid fibers with refractory
cement and oxide ceramics by thermal spraying and
increased the quasi-static knife penetration resistance
of the fabric. Termonia4 presented a numerical model
of the factors controlling woven fabric resistance
against needle puncture. Decker et al.5 studied the
effect of shear-thickening fluid treatments on plain
woven fabrics of polyamide and p-aramid fibers.
1
Dokuz Eylul University, Department of Textile Engineering, Buca, Izmir,
Turkey.
2
Université Lille Nord de France, Lille, France.
3
ENSAIT Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Industries Textiles,
Roubaix, France.
Corresponding author:
Tuba Alpyildiz, Dokuz Eylul University, Department of Textile Engineering,
Buca, 35160 Izmir, Turkey
Email: tuba.alpyildiz@deu.edu.tr

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

206
Mayo et al.6 investigated the stab performance of mul-
tilayer thermoplastic laminated woven fabric consider-
ing various film types, thicknesses and processing
conditions.
Among previous studies there are only a few examin-
ing knitted fabrics. Flambard7 investigated the cut and
stab resistance of knitted structures of different high-
performance fibers because knitted structures are more
interesting than nonwoven and woven structures in
terms of their higher capacity to absorb energy during
impact loadings. He examined the effect of fiber type
(chemical nature, multifilament, staple yarns), fiber
length, fabric density, fabric structure, number of fabric
layers, and stacking angles between the fabric layers. In
terms of stab resistance Flambard studied jersey, fleece
and plush knitted fabrics, and he indicated jersey to be the
most effective structure when the mass per unit area
and thickness values are considered for the fabrics of
p-aramid fibers. He proposed a multilayer fabric
(two layers of fleece and 10 layers of jersey knitted
fabric) made of Poly(p-phenylene-2.6-benzobisoxazole)
(PBO), and another multilayered fabric made of
p-aramid interlock and PBO jersey fabrics was commer-
cialized under the brand name PerfosemÕ .
Figure 1. Knit notation of single jersey structure.
(a) 1 5
No yarn is fed to knit 2 6
3rd and 7th courses;
in these courses
3 7
the stitches (at the
backbed) of the 1st
and 5th courses are 4 system travels without
8
dropped.
(b)
Figure 2. (a) Knit notation of Plush Structure, (b) Photographs of plush fabrics (left) front and (right) back.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015
Textile Research Journal 81(2)
Flambard and Polo8 studied the stab and cut resis-
tance performances of single jersey knitted fabrics of
p-aramid and PBO fibers and concluded that a fabric
should possess good cut resistance, low flexural rigidity,
low elasticity modulus and low inner layer friction coef-
ficient in order to exhibit good stab resistance
performance.
In previous research, various knitted structures
including jersey, plush, interlock, 1  1 rib, and fleece
structures have been studied, but the search for better-
performing structures continues and the effect of the
inlay yarns has never been examined. In this study a
newly derived structure which is composed of tuck
stitches and has the same back and front faces will be
manufactured with and without inlay yarns, and will be
compared with jersey and plush structures in terms of
cut and stab performances.
Materials and methods
Knitted structures
The newly derived knitted structures, which will be
called ‘Doubleface’ and ‘DoublefaceInlay’, Jersey and
Plush fabrics were knitted using the same yarns on the
same knitting machine. The knit notations of the struc-
tures can be seen in Figures 1–4.
A 7-Gauge V-Bed Flat Knitting Machine (Shima
Seiki SES12FF) was used in the manufacture of the
samples. Kevlar spun yarn of 28 nm was used for the
knitting of all of the samples. Six yarns were fed to each
feeder, and the bobbins of the yarns were so placed on
the knitting machine that as the yarns were unwound
from the bobbins they twisted around each other until
For these courses, the
the feeders to get to the
side of the knitting machine.
Alpyildiz et al. 207

they reached the feeder. In this way the yarns behaved Doubleface structure, and the knit notation of the
as if they were folded together and acted as one yarn structure and photograph of the DoublefaceInlay fab-
during the knitting process. rics can be seen in Figure 4. As was the case with the
It is not possible to manufacture plush structures Doubleface fabric, here also after every two courses on
using V-bed flat knitting machines as they do not either face of the fabric there is a course of tuck stitches,
have the required plating system for the plush (terry) which means that the inlay yarn is placed after every
structure. Thus, in order to manufacture the Plush sam- two courses seen on either side of the fabric. The inlay
ples on the V-bed flat machine, the design capabilities yarn is placed by the first system to be locked by the
of the knitting machine were used and a new knit nota- second system, which makes tuck stitches with the help
tion (Figure 2a) was derived to obtain the piles at the of a presser foot mechanism. The presser foot mecha-
back of the samples. With the second (and sixth) nism is used for the courses (3rd and 9th) of the inlay
course, the tuck stitches which were made on the yarn and the courses (4th and 10th) of tuck stitches.
front bed in the previous (first and fifth) course were
locked, and when all of the stitches at the back bed were
dropped by the third (and seventh) course, the drop-
Experimental procedure
ping loop stitches acted as ‘piles’. The fourth and eighth Thickness, mass per unit area, stab resistance and cut
lines in the knit notation (Figure 2a) are given to indi- resistance values of the knitted samples were measured.
cate that the carriage was driven without selecting any The samples were named by using the name of the
needles to the side where the feeder was left to get the structure from which they were manufactured (for
yarn feeder, because the carriage traveled from one side example, the knit structure of the plain knitted samples
to other without any feeders to drop the stitches during is jersey, so the plain knitted samples were called
the third and seventh courses. In this way it was possi- ‘Jersey’).
ble to produce plush fabrics (Figure 2b) on the V-bed
flat knitting machine which are very similar in terms of
appearance to the plush fabrics obtained with a circular Thickness and mass per unit area. The thickness
knitting machine. The manufactured plush fabrics do values of the samples were measured according to
not represent the conventional plush (terry) fabrics ASTM D 1777-96 (2007)10 using the ‘SODEMAT
which are knitted on circular knitting machines, as
here the stitches are being dropped which may lead to
a slacker structure in comparison with conventional (a)
1 6
plush fabrics; we are aiming only to manufacture fab-
rics with piles on the V-bed knitting machine to use in 2 7
comparison with the other samples manufactured.
The Doubleface structure is a newly developed struc- 3 8
ture composed of courses on the front and back bed
with a tuck course combining the courses on each bed.
4 9
The knit notation of the structure and photograph of
the Doubleface fabrics can be seen in Figure 3.
5 10
To manufacture the Doubleface fabrics, in every two
courses the courses knitted on the front and the back
(b)
beds are combined with the tuck stitch course. Thus
after every two courses seen on either face of the
fabric there is a course of tuck stitches. Although the
repeat unit is composed of 10 courses, two knitted
courses can be seen on either side of the fabric when
the repeat unit is completed. The newly derived
Doubleface fabric can be explained as if double
Lacoste fabrics9 were knitted separately on the front
bed and at the back bed of the V-bed flat knitting
machine, then the two fabrics connected by tuck stitch-
ing a binding yarn on the front and back beds.
In order to manufacture DoublefaceInlay fabrics
two systems are preferably used, whereas only one Figure 3. (a) Knit notation of Doubleface structure without
system is used for single jersey, plush and Doubleface inlay yarns, (b) Photograph of Doubleface structure (front and
structures; inlay yarns were placed within the back of the fabric look the same).

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

208
(a)
1 7
2 8
3 9
4 10
5 11
6 12
(b)
Figure 4. (a) Knit notation of Doubleface structure with inlay
yarns, (b) Photograph of DoublefaceInlay fabrics (front and back
of the fabric look the same).
Thickness Device’. In order to calculate the thickness
values of multilayer samples, the number of layers has
been multiplied by the thickness value of one layer.
The mass per unit area of the samples was measured
according to ASTM D 3776-07.11 In order to calculate
the mass per unit area values of multilayer samples, the
number of layers was multiplied by the mass per unit
area value of one layer.
Stab resistance. The device (Figure 5) developed by
GEMTEX Laboratories at ENSAIT was used; it uses
the principle of drop-weight impact (knife fall under the
influence of gravity). The knife is placed on a tool car-
rier that can slide along two rails by a bond vertical
slide. The height of the drop and the mass of the trolley
can be modified to test a range of kinetic energy
and speeds of impact (this speed is measured by a mag-
netic sensor on the lower bench of the device). The
sensor measuring the speed is placed so that it measures
the speed before first contact of the knife with the
samples.
The knife used in the test was of the dimensions
indicated in HOSDB Body Armor Standard (2007)
Part 3: Knife and Spike Resistance12 and it was sharp-
ened before the tests.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015
Textile Research Journal 81(2)
Figure 5. Stab resistance measurement device developed by
GEMTEX Laboratories at ENSAIT.
Plastiline clay (Plastiline Souple Ivoire, Esprit
Composite) was used as the backing material. Before
starting the tests, the existing plastiline was exchanged
for new clay, the tray was filled (ensuring there were no
air gaps) and the filled tray was heated for 3 h at 50 C.
Each day, before starting the test and throughout the
tests, the plastiline was calibrated using the calibration
method described in HOSDB Body Armor Standard
(2007) Part 3: Knife and Spike Resistance,12 and the
same depth of depression was assured before continu-
ing the tests.
After each test the trauma on the plastiline was mea-
sured (Figure 6) using a clean metal rod and a ruler.
The metal rod was placed in the trace which the knife
left after the test was performed and the depth of the
trace was measured and recorded as the ‘total trauma’
value using the ruler. To measure the perforation, the
oily trace which the plastiline left on the metal rod was
measured using the ruler. After each measurement the
metal rod was cleaned and the plastiline was reshaped
into its original form.
During the measurements the drop weight was
kept constant at 2.1 kg and the drop height was chan-
ged to maintain different levels of impact energy.
Alpyildiz et al. 209

The perforation and trauma values were recorded for
the following energy levels: 4, 6 and 10 J.
For each sample three measurements were taken for
each energy level, and the average values were calcu-
lated. For multilayer sample tests, the samples were
layered with 0 orientation.
In order to determine the effect of fabric type on stab
performance the data obtained were evaluated using
analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. For this purpose
the SPSS 11 software package was employed.
Cut resistance. Cut resistance tests were realized
according to EN388:1993.13 The device ‘Couptest’
(Figure 7) developed by The Institute Textile de
France and built by SODEMAT Society located at
Troyes in France was used for the test, which consists
of a circular, free-rotating blade, under pressure from a
standard weight (5 N), which is moved backwards and
forwards over the surface of the test material over a
fixed stroke length. The test result is the number of
cycles taken for the blade to cut through the material.
To take the sharpness of the blade into account the test
is performed using a standard reference material before
and after testing the sample; the mean of these two tests
on the standard material is defined as blade cut index 1.
The test result is the ratio of the number of cycles
required to cut through the sample to the number of
cycles required to give blade cut index 1.
However, this method was reported to have some
disadvantages, such as the test not being reproducible
and the final index not being representative of the phys-
ical reality.7 Some solutions have been proposed,7 and
these solutions were adopted in this study. Two new
coefficients were calculated; Cce for the reference
fabric and Ccs for the samples:

X10    !
Tn Tn Tn
Measuring rod Cce ¼  max  min =8
C
n¼1 cn
Ccn Ccn
ð1Þ
Knife ðCn þ Cnþ1 Þ
where Ccn ¼
2

H where Cn is the number of the cycles required to cut the

reference fabric, and Tn is the number of the cycles
P required to cut the sample;
Plastiline
Ccs ¼ Cce  ð540=mÞ ð2Þ

where 540 is the weight per unit area of the reference

Figure 6. Measurement on the plastiline after the knife has fabric in g/m2 and m is the weight per unit area of the
been pulled back. Here P is the perforation, and Total sample in g/m2. With the introduction of this coefficient
Trauma ¼ H + P. it is possible to compare the structures which have

Figure 7. The ‘‘Couptest’’ device developed by The Institute Textile de France and built by SODEMAT Society located at Troyes in
France7.

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

210 Textile Research Journal 81(2)

different weights per unit area; however, as this coeffi-
cient does not take thickness into consideration, sam-
ples with similar thickness values have been compared
in this study.
For each face of the samples, 10 measurements were
taken for each sample and eight were used after elimi-
nating two extreme values; Ccs values have been calcu-
lated for the back and front faces of each sample and
the averages were taken. When measuring multilayer
samples, each layer was placed as if it was a single
layer test.
The data obtained were evaluated using the
ANOVA test with the use of SPSS 11 software package.
fabric layers needs to be more than six layers for the
Jersey samples. For the Plush samples at 6 J, a decrease
in the trauma and perforation values was observed
when the number of fabric layers was increased
beyond three layers (Figure 9), and for the
Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples a decrease
in the trauma and perforation values was observed
beyond two layers (Figures 10 and 11). Thus it can be
concluded that the increase in fabric layers has more
effect on decreasing the trauma and perforation values
of Plush, Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples
than the Jersey sample: the decrease in the trauma

Results and discussion

35
The thickness and mass per unit area values of the 30

Trauma (mm)
single layer samples are shown in Table 1. 25
The perforation and trauma performances are dis- 20
cussed, considering the effect of fabric layer for each 15
type of structure separately, minimum perforation 10
and trauma depths which could be achieved, and the 5
0 Layers
effect of fabric structure for the samples of different 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
structures but with closer areal density.
The effect of fabric layers was examined separately Perforation Trauma Total

for each type of structure at 6 J. The stab resistance

tests were performed for the Jersey samples up to Figure 9. Stab resistance of plush fabrics at 6 J.
10 layers, and a decrease in trauma and perforation
values was observed (Figure 8) when the number of
layers was increased beyond six layers. Thus in order
to observe a decrease in trauma depth, the number of 35
30
Trauma (mm)

25
20
Table 1. Parameters of the samples manufactured 15
10
Sample (1 Layer) Thickness (mm) Mass/Area (g/m2) 5
0 Layers
Jersey 1.94 504 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Plush 4.0 1145
Perforation Trauma Total
Doubleface 4.39 1565
DoublefaceInlay 4.41 1585
Figure 10. Stab resistance of Doubleface fabrics at 6 J.

35 35
30 30
Trauma (mm)
Trauma (mm)

25 25
20 20
15
15
10
10
5
5 Layers
0
0 Layers
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Perforation Trauma Total Perforation Trauma Total

Figure 8. Stab resistance of Jersey Fabrics at 6 J. Figure 11. Stab resistance of DoublefaceInlay fabrics at 6 J.

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

Alpyildiz et al. 211

and perforation values of Plush, Doubleface and With 10 layers of Jersey samples, a perforation value
DoublefaceInlay samples is more than that observed of 9.5 mm and trauma value of 22.5 mm could be
for the Jersey samples. This is due to the fact that one achieved at 6 J, while ‘0’ perforation values were
layer of Plush sample has mass per unit area value achieved with eight layers of Plush samples, and six
approximately two times, and Doubleface and layers of Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples.
DoublefaceInlay have mass per unit area values However, in order to observe the effect of structure,
approximately three times greater than Jersey samples, the samples with closer mass per unit area values will
which means that one layer of Jersey sample has the be compared. Although the samples with different
least amount of fiber in the loading direction, providing structures but closer mass per unit area values will
small decreases in the perforation and trauma values have different thickness/number of layers, it has been
with the addition of each layer. already indicated7 that multilayered fabrics made of
When the minimum perforation and trauma depth p-aramid fibers act like one layer due to high inter-
which could be performed was investigated, with the layer friction coefficients.7,8 Thus mass per unit area
Plush, Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples it values have a more dominant effect on the stab perfor-
was possible to achieve perforations below 5 mm mances than the number of layers used to reach the
(Figures 9–11), but this was not possible with Jersey same mass per unit area values.
samples (Figure 8), as a greater number of layers was Ten layers of Jersey sample (4686 g/m2), four layers
needed. For eight layers of Plush, and for six layers of of Plush sample (4578 g/m2), three layers of Doubleface
Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples, there were and DoublefaceInlay samples (4693 and 4754 g/m2,
no visible damaged fibers in the last layer, which was respectively), which have closer areal densities, are
in contact with the backing material. Thus the perfora- compared with each other to observe the effect of struc-
tion observed for these samples is thought to be due to ture. When Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples
the very sharp edge point of the knife getting through are compared it can be seen (Table 1) that the thickness
the pores of the samples. and mass per unit area values are very close to each
other, indicating that the effect of the inlay yarn is not
significant in terms of weight and thickness.
The perforation performances of 10 layers of Jersey,
Table 2. Trauma and Perforation Values of the samples at 4 and four layers of Plush, and three layers of Doubleface and
6 Joules DoublefaceInlay samples can be seen in Table 2.
4J 6J Univariate ANOVA results (Table 3) of these data at
a 95% confidence interval indicated that the effect of
Perforation Trauma Perforation Trauma fabric type and energy level are not statistically signif-
Fabric Type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) icant (p > 0.05) for the perforation performances of the
10 layers of Jersey 8.3 19.3 9.5 22.5 samples. However, it can be seen from Table 2 that
4 layers of Plush 9.3 21.6 9.6 23.2 DoublefaceInlay and Jersey samples have lower perfo-
ration values, closely followed by Plush and Doubleface
3 layers of Doubleface 10.6 17 9.6 20.6
samples.
3 layers of 9.3 17 8 21.3
When the trauma performances of the samples
DoublefaceInlay
(Table 2) are considered, univariate ANOVA results

Table 3. Univariate analysis of variance, tests between-subjects effect for the perforation performances at 4 and 6 J of the samples

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 14.406a 7 2.058 2.439 0.066

Intercept 2081.344 1 2081.344 2466.778 0.000
FABRIC 8.031 3 2.677 3.173 0.053
ENERGY 0.260 1 0.260 0.309 0.586
FABRIC *ENERGY 6.115 3 2.038 2.416 0.104
Error 13.500 16 0.844
Total 2109.250 24
Corrected Total 27.906 23
a 2
R ¼ 0.516 (Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.305).

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

212 Textile Research Journal 81(2)

Table 4. Univariate analysis of variance, tests between-subjects effect for the trauma performances at 4 and 6 J of the samples

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

a
Corrected Model 116.500 7 16.643 19.971 0.000
Intercept 9922.667 1 9922.667 11907.200 0.000
FABRIC 49.750 3 16.583 19.900 0.000
ENERGY 60.167 1 60.167 72.200 0.000
FABRIC * ENERGY 6.583 3 2.194 2.633 0.085
Error 13.333 16 0.833
Total 10052.500 24
Corrected Total 129.833 23
a 2
R ¼ 0.897 (Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.852).

Table 5 Duncan Multiple Range Test (a ¼ 0.05) lor the trauma Table 6 Trauma and perforation values of the Doubleface and
performances of the samples; here Jersey is coded as ‘1’, Plush is DoublefaceInlay samples at 10 J
coded as ‘2’, Doubleface is coded as ‘3’ and DoublefaceInlay is
coded as ‘4’ 10 J

Subset Fabric Type Perforation (mm) Trauma (mm)

FABRIC N 1 2 3 7 Layers of Doubleface 0 6.7

3.00 6 18.8333
4.00 6 19.1667
1.00 6 20.9167
2.00 6 22.4167
Sig. 0.536 1.000 1.000
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
(Table 4) indicated that the effect of fabric type and
energy level on the trauma performances of the samples
were statistically significant (p < 0.05). When the impact
energy was increased from 4 J to 6 J, the trauma values
of all of the samples increased significantly (Table 2).
When Duncan’s test (a ¼ 0.05) was performed to
evaluate the differences among the performances of
fabric types, it can be seen that the samples have sig-
nificantly different trauma performances (Table 5).
Plush samples produced the highest trauma depth,
followed by the Jersey samples; Doubleface and
DoublefaceInlay fabrics have the lowest trauma
among the four types of fabrics.
When the perforation and total trauma values are
considered together, in spite of the fact that the perfo-
ration performances of the samples are very close to
each other it can be said that DoublefaceInlay and
Doubleface structures have better stab resistance per-
formance with lesser trauma depths when compared
with Plush and Jersey samples.
As the mass per unit area values of the compared
samples are the same, the amount of fibers in the load-
ing directions can be considered to be the same. The
differences in the performances can therefore be
7 Layers of 0 5.3
DoublefaceInlay
attributed to the structures, thus the fiber orientations.
Due to the tuck stitches within the structures, the
Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay structures are
‘meshed’ structures in comparison to the Jersey and
Plush samples, which means that the orientation of
the fibers within the Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay
structure is multidirectional, increasing the resistance of
the structure against the forces arising during stabbing.
The DoublefaceInlay samples have better perforation
performances than the Doubleface samples due to the
existence of the inlay yarns, which increase the multi-
directionality of the structure in addition to the tuck
stitches.
In order to determine if there is any superiority
between Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples,
they were compared with each other at 10 J, and
seven layers were chosen for both fabric types because
mass per unit area values of seven layers of Doubleface
and DoublefaceInlay samples are very close. As can be
seen in Table 6, although the perforation values of
these samples are the same, DoublefaceInlay samples
have smaller trauma depths. One-way ANOVA
results (Table 7) indicate that there is significant differ-
ence (p < 0.05) between the trauma values of the
Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples, the
DoublefaceInlay samples having significantly lesser
trauma depth. It can be concluded that the
DoublefaceInlay samples have the best stab perfor-
mance with a very small increase (1.3%) in mass per

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

Alpyildiz et al. 213

Table 7 One-Way ANOVA results for the trauma values of Table 9 One-Way ANOVA results for the cut coefficient values
Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples at 10 J of the samples

Sum of Mean Sum of Mean

Squares df Square F Siq. Squares df Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.667 1 2.667 12.800 0.023 Between Groups 80.382 3 26.794 9.707 0.026
Within Groups 0.833 4 0.208 Within Groups 11.041 4 2.760
Total 3.500 5 Total 91.423 7

Table 8 Cut resistance of the structures
Number Thickness Cut Coefficient;
Structure of Layers (mm) CCS
Jersey 2 3.9 9.96
Plush 1 4.0 9.48
Doubleface 1 4.39 14.95
DoublefaceInlay 1 4.41 16.87
unit area of the structure in comparison with the
Doubleface samples.
The cut coefficients (Ccs) of the samples can be seen
in Table 8; the higher the coefficient, the better the per-
formance. With Ccs it is possible to compare structures
which have different mass per unit area, but this coef-
ficient does not take thickness into consideration. Thus
different structures with closer thickness values are
compared.
One-way ANOVA results (at 95% confidence inter-
val) (Table 9) of these cut coefficients indicate that there
is a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the cut
coefficients of the samples, and when Duncan’s
test (a ¼ 0.05) was performed to evaluate the differ-
ences among the performances of fabric types, the
performance of the Jersey and Plush samples was
found to be similar, whereas the Doubleface and
DoublefaceInlay samples perform significantly better
than Jersey and Plush samples (see Table 10).
The fact that, among the samples of similar thick-
nesses, the Doubleface and DoublefaceInlay samples
have a better cut resistance performance can be
explained by the mesh construction of the Doubleface
and DoublefaceInlay structures, as the tucks within the
structure increases the fiber orientation in the bias
directions.
The thicknesses of the Doubleface and
DoublefaceInlay samples are the same and, as can be
seen from Table 8, the DoublefaceInlay samples have a
higher cut resistance, although this is not statistically
significant. This is due to the inlay yarns within the
DoublefaceInlay structure, as previous research7 has
indicated that floating yarns within the structure
improves cut resistance. However, it is the plush
Table 10 Duncan Multiple Range Test (a ¼ 0.05) for the cut
coefficients of the samples; here Jersey is coded as ‘1’, Plush is
coded as ’2’, Doubleface is coded as ‘3’ and DoublefaceInlay is
coded as ‘4’
Subsetfor alpha ¼ 0.05
GROUP N 1 2
2.00 2 9.4800
1.00 2 9.9675
3.00 2 14.9500
4.00 2 16.8650
Sig. 0.784 0.313
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
structure which has the worst cut performance,
although the piles within the plush structure can be
considered as ‘floating yarns’. Thus these results may
indicate that a ‘mesh structure’ has more effect on cut
resistance performance than ‘floating yarn’, and that a
‘free yarn’ such as inlay yarn will have stronger effect
than any other kind of floating yarn.
The stiffness values of the fabrics have not been
measured and compared, because besides the fact that
knitting is preferred in manufacturing flexible reinforce-
ments, flexibility is a property sought depending on the
application area, for example for gloves; however, for
body armor applications, the protection provided is
more essential than the flexibility of the reinforcement.
This is a comparative study on the stab and cut per-
formances of selected knitted structures. The test results
should not be considered as the possible performances
of the structures, but should be used only for compar-
ison within this study. In order to obtain better perfor-
mances, fibers other than p-aramid can be used, and
inlay yarns of different material and yarn count may
also be studied, keeping the mass per unit area and
thickness values close to those of the same structure
without inlay yarns. It is also possible to change the
placement of the inlay yarns, by which the density of
the inlay yarns throughout the sample will be changed.
The performance of the structures which are manufac-
tured on finer (higher gauge) machines may be studied

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015

214
to achieve better performance, as it has been reported
that samples manufactured on finer machines perform
better when compared with the samples manufactured
on coarser machines but with the same mass per unit
area values.7 In addition, cross-layering is a popular
application in body protection, and due to the tucks
and the inlay yarns within the DoublefaceInlay struc-
ture it is possible to obtain a higher multidirecitonality
by cross-layering DoublefaceInlay fabrics.
Conclusion
Jersey and plush structures, which are traditional weft
knitting structures, have been compared with newly
derived Doubleface structure and Doubleface structure
with inlay yarns in terms of cut and stab performances
at different energy levels in order to investigate the
effect of the inlay yarns and the mesh structure of
tuck stitches.
It can be concluded that due to the tuck stitches
(as this is the difference when the samples of same
mass per unit area and thickness are considered)
Doubleface structures (both the Doubleface and
DoublefaceInlay structures) have improved cut
and stab performances in comparison with plush and
jersey structures, and among the Doubleface structures,
the DoublefaceInlay structure performs better due to
the inlay yarns.
It will be possible to manufacture weft-knitted struc-
tures with better stab and cut resistance performances
by introducing inlay yarns, with the optimization of the
quantity and the nature of the inlay yarns, in addition
to employing tuck stitches within the fabric structure.
Acknowledgement
This study was partly realized during the student exchange
period within the Erasmus LifeLong Learning Program.
The authors would like to thank Mr Ostyn for his skilful
assistance with the knitting machine.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on March 26, 2015
Textile Research Journal 81(2)
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1. Shin H-S, Erlich DC, Simons JW and Shockey DA. Cut
resistance of high-strength yarns. Text Res J 2006; 76:
607–613.
2. Shin H-S, Erlich DC and Shockey DA. Test for measur-
ing cut resistance of yarns. J Mater Sci 2003; 383:
603–610.
3. Gadow R and von Niessen K. Lightweight ballistic with
additional stab protection made of thermally sprayed
ceramic and cermet coatings on aramid fabrics. Int J
Appl Ceram Technol 2006; 3: 284.
4. Termonia Y. Puncture resistance of fibrous structures. Int
J Impact Eng 2006; 32: 1512–1520.
5. Decker MJ, Halbach CJ, Nam CH, Wagner NJ and
Wetzel ED. Stab resistance of shear thickening fluid
(STF)-treated fabrics. Compos Sci Technol 2007; 67:
565–578.
6. Mayo JB, Wetzel ED, Hosur MV and Jeelani S. Stab and
puncture characterization of thermoplastic-impregnated
aramid fabrics. Int J Impact Eng 2009; 36: 1095–1105.
7. Flambard X. Résistance à la coupure, à la perforation
et au feu de structures textiles maillées. PhD Thesis,
Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille I, 2000.
8. Flambard X and Polo J. Stab resistance of multi-layers
knitted structures: comparison between para-aramid and
PBO fibers. J Adv Mater 2004; 36: 30–35.
9. Kurbak A and Alpyildiz T. A Geometrical model for the
double Lacoste knits. Text Res J 2008; 78: 232–247.
10. ASTM D 1777-96. Standard Test Method for Thickness
of Textile Materials, 2007.
11. ASTM D 3776-07. Standard Test Methods for Mass Per
Unit Area (Weight) of Fabric.
12. Croft J and Longhurst D. HOSDB Body Armor
Standard (2007) Part 3: Knife and Spike Resistance,
Publication No. 39/07/C, 2007.
13. EN388:1994. Protective gloves against mechanical risks.