Original article

Textile Research Journal

2016, Vol. 86(19) 2056–2066

Effects of fabric construction and shear ! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
thickening fluid on yarn pull-out from DOI: 10.1177/0040517515619357
trj.sagepub.com
high-performance fabrics

Abhijit Majumdar and Animesh Laha

Abstract
Yarn pull-out is one of the major modes of fabric failure during an event of impact. In this article, the effects of weave and
fabric sett on yarn pull-out force have been investigated for untreated and shear thickening fluid (STF) treated p-aramid
fabrics. Further, the effect of different fluid treatments on yarn pull-out behavior has been analyzed using p-aramid and
ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fabrics. For all levels of fabric sett, plain woven fabrics exhibited
higher yarn pull-out force compared to twill, matt and satin weaves. STF impregnation increased the yarn pull-out force
considerably for p-aramid and UHMWPE fabrics and this was found for all the weaves in the case of the former. However,
increase in fabric sett beyond a threshold level caused yarn breakage before yarn pull-out in case of STF-treated plain
woven p-aramid fabrics. Yarn pull-out force was found to have good association with the energy absorption by the
high-performance fabrics during low-velocity impact (6 m s–1). The normalized yarn pull-out force was higher for two
consecutive yarns than for two yarns with a single gap.

Keywords
fabric sett, p-aramid, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, shear thickening fluid, yarn pull-out

Fabrics woven from high-performance yarns like
Kevlar, Technora, Twaron, Dyneema, Spectra, etc.,
demonstrate good energy absorption capability during
impact owing to their high modulus and high tensile
strength.1 Researchers have identified different modes
of failure of woven fabrics during impact, which
includes yarn extension, yarn failure and yarn pull-
out.2 Manimala and Sun3 investigated the failure of
Kevlar fabrics during their in-service mode and
reported yarn breakage and yarn sliding to be the
major contributors. Tabiei and Nilakantan4 concluded
that during the event of impact, rupture of bonds
(at the molecular level) and yarn pull-out and bowing
(at the macroscopic level) are the mechanisms of
failure. Similarly, Nilakantan at al.5 suggested yarn
pull-out and yarn sliding to be the elementary modes
of energy dissipation. Overall, the breaking of primary
bonds in fiber, primary yarn rupture, bowing, second-
ary yarn failure, fibrillation, yarn pull-out, etc., can be
considered as various modes of impact energy
absorption in a fabric during impact.6 However, the
in-depth knowledge of underlying phenomena of
energy absorption is still lacking in the available litera-
ture. Amongst all the stated modes of fabric failure
during impact, yarn pull-out is observed to be the
most common. So, a thorough analysis of the yarn
pull-out mechanism is essential for a profound under-
standing of impact resistance performance of fabrics.
It has already been established that energy absorp-
tion associated with the yarn pull-out mechanism
is purely coupled with the inter-yarn friction.2,7–9
Kirkwood et al.7,8 concluded that within the fabric
Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi,
India
Corresponding author:
Abhijit Majumdar, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 110 016, India.
Email: majumdar@textile.iitd.ac.in
Majumdar and Laha
structure, the summation of frictional forces existing
between the crossover points of ends and picks are
equivalent to the yarn pulling force. Duan et al.10
stated that fabrics having high inter-yarn friction
absorb more energy during impact. It has also been
observed that low inter-yarn friction enables the yarns
in the fabric to slide past each other easily. Therefore,
to achieve full utilization of capabilities of high-
performance fibers for impact energy absorption, the
inter-yarn friction should be sufficiently high.11–13
Considering the fact that lubricating agents like
water, oil etc., tend to reduce the inter-yarn friction,
they should be avoided to prevent reduction in impact
resistance performance of fabrics.14 On the contrary,
researchers have taken different approaches to improve
the inter-yarn friction by various means like applica-
tions of natural rubber latex,15 shear thickening fluids
(STFs)16–23 and development of metal oxide nano
rods.6
STF is a non-Newtonian fluid that exhibits shear
thinning behavior at low shear rates but shows a
steep rise in viscosity beyond its characteristic critical
shear rate.18 At low shear rate, the particles present in
STF arrange themselves in different layers and move in
a streamline pattern. This is known as shear thinning,
as the viscosity reduces with the increase in shear rate.
However, beyond the critical shear rate, the particles
jump out from one layer to another and form larger
clusters of particles known as ‘hydroclusters’. As a
result, viscosity rises sharply with the increase of
shear rate. This is termed as shear thickening. Many
researchers have treated high-performance fabrics
with STF for improving the energy absorption during
impact. Manimala and Sun3 and Srivastava et al.23
observed that in case of untreated Kevlar fabrics,
only the primary yarns that are in contact with the
impactor undergo deformation, forming long loops
created by yarn pull-out. On the other hand, in
STF-treated fabrics, even the secondary yarns, which
are away from the impactor, contribute to energy
absorption. Of late, Hwang et al.6 observed that by
growing ZnO nano rods over the surface of the high-
performance fabric, significant improvement in peak
load and energy absorption can be obtained.
Sebastian et al.24 and Kirkwood et al.7,8 found that
sample dimensions, transverse tension and number of
yarns to be pulled-out are the main influencing factors
in determining the yarn pull-out force. Dong and Sun25
developed a two-dimensional (2D) finite element model
of single yarn pull-out by considering various para-
meters, namely fabric sett, yarn count, yarn crimp,
fiber modulus, fiber diameter and fiber friction. Zhu
et al.26 and Valizadeh and Lomov27 too concluded,
through a three-dimensional (3D) finite element
model, that sample dimensions and transverse force
2057
are the prime governing parameters determining the
single yarn pull-out force. Yarn pull-out force has
also been reported to be dependent upon yarn sizing,
pull-out speed and pre-tension of the fabric.5,28 Bilisik
et al.29–34 performed a series of studies on yarn pull-out,
and developed a statistical model35 showing fabric den-
sity, sample dimensions and numbers of yarns to be
pulled-out as the major determinants of yarn pull-out
force.
Although some reported researches are available on
yarn pull-out, some fundamental aspects are yet to be
explored by the researchers. This is due to the fact that
high-performance fabrics are available only in some
standard specifications (styles 745, 363, 802 for
Kevlar) and weaving these fabrics with customized con-
figuration is not an easy task. In this research, the
effects of different weaves, fabric sett, chemical treat-
ments and pull-out configurations on yarn pull-out
behavior of high-performance fabrics have been
explored. The relationship between yarn pull-out
force and energy absorption at low-velocity (6 m s–1)
impact has also been investigated.
Materials and methods
Materials
Two sets of samples were used in this research. The
first set of samples was manufactured, whereas the
second set of samples was commercially available. In
the first set, multifilament p-aramid (Technora) yarn of
720 denier was used to prepare fabrics of five different
weaves, namely plain, 3/1 twill, 2/2 twill, 2/2 matt and
5 end satin, as shown in Figure 1. The measured tena-
city and initial modulus of the Technora yarn were
12.67 g/denier (CV ¼ 8.6%) and 633.3 g/denier
(CV ¼ 2.1%), respectively. These weaves were chosen
as they can be woven using only four heald shafts
except for the satin, for which five heald shafts are
required. Besides, plain, 2/2 twill, 3/1 twill and 5 end
satin have different float lengths of one, two, three and
four, respectively, which covers a very wide range.
Higher float length than four results in a very infirm
fabric that is difficult to use for practical purposes. All
the fabrics were woven with different fabric setts (Ends
per inch or EPI  Picks per inch or PPI ¼ 25  25,
30  30 and 35  35) using a single rigid rapier sample
loom (Figure 2). The areal density of fabric for a parti-
cular sett does not change significantly with weave. The
details of fabric areal density for different weaves and
setts are summarized in Table 1.
In second set of samples, two commercially available
balanced plain woven fabrics, namely p-aramid
(Kevlar) and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene
(UHMWPE-Spectra), were used. The areal density and
2058 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

× × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×

Figure 1. Different weaves: (a) plain; (b) 3/1 twill; (c) 2/2 twill; (d) 2/2 matt; (e) 5 end satin.

Table 2. Specifications of samples used in the second set of

experiments

Sample specifications p-aramid (Kevlar) UHMWPE (Spectra)

EPI  PPI 22  22 21  21
Areal density (gm–2) 210 228
Yarn denier 1000 1200
Number of filaments 1000 120
UHMWPE: ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.

dispersion and ease the penetration of STF into fabric

samples. Fabric samples were impregnated with four
Figure 2. Single rigid rapier sample loom. different fluids, namely water, PEG, STF and silica-
water suspension, using a Mathis Lab Padder. The pad-
ding mangle pressure and speed were 2 bar and
Table 1. Areal density (gm–2) of fabric samples used in the first 3 m min–1, respectively. In the case of STF and silica-
set of experiments water treatments, fabric samples were subsequently
Mass per unit area (gm–2)
kept in a hot air oven at 80 C for 30 minutes in order
to evaporate ethanol and water, respectively.3,23
Fabric sett Fabric sett Fabric sett
(in–1) 25  25 (in–1) 30  30 (in–1) 35  35
Weave (984  984 m–1) (1181  1181 m–1) (1378  1378 m–1) Yarn pull-out test
Plain 160.3 187.4 227.8 The yarn pull-out test was carried out on a universal
3/1 twill 157.3 187.9 220.2 tensile testing machine using a lower jaw, purposely
2/2 twill 155.3 190.5 220.5 fabricated to enable pull-out of single or multiple
2/2 matt 157.7 186.6 213.6 yarns without producing any fold or distortion in the
5 end satin 159.1 184.5 220.0 fabric sample. The fabric sample was mounted in the
frame of a fabricated lower jaw with the help of fixed
and movable clamps, as shown in Figure 3. The tension
sett of the two fabrics were comparable, as given in in the fabric was kept at a constant level by adjusting
Table 2. the position of the movable clamp that is attached with
a screw mechanism. The pull-out test was conducted
with a constant upper jaw speed of 500 mm min–1.
STF synthesis and treatment of fabric For each sample, 10 tests were conducted and the aver-
Spherical colloidal silica nano-particles (MP1040) age was calculated.
having 100 nm average particle size were obtained Figure 4 shows the dimensions of the fabric sample
from Nissan Chemicals, Japan, and was used for the for the yarn pull-out test. A sample of 16 cm  12 cm
synthesis of STF. Synthesis was done by dispersing dimension was cut and was further given a profiled
silica nano-particles in polyethylene glycol (PEG) shape, such that a free length of 1.5 cm each at the
having molecular weight of 200, keeping solid content left and right extremities can be used to fix the sample
of the former at 60% (w/w). Ethanol was used as dilu- in the test frame of 9 cm width. The length of the
ent (1:4 v/v) to reduce the surface tension of the sample was divided into two parts: upper 8.5 cm
Majumdar and Laha
Figure 3. Yarn pull-out test set up. 1: movable jaw; 2: yarn
to be pulled; 3: frame; 4: fabric sample; 5: adjustable screw;
6: fastener (to fix fabric); 7: clamp holder.
having the yarns in the transverse direction removed;
and lower 7.5 cm as intact fabric. For performing the
yarn pull-out test, the requisite number of free yarns in
the longitudinal direction were held by the upper jaw.
The free length of yarn was used by the upper jaw for
gripping.
Yarn pull-out configurations
Figure 5 depicts various pull-out configurations,
namely single yarn, two consecutive yarns, two yarns
with a single gap and three consecutive yarns. Such
configurations were chosen to determine the nature of
relationship between the forces required to pull-out a
single yarn and multiple yarns (both consecutive and
alternate) from fabric.
Low-velocity ‘falling dart’ impact resistance test
The low-velocity impact resistance of untreated and
STF-treated p-aramid (Technora) fabrics was evaluated
on a ‘falling dart’ type impact resistance tester
(CEAST), following ASTM D 3763. Fabric samples
of size 16 cm  16 cm were held between two circular
jaws having rubber grips. The inner and outer dia-
meters of the circular jaws were 76 and 108 mm, respec-
tively. The impact tests were conducted with a
hemispherical impactor of 13 mm diameter hitting the
fabric at a speed of 6 ms–1. For each sample five tests
were conducted and the average was calculated.
Results and discussion
Effects of weave, sett and STF on yarn pull-out force
Figure 6 shows the single yarn pull-out test results for
untreated p-aramid (Technora) fabrics having different
weaves and setts. Irrespective of fabric sett, the
2059
Figure 4. Fabric sample dimension for yarn pull-out test.
maximum and the minimum yarn pull-out forces are
obtained in plain and 5 end satin weaves, respectively.
Since the yarn in a plain woven fabric has the maximum
number of interlacements, the yarn pull-out force is
expected to be higher in comparison to those weaves
having fewer interlacements. During yarn pull-out, fric-
tional resistance acts at the crossover points of ends and
picks and therefore higher pull-out force is required
when the number of interlacements is more. It is also
observed that the yarn pull-out force increases conco-
mitantly with the increase in fabric sett. This can also
be attributed to the increase in the number of interlace-
ments with the increase in fabric sett. This increment in
yarn pull-out force is found to be most prominent in the
case of plain weave. For plain weave, increase in fabric
sett from 25  25 to 35  35 causes an increase in yarn
pull-out force by the highest extent (almost 4.4 times)
whereas for satin weave, the enhancement is the least
(1.5 times). Irrespective of weave, the fabrics with a sett
of 25  25 show the least yarn pull-out force, which can
be attributed to their open structure.
Figure 7 shows the yarn pull-out force exhibited by
STF-treated fabric samples having different weaves and
setts. The yarn pull-out force increases after the STF
treatment irrespective of weave, sett and pull-out con-
figurations. As the velocity of yarn pull-out (500 mm/
min) is quite low, the STF is not expected to get the
trigger required for shear thickening. However, the pre-
sence of silica nanoparticles is expected to increase the
surface roughness of yarns, causing higher yarn pull-
out force. Like the untreated fabric samples, the highest
yarn pull-out force is obtained in plain weave and the
least in satin weave. For the lowest fabric sett (25  25),
the increment in yarn pull-out force due to STF treat-
ment is found to be the maximum (300%, that is, from
6.2 to 24.8 N) in plain woven fabrics. Besides, for plain
2060 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

Figure 5. Different yarn pull-out configurations: (a) single yarn; (b) two consecutive yarns; (c) two yarns with single gap; (d) three
consecutive yarns.

Figure 6. Yarn pull-out force for untreated p-aramid fabrics.

Majumdar and Laha 2061

Figure 7. Yarn pull-out force for shear thickening fluid-treated p-aramid fabrics.

Figure 8. Yarn pull-out force versus impact energy absorption for p-aramid fabrics.

weave, the change in fabric sett from 25  25 to 30  30
causes almost 278.8% increase (from 24.8 to 93.9 N) in
yarn pull-out force. On increasing the fabric sett further
to 35  35, yarn pull-out does not happen, as the yarn
breaks before the commencement of sliding. This has
happened due to excessive yarn-to-yarn friction caused
by the higher sett and additional effect of STF.
Consequently, the yarns are inhibited from sliding
past each other during the test, leading to yarn break-
age rather than pull-out. It should be noted from
Figure 7 that the yarn pull-out force of 93.9 N obtained
in the case of fabric sett of 30  30 is comparable with
the breaking strength of 720 denier Technora yarns
(average tenacity is 12.67 g/denier). Therefore, it is cer-
tain that yarn pull-out force for fabric sett of 35  35
will exceed the breaking strength of the yarn. For other
weaves (3/1 twill, 2/2 twill, 2/2 matt and 5 end satin),
pull-out force increases concomitantly with the increase
in fabric sett and the effect is more pronounced when
the sett is increased from 30  30 to 35  35.
Relation between yarn pull-out force and low-velocity
impact performance
Figures 8 and 9 depict the scatter plot of yarn pull-out
force and energy absorption by untreated and STF-
treated p-aramid fabrics, respectively, during low-velo-
city impact. It is observed that there is good association
between the yarn pull-out force and impact energy
absorption. This implies that if the yarn pull-out force
2062
Figure 9. Yarn pull-out force versus impact energy absorption for shear thickening fluid-treated p-aramid fabrics.
Figure 10. Yarn pull-out force for p-aramid fabrics.
is more, the yarns resist the impacting force and thereby
contribute in energy absorption by extension or rupture
of the fibers. In contrast, if the yarn pull-out force is
less, then the failure of the fabric is dominated by the
yarn pull-out and the potential of the high-performance
yarn remains underutilized. Therefore, improving the
yarn pull-out force up to the optimum level could be
the key in designing woven fabrics intended for impact
resistance applications.
Effect of different fluid treatments on yarn pull-out
force
Commercially available p-aramid (Kevlar) and
UHMWPE-Spectra woven fabrics were treated with
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
four types of fluids. Details of these fabrics have
already been given in Table 2. Four different configura-
tions, namely single yarn, two consecutive yarns, two
yarns with a single yarn gap and three consecutive
yarns were used for the yarn pull-out tests. To facilitate
unbiased comparison of results, in the case of multiple
yarns, the total yarn pull-out force was normalized by
dividing it with the number of yarns to obtain the force
corresponding to single yarn. Figure 10 shows the yarn
pull-out test results for p-aramid (Kevlar) fabrics with
different pull-out configurations and treatment condi-
tions. Overall, STF-treated fabrics show the highest
yarn pull-out force, followed by silica-water-treated
samples and untreated samples. Since water and PEG
are known to create a lubricating effect between the
Majumdar and Laha
Figure 11. Yarn pull-out force for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fabrics.
yarns, the yarn pull-out force reduces in comparison to
that of untreated fabrics for all configurations,
the effect being more prominent in the case of PEG.
In general, normalized yarn pull-out force is higher
for two consecutive yarns than those of single yarn
and two yarns with a single gap. This can be explained
on the basis of the mechanics of fabric structure as
discussed in the Effect of different configurations on
yarn pull-out force section.
Figure 11 depicts the normalized yarn pull-out
results for UHMWPE (Spectra) fabrics for different
treatments and pull-out configurations. The results
are quite similar to those obtained in the case of
Kevlar fabrics, although the yarn pull-out forces are
higher for UHMWPE fabrics. This can be attributed
to the higher linear density of yarn in the UHMWPE
fabric, which caused greater yarn-to-yarn contact area.
However, silica-water-treated fabrics show the highest
yarn pull-out force, followed by STF-treated fabrics
and untreated fabrics. This difference with respect to
Kevlar fabrics may have happened due to the presence
of a water repellent finish in Kevlar fabrics. The
absence of any surface finish in the case of
UHMWPE fabrics causes better deposition of silica
particles on the fibers and thus yarn-to-yarn friction
increases drastically, resulting in very high yarn pull-
out force. Silica-water-treated fabrics show the highest
normalized yarn pull-out force of 102.6 N for three
consecutive yarns followed by 74.4 N for two consecu-
tive yarns. The corresponding values are 45.7 and
35.8 N, respectively, for STF-treated UHMWPE
2063
fabrics. Like p-aramid fabrics, UHMWPE fabrics also
show higher normalized yarn pull-out force for
two consecutive yarns than those of single yarn and
two yarns with a single gap. Besides, for p-aramid
and UHMWPE fabrics with STF and silica-water treat-
ments, the normalized yarn pull-out force for three con-
secutive yarns is much higher than those of other three
configurations.
Effect of different configurations on yarn pull-out
force
Two consecutive yarns in a plain woven fabric are inter-
laced in opposite phases, that is, up and down, as
shown in Figure 12(a). When pull-out force is applied
on two consecutive yarns, both of them try to move
towards the fabric plane by removing their waviness
or crimp. Consequently, they apply force (F) on the
transverse yarn, as shown in Figure 12(b), thereby caus-
ing the latter to take a more curvilinear path. Thus, the
maximum angle of the transverse yarn axis with the
fabric plane () increases. The magnitude of force
acting at the crossover points of warp and weft yarns
can be calculated from the following equation:36
8m sin
F¼ ð1Þ
p2
where m is the bending modulus of yarn,  is the
maximum angle of the yarn axis with the fabric plane
and p is yarn spacing.
2064
(a)
Yarn in up position
Force
Yarn in down position
(c) Yarns to be pulled-out
2p
Figure 12. Crimp interchange of yarns during pull-out: (a) two consecutive yarns before pull-out; (b) two consecutive yarns during
pull-out; (c) two yarns with a single gap before pull-out; (d) two yarns with a single gap during pull-out.
As  increases during yarn pull-out, the magnitude
of reaction force given by the transverse yarn also
increases. So, the yarn being pulled-out has to over-
come more frictional resistance at the crossover
points. On the other hand, during the pull-out with
two yarns with single gap configuration, the intermedi-
ate yarn being stationary does not try to be straight or
move towards the fabric plane. So, this intermediate
yarn takes part in crimp interchange with the transverse
yarn. Thus, the transverse yarn does not become as
crimped as happens in case of pull-out of two consecu-
tive yarns. This can be understood from Figures 12(b)
and (d) as 1 < . So, the reaction force that occurs at
the crossover point becomes less as compared to that
for pull-out of two consecutive yarns. Thus, it can be
concluded that two consecutive yarns require higher
yarn pull-out force than two yarns with a single gap.
In the case of pull-out of three consecutive yarns,
the transverse yarn has to take a highly curvilinear
path and, as a result, very high reaction force acts on
the yarns being pulled-out. The treatments with STF
and silica-water increase the inter-yarn friction. The
increased inter-yarn friction coupled with high reaction
force at the crossover points causes the normalized yarn
pull-out force for three consecutive yarns to be much
higher than those obtained in other configurations.
Conclusions
An exhaustive study on yarn pull-out has been con-
ducted using fabrics woven from high-performance
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
(b) Yarn in transverse direction
θ
F
p’
(d)
θ1
2p’
yarns. The effect of weave and sett on yarn pull-out
force has been studied using p-aramid (Technora)
yarns. Plain woven and 5 end satin fabrics demon-
strated the highest and the lowest yarn pull-out force,
respectively. The yarn pull-out force showed concomi-
tant increase with the increase in fabric sett. The yarn
pull-out did not happen in the case of STF-treated plain
woven fabrics having a sett of 35  35 inch–1, as the
yarns broke before the commencement of pull-out.
The yarn pull-out force showed good association with
the energy absorbed by the untreated and STF-treated
p-aramid fabrics during low-velocity ‘falling dart’ type
impact testing. It is necessary to verify this association
at high-speed bullet impact.
The treatment of STF and silica-water suspension
increased the yarn pull-out force of p-aramid (Kevlar)
and UHMWPE (Spectra) fabrics significantly, as they
increased yarn-to-yarn friction. However, yarn pull-out
force diminished when the fabrics were treated only
with PEG or water. The normalized yarn pull-out
force was found to depend on pull-out configurations.
Normalized yarn pull-out force for two consecutive
yarns was higher than those for single yarn and two
yarns with a single gap. This happened due to the assis-
tance provided by the intermediate yarn, positioned
between two yarns, which were being pulled-out,
in crimp interchange with the transverse yarns.
After STF and silica-water treatments, the normalized
yarn pull-out force for three consecutive yarns
was much higher than those obtained in other
configurations.
Majumdar and Laha
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Terminal Ballistic Research
Laboratory (TBRL), Chandigarh, India, for providing tech-
nical assistances for this research work.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported by the Terminal Ballistic
Research Laboratory (TBRL), Chandigarh, India (grant no.
TBRL/ CARS/61/2014).
References
1. Bajaj P and Sriram. Ballistic protective clothing: an over-
view. Indian J Fibre Text Res 1997; 22: 274–291.
2. Majumdar A, Butola BS and Srivastava A. An analysis of
deformation and energy absorption modes of shear
thickening fluid treated Kevlar fabrics as soft body
armor materials. Mater Design 2013; 51: 148–153.
3. Manimala JM and Sun C. Investigation of failure in
Kevlar fabric under transverse indentation using a homo-
genized continuum constitutive model. Text Res J 2014;
84: 388–398.
4. Tabiei A and Nilakantan G. ballistic impact of dry
woven: a review. Appl Mech Rev 2008; 61:
010801–010813.
5. Nilakantan G, Merrill RL, Keefe M, et al. Experimental
investigation of the role of frictional yarn pull-out and
windowing on the probabilistic impact response of kevlar
fabrics. Compos Part B 2015; 68: 215–219.
6. Hwang HS, Malakooti MH, Patterson BA, et al.
Increased inter yarn friction through ZnO nanowire
arrays grown on aramid fabric. Compos Sci Technol
2015; 107: 75–81.
7. Kirkwood KM, Kirkwood JE, Lee YS, et al. Yarn pull-
out as a mechanism for dissipating ballistic impact energy
in kevlar KM-2 fabric part I: quasi-static characterization
of yarn pull-out. Text Res J 2004; 74: 920–928.
8. Kirkwood JE, Kirkwood KM, LeeYS, et al. Yarn pull-
out as a mechanism for dissipating ballistic impact energy
in kevlar KM-2 fabric part II: predicting ballistic per-
formance. Text Res J 2004; 74: 938–948.
9. Lee YS, Wetzel ED and Wagner NJ. The ballistic impact
characteristics of Kevlar woven fabrics impregnated with
a colloidal shear thickening fluid. J Mater Sci 2003; 38:
2825–2833.
10. Duan Y, Keefe M, Bogetti TA, et al. Modeling friction
effects on the ballistic impact behavior of a single-ply
high-strength fabric. Int J Impact Eng 2005; 31: 996–1012.
11. Rao MP, Duan Y, Keefe M, et al. Modeling the effects of
yarn material properties and friction on the ballistic
impact of a plain-weave fabric. Comps Struct 2009; 89:
556–566.
2065
12. Cunniff PM. A semi empirical model for the ballistic
impact performance of textile-based personnel armor.
Text Res J 1996; 66: 145–58.
13. Cheeseman BA and Bogetti TA. Ballistic impact into
fabric and compliant composite laminates. Compos
Struct 2003; 61: 161–173.
14. Bazhenov S. Dissipation of energy by bulletproof aramid
fabric. J Mater Sci 1997; 32: 4167–4173.
15. Ahmad MR, Wan Ahmad WY, Salleh J, et al. Effect of
fabric stitching on ballistic impact resistance of natural
rubber coated fabric systems. Mater Design 2008; 29:
1353–1358.
16. Haris A, Lee HP, Tay TE, et al. Shear thickening fluid
impregnated ballistic fabric composites for shock wave
mitigation. Int J Impact Eng 2015; 80: 143–151.
17. Lee YS and Wagner NJ. Rheological properties and
small angle neutron scattering of a shear thickening,
nanoparticle dispersion at high shear rates. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2006; 45: 7015–7024.
18. Wagner NJ and Brady FJ. Shear thickening in colloidal
dispersions. Phys Today 2009; 62: 27–32.
19. Hassan TA, Rangari VK and Jeelani S. Synthesis, pro-
cessing and characterization of shear thickening fluid
(STF) impregnated fabric composites. Mater Sci Eng A
2010; 527: 2892–2899.
20. Kang TJ, Kim CY and Hong KH. Rheological behavior
of concentrated silica suspension and its application to
soft armor. J Appl Polym Sci 2012; 124: 534–1541.
21. Zielinska1 D, Olejniczak BD, Wierzbicki L, et al.
Investigation of the effect of para-aramid fabric impreg-
nation with shear thickening fluid on quasi-static stab
resistance. Text Res J 2014; 84: 1569–1577.
22. Park Y, Kim Y, Baluch AH, et al. Empirical study of the
high velocity impact energy absorption characteristics of
shear thickening fluid (STF) impregnated Technora
fabric. Int J Impact Eng 2014; 72: 67–74.
23. Srivastava A, Majumdar A and Butola BS. Improving
the impact resistance performance of Kevlar fabrics
using silica based. Mater Sci Eng A 2011; 529: 224–229.
24. Sebastian SARD, Bailey AI, Briscoe BJ, et al. Effect of a
softening agent on yarn pull-out force of a plain weave
fabric. Text Res J 1986; 56: 604–611.
25. Dong Z and Sun CT. Testing and modeling of yarn pull-
out in plain woven Kevlar fabrics. Compos Part A 2009;
40: 1863–1869.
26. Zhu D, Soranakom C, Mobasher B, et al. Experimental
study and modeling of single yarn pull-out behavior of
Kevlar 49 fabric. Compos Part A 2011; 42: 868–879.
27. Valizadeh M and Lomov S. Finite element simulation of
a yarn pull-out test for plain woven fabrics. Text Res J
2010; 80: 892–903.
28. Nilakantan G and Gillespie JW Jr. Yarn pull-out behav-
ior of plain woven Kevlar fabrics: effect of yarn sizing.
Compos Struct 2013; 101: 215–224.
29. Bilisik K. Properties of yarn pull-out in para-aramid
fabric structure and analysis by statistical model.
Compos Part A 2011; 42: 1930–1942.
30. Bilisik K. Shear characterization of para-aramid
(Twaron) fabric by yarn pull-out method. Text Res J
2012; 82: 1442–1456.
2066
31. Bilisik K and Korkmaz M. Multilayered and multidirec-
tionally-stitched aramid woven fabric structures: experi-
mental characterization of ballistic performance by
considering the yarn pull-out test. Text Res J 2010; 80:
1697–1720.
32. Bilisik K and Yolacan G. Single and multiple yarn pull-
out on E-glass woven fabric structures. Text Res J 2011;
81: 2043–2055.
33. Bilisik K. Stick–slip behavior of para-aramid (Twaron)
fabric in yarn pull-out. Text Res J 2013; 83: 13–33.
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
34. Bilisik K. Determination of stick-slip stage of single and
multiple yarn ends pull-out in para-aramid (Kevlar)
woven fabric. J Ind Text 2012; 43: 90–115.
35. Bilisik K and Yildirim B. Properties of stick-slip stage of
yarn pull-out in para-aramid woven fabric. Fibers Polym
2013; 14: 630–638.
36. Hearle JWS, Grosberg P and Backer S. Structural mech-
anics of fibers, yarns, and fabrics. Volume 1, New York:
Wiley-Interscience, 1969.