Original article

Textile Research Journal

2016, Vol. 86(19) 2067–2079

Numerical modeling of the air ! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
permeability of two-layer woven DOI: 10.1177/0040517515619358
trj.sagepub.com
structure ensembles

Miroslav Kyosov1, Radostina A Angelova2 and Peter Stankov3

Abstract
This study aims at investigating air permeability in the transversal direction of pairs of woven textiles. Three samples of
woven macrostructures with different characteristics are selected for the numerical investigation of 16 two-layer
ensembles. Computational fluid dynamics (Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations) is used for modeling the air
permeability, applying the theory of jet-systems: the flow through each of the layers in the ensemble is modeled as an ‘‘in-
corridor’’ ordered jet-system. The influence of the order of arrangement of the layers in the ensemble is analyzed,
indicating higher air permeability of the ensemble when a tighter structure is placed as a first layer. The effect of the
distance between the two woven macrostructures is also analyzed, showing a strong influence on the flow development
as well as on the extrema of flow velocities, especially in the drop of the flow velocity in the air gap between the two
layers. The analysis made and the results obtained show that the method can be applied for further investigation of
ensembles of textile layers.

Keywords
air permeability, two-layer ensembles, numerical simulation, computational fluid dynamics, jet systems, woven structures

The thermophysiological comfort of human beings is
strongly dependent on clothing, influenced, in turns,
by fabric properties: air permeability (AP), heat trans-
fer, water vapor permeability, etc.1 The AP of textiles is
an important feature, as it is responsible for transport
of air and water vapor from the body to the surround-
ing environment.2 It is determined as the flow rate in
the transversal direction of a textile macrostructure,
measured when a pressure gradient between the two
surfaces of the sample exists. However, the proper
simulation of the AP of a textile macrostructures
would allow the prediction of this characteristic at the
design stage, reducing expenses for production of sam-
ples with different properties.
Several research studies have been dedicated to the
problems of AP simulation. Kulichenko and
Langenhove3 used the formula of Hagen–Poiseuille
together with the D’Arcy law, in order to derive an
equation for the theoretical analysis of the relationship
between the AP and the textile structure. Xu and
Wang4 applied the same method, but their research
was based on textile macrostructures, made of
monofilaments. Belkacemi and Broadbent5 were
focused on studying the permeability of textiles at
high differential pressure gradients, both experimen-
tally and theoretically. The porosity of a single-layer
textile was explored by Jakšić and Jakšić,6 and a math-
ematical model of the porosity was developed. Ogulata
and Mavruz7 also studied the porosity and AP of a
single-layer textile by developing a complex mathema-
tical model based on the D’Arcy’s formula. Gibson
et al.8 focused on the dynamic AP of a porous elastic
textile, but they used a real experimental set.
1
Department of Hydroaerodynamics and Hydraulic Machines, Technical
University of Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Department of Textiles, Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria
3
Centre for Research and Design in Human Comfort, Energy and
Environment (CERDECEN), Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria
Corresponding author:
Radostina A Angelova, Technical University of Sofia, 8 Kliment Ohridski
Boulevard, Sofia 1797, Bulgaria.
Email: joy_angels@abv.bg
2068
A statistical method was developed by Epps9 to
describe the relationship between the structure of a tex-
tile and its AP. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
code was used as an instrument by Nazarboland et al.10
in order to simulate AP based on the thickness of the
textile. Grouve et al.11 developed their own CFD code
for calculation of the AP of textiles in the transversal
direction. Rief et al.12 studied the AP of textiles by
using their own software, based on the multitude of
initially preset parameters obtained from real
experiments.
Most of the research in the field of AP was mainly
based on single-layer textile macrostructures.
Elnashar13 studied experimentally the AP of double-
layer woven fabrics with different constructions of the
upper and lower weave. Padaki et al.14 simulated the
resin flow through multilayered textiles with known por-
osity and permeability by using a CFD model.
However, there are hardly any studies on the simulation
of AP of two-layer fabric ensembles. In reality, clothing
is made of two or more textile layers to maintain the
thermophysiological comfort; therefore, it is essential to
understand the behavior of ensembles of textiles.
Our previous research has shown the applicability of
a method for simulation of the AP of single-layer
woven macrostructures, based on the jet system
theory.15,16 The method was tested numerically and
verified with experimental results for the AP of real
fabrics. The objective of the present study was to inves-
tigate numerically the AP of two-layer fabric ensem-
bles. The same method for approximation, based on
jet systems was applied, and the FLUENT CFD soft-
ware package was used for the simulations.
Theory
A jet system can be considered a system in which the air
is passing through openings in the solid structure.
Figure 1. In-corridor ordered jet system: (a) three-dimensional view; (b) basic metrics; (c) flow development – transversal
representation.
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
The interaction between the jets, leaving the openings,
forms a complex three-dimensional (3D) flow. The
openings can be of various shapes (square, rectangular,
circle) and ordered in-line, in-corridor and chess-
board.17
Figure 1 shows an in-corridor arranged jet system of
3  3 ordered square openings (nine openings in total),
with a unit length of 2b0 per opening. Figure 1(a) is a
3D orthogonal representation of the jet system,
Figure 1(b) is a two-dimensional (2D) representation
with the basic parameters of the jet system, and
Figure 1(c) is a transversal representation of the turbu-
lent flow development and dissipation until gradually
intermixing from a single jet (region I) into the flow
field (region IV). The steps between the openings are
characterized by the parameters Sy and Sz , as
follows:16,17
Sy ¼ 2b0 þ dwp
ð1Þ
Sz ¼ 2b0 þ dwf
where dwp and dwf are the average diameter of warp and
weft yarns, respectively, mm, and b0 is the equivalent
pore size. The last is calculated as
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
2b0 ¼ Sm ð2Þ
where Sm is the mean pore area, mm2.
The flow starts with initial velocity of u0
(Figure 1(c)). The flow of every single pore is indepen-
dently developing in region I. Between regions II and
III, the single flows are beginning to intermix until in
section IV they have further developed into one steady-
state flow.17
The woven fabrics have such a specific geometry that
they are very similar to a tube-like porous structure.
The geometry is defined by the interweaving of the
weft and the warp threads with repeated interchanges
Kyosov et al. 2069

of the threads and voids in both directions of the weft for

and warp. This macrostructure is very similar to the in-
corridor ordered jet system.
Every single jet in the in-corridor jet system is repre-
sentative for the whole system, if it is surrounded by
eight other jets.17 The surrounding eight flows are
acting as boundary conditions and influence the flow
development of the central jet. Thus, every woven
macrostructure fabric can be approximated to an in-
corridor ordered jet system of nine openings, which
means the woven textile is simulated as 4  4 yarns or
3  3 pores between the yarns.16 This basic approach
was described in detail, applied for simulation of real
woven fabrics and verified with experimental results for
the AP of woven fabrics in Angelova et al.15,16 The
method was also applied for simulation of the AP of
knitted fabrics.18
A previous numerical study on the problem has
shown15 that there is practically no difference between
the circular and square shaped openings in a jet system.
Being the case, it is up to the personal preferences and
the grid used on whether the used shape will be circular
or square. For the purpose of this study a square shape
of the pores was chosen.
Materials and methods
Materials
Three samples of woven macrostructures with different
geometrical characteristics were selected for creating
the pairs of layers for the simulation, as shown in
Table 1. All they were made of cotton yarns in a
plain weave, with a large difference in the porosity of
Sample K and similar porosity of Sample P and Sample
Y. The porosity Vs of the samples was determined on
the basis of warp Pwa and weft Pwf densities of the
samples, as well as their warp Ewa and weft cover fac-
tors Ewf, following the equation
Vs ¼ 100  ðEwa þ Ewf  0:01Ewa Ewf Þ ð3Þ
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ttwa
Ewa ¼ kf Pwa ,%
1000
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
Ttwf
Ewf ¼ kf Pwf ,%
1000
where Rtwa is the linear density of the warp threads,
tex; Ttwf is the linear density of the weft threads, tex;
and kf is a coefficient that depends on the fiber type.
Due to the complexity of the geometry of each fabric
individually, the following simplifications when creating
the virtual model of the samples have been assumed.
. The diameter of the yarn was accepted to be one and
the same along the thread.
. The pore area was approximated to an average value
for the whole macrostructure Sm (Table 1). The
square shape of the pores was used.
. As the interweaving of the warp and weft threads
had an influence on the thickness, an average value
from the experimental measurement of the thickness
was accepted as length of the interstices.19
. Every simulated sample was presented as a system of
4  4 threads, which interconnection gave an
‘‘in-corridor’’ ordered system of 3  3 jet flows
(3  3 pores). However, as the simulated macrostruc-
tures had different values of warp and weft density,
in the geometrical models one of the samples had
always at least 3  3 pores, whereas the other
might have a greater number of pores to reach the
same sample size.
Figure 2 represents the approach used for modeling
of Sample K: the microscopic picture of the woven
structure (Figure 2(a)) and the geometry built with
FLUENT’s GAMBIT pre-processor (Figure 2(b)),
based on a 3  3 jet system.
Numerical procedure
The geometry of each pair of woven structures was
built using a GAMBIT FLUENT pre-processor.

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the simulated woven macrostructures

Warp Weft Linear Linear Mean

Sample Weight, density, density, density density Thickness, Porosity, pore area
code Material Weave g/m2 ends/dm picks/dm warp, tex weft, tex mm % Sm, mm2

J CO 100% Plain 89 176 124 28 28 0.45 51.6 0.255

P CO 100% Plain 133 284 294 20 20 0.39 29.1 0.038
Y CO 100% Plain 157 234 254 30 30 0.47 25.9 0.031
2070
Figure 2. Approach in modeling of the woven structure: (a) microscopic picture of Sample K; (b) the geometry, built in GAMBIT.
Figure 3. Three-dimensional geometrical model for Case 1.
A pipe-like domain was used, where the first layer
(woven structure) was placed 3 mm after the domain
inlet. The second layer was built in a distance of
0.5 – 1 – 3 – 5 mm from the first one and 8 mm before
the domain outlet. The length of the domain had to
ensure the flow development after the second layer.16
Figure 3 shows the domain for Case 1 (Sample K –
Sample P at a distance of 0.5 mm) – see Table 2.
In order for the virtual model of Sample K to
include 3  3 pores, its size was larger than the size of
the Sample K, which has higher values of warp and
weft densities (Table 1). Thus, the larger sample size
was determinant for the size of the computational
domain and the second woven macrostructure in the
pair. As a result, Sample P was built with 25 pores
(5  5).
A hybrid grid of tetrahedrons (between the samples)
and hexahedrons (in the rest of the domain) was used
for meshing the virtual model of each of the cases.
Figure 4 represents a section of the grid for Case 1,
which had a total of 134,350 control volumes.
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
Rhe details for the grids for each of the simulated
cases are listed in Table 2.
The FLUENT 6.3.26 CFD software package was
used to perform the simulations of the AP of the ensem-
bles of double woven samples. The mathematical model
used was based on Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) partial differential equations plus the continu-
ity equations.
It was found in our previous work16 that the k-"
turbulence model and Reynolds Stress Model
(RSM) gave results very close to the ones obtained
from the real experiment. Due to its simplicity
versus the RSM, the k-" model was used in the
present study.
The solver was set as implicit pressure based.
The pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of
the domain was 100 Pa, which corresponds to 10 mm
water column pressure difference, used in experimental
measurement of the AP of textile macrostructures.
All surrounding walls were set as symmetrical bound-
ary type.
Kyosov et al. 2071

Table 2. Simulated cases

Computational First Second Distance between the Number Number Number

case layer layer two layers, mm of cells of faces of nodes

1 K P 0.5 134,350 391,110 125,501

2 K P 1 158,761 440,652 130,064
3 K P 3 254,634 643,918 147,737
4 K P 5 350,003 828,176 165,324
5 P K 0.5 128,318 373,014 119,469
6 P K 1 152,729 422,556 124,032
7 P K 3 248,602 616,822 141,705
8 P K 5 343,971 810,080 159,292
9 P Y 0.5 71,799 211,721 69,636
10 P Y 1 76,561 221,373 70,473
11 P Y 3 101,402 272,903 75,870
12 P Y 5 201,774 476,779 94,899
13 Y P 0.5 68,103 200,633 65,940
14 Y P 1 71,689 206,757 65,601
15 Y P 3 96,530 258,287 70,998
16 Y P 5 198,582 467,203 91,707

. the influence of the distance between the layers

(0.5 – 1 – 3 – 5 mm).

Results and discussion

Figure 4. A section of the hybrid grid (Case 1).
Summary of the cases
Sixteen cases all together were simulated, as shown in
Table 2. The following parameters were studied:
. the influence of the order of the arrangement of the
layers;
The effect of the order of arrangement of the layers
Figure 5 summarizes the velocity field for Cases 10 and
14, when Sample P with higher porosity and smaller
thickness is used in a pair with Sample Y with lower
porosity and bigger thickness. Figure 5(a) visualizes the
velocity magnitude when Sample P is the first layer
downstream and Figure 5(b) when Sample Y is the
first layer. The distance between the two layers is 1 mm.
The analysis of Figure 5 shows that there is clear
evidence about the influence of the second layer of
fabric on the flow development. After the first layer
the velocity drops in the air gap between the two textile
layers, but after that the flow velocity increases to reach
a new maximum when passing through the second tex-
tile layer. The velocity magnitude of the flow through
the second Sample Y is higher (Figure 5(a)) compared
to the air velocity through the second Sample P
(Figure 5(b)). This can be attributed to the lower pore
area of Sample Y (0.031 mm2) in comparison with
Sample P (0.038 mm2) – see Table 1. The smaller pore
area of Sample Y is combined with lower porosity,
which provokes noticeable acceleration of the flow
through the finer pores of the woven macrostructure.
For precise assessment of the influence of the
arrangement of the layers on the flow, passing through
them, the velocity decay through the central jet of the
2072 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

Figure 5. Velocity magnitude (m/s); distance between the layers 1 mm: (a) Sample P-Sample Y (Case 10); (b) Sample Y-Sample P
(Case 14).

Figure 6. Central pore velocity decay, distance between the layers 1 mm: (a) Sample P-Sample Y (Case 10); (b) Sample Y-Sample P
(Case 14).
Kyosov et al. 2073

Figure 7. Central pore velocity decay, distance between the layers 0.5 mm: (a) pair Sample K-Sample P (Case 1); (b) pair Sample P-
Sample K (Case 5).

system (central pore) is presented in Figure 6. The first
velocity maximum in Figure 6(a) (through Sample P) is
4.5 m/s, while the air velocity through the same sample
in Figure 6(b) (the second maximum in the graph) is
4.41 m/s, which is slightly lower. This means that part
of the flow is stopped by the presence of the first layer.
The velocity second maximum in Figure 6(a) (through
Sample Y) is 5.49 m/s. The velocity of the flow through
the same sample, but placed as a first layer in the
ensemble (Figure 6(b)), is 5.55 m/s.
The AP of the ensembles of two layers is calculated
having the numerical results for the flow rate of the
developed flow Q, m3/s, as follows:
Q (Table 1): Sample K is very porous (51.6%), compared
AP ¼ , m=s
A to Sample P, which is more tightly woven and has lower
where A is the area of the textile layer A (area of the
domain), m2.
The flow is considered to be developed being steady-
state, that is, the velocity profile does not change
downstream.
The difference between the AP of the cases is not
great, as the AP of Case 10 is 0.375 m/s, while that of
Case 14 is 0.384 m/s. So the AP of the ensemble is
higher when a fabric with lower porosity is placed as
a first layer (Case 14).
Sample P and Sample Y have quite similar porosity
and average pore area. Therefore, it is interesting to
assess the effect of the order of arrangement in the
ensembles between Sample K and Sample P. These
macrostructures have quite different characteristics
ð5Þ
2074
Figure 8. Velocity magnitude (m/s) visualization for the ensemble Sample K-Sample P (Cases 1–4) placed at a distance of: (a) 0.5 mm;
(b) 1 mm; (c) 3 mm; (d) 5 mm.
porosity (29.1%). The results for the central pore velo-
city decay are presented in Figure 7.
The results prove again the influence of the order of
the two samples in the ensemble on the flow develop-
ment. The flow velocity through Sample K is 4.0 m/s
when it is the first layer in the pair (Case 1, Figure 7(a)),
and 4.24 m/s, when it is the second layer downstream
(Case 5, Figure 7(b)). This means that the flow velocity
through Sample K in Case 1 reaches 94% of the max-
imum velocity through the same sample in Case 5. For
comparison, the flow velocity through the more porous
layer in Figure 6(a) (Sample P) reaches 98% from the
maximum velocity, obtained when Sample P is the
second layer in the ensemble.
As for the maximum velocity through Sample P, it is
8.17 m/s when Sample P is the second layer in the
ensemble (Figure 7(a)) and 7.9 m/s, when it is the first
layer in the ensemble (Figure 7(b)). This means that the
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
maximum flow velocity in Case 5 reaches 97% of the
maximum flow velocity in Case 1.
The AP of the textile ensemble in Case 1 is 0.79 m/s,
while in Case 5 the AP is 0.85 m/s. This proves the results
for Cases 10 and 14 that higher AP of the system of two
ensembles is obtained when the fabric with lower poros-
ity is placed as a first layer in the ensemble (Case 5).
The effect of the distance between the layers
in the ensembles
Figure 8 shows the numerical results for the velocity
magnitude of the flow, passing through the ensembles
of Sample K-Sample P, for different distance between
the two layers: 0.5 – 1 – 3 – 5 mm (Cases 1–4).
Figure 9 represents the velocity magnitude of the
same textile macrostructures, but simulated in reverse
order: Sample P-Sample K (Cases 5–8).
Kyosov et al.
Figure 9. Velocity magnitude (m/s) visualization for the ensemble Sample P-Sample K (Cases 5–8) placed at a distance of: (a) 0.5 mm;
(b) 1 mm; (c) 3 mm; (d) 5 mm.
The velocity fields visualize the effect of the distance
between the two textile layers, which is, in fact, the
thickness of the air gap between the studied woven
macrostructures. The air gap plays the role of a
‘‘chamber’’ between the textile layers, visualized very
well in Figure 10, where the numerical results for the
static pressure are presented.
A comparison is made between Case 5, with a dis-
tance between Sample P and Sample K of 0.5 mm, and
Case 8, where the distance between the same woven
structures in the ensemble is 5 mm. The results show
that the static pressure changes logically: it is higher
before the first layer, decreases in the ‘‘chamber’’
between the two layers and drops down after the
second layer, with the flow development downstream.
To assess in detail the influence of the air gap, the
velocity decay of the flow through the central pore is
presented in Figure 11 for the ensembles Sample K-
Sample P (Cases 1–4) and Figure 12, for the ensembles
Sample P-Sample K (Cases 5–8).
2075
It is obvious that the pick of the maximum velo-
city magnitude through the second layer of the
ensemble moves downstream with the increment of
the distance between the two textile macrostruc-
tures. Therefore, the flow pattern is completely dif-
ferent within the distance 0–2 mm downstream for
Cases 1–4 (Figure 10) and also for Cases 5–8
(Figure 11).
Additional processing of the numerical results is per-
formed in order to better understand the effect of the
distance and the order of the layers in the ensemble –
the extrema of the flow velocities are visualized, as
follows:
. Max 1 is the maximal value of the air velocity when
passing through the first sample;
. Min 1 is the minimum velocity of the flow in the air
gap between the samples;
. Max 2 is the maximum velocity of the air passing
through the second sample;
2076 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

Figure 10. Contorurs of the static pressure for the ensamble Sample P-Sample K, Pa: (a) Case 5 (distance 0.5 mm); (b) Case 8
(distance 5 mm).

Figure 11. Central pore velocity decay for the ensemble Sample K-Sample P (Cases 1–4) for different distances between the layers.

. Min 2 is the minimal air velocity reached after the
second sample.
Figure 13 presents the extrema for the ensembles,
involving Sample K and Sample P (Cases 1–8). The
numerical data show that the largest is the influence
of the distance between the layers in the ensemble on
the Min 1 and Max 2 velocities, while Max 1 and Min 2
values remain almost constant. The reason is that the
air layer between the two textile layers forms a
‘‘chamber’’, where the flow development is strongly
influenced by the length of the air ‘‘chamber’’ and the
change in the static pressure. On the other hand, the
flow development within the air layer has an effect on
the maximum of the air velocity through the second
textile layer.
It has to be mentioned also that there is no great
difference (if any) between the extrema in the flow
Kyosov et al.
Figure 12. Central pore velocity decay for the ensemble Sample P-Sample K (Cases 5–8) for different distances between the layers.
Figure 13. Maximum and minimum velocity values for Cases 1–8.
velocities when the distance between the two textile
layers in the ensemble changes from 3 to 5 mm.
The same analysis of the extrema in the flow velo-
cities for Cases 9–16, shown in Figure 14, leads to simi-
lar conclusions: the distance between the two layers
affects mainly the Min 1 velocity. In this case, the
greater similarity between the characteristics of
Sample P and Sample Y leads to almost the same
flow development and equal values for flow velocities
for the studied distances of 1, 3 and 5 mm between the
two samples, despite their order of arrangement in the
ensemble. The only difference is between the results for
the 0.5 mm distance, compared with 1 mm distance:
2077
Max 1, Max 2 and Min 2 values are a little higher for
the shortest distance between the textile layers in the
ensemble.
However, in order to ensure better insulation, the
velocity of the air flow within the air gap between the
two layers has to be as low as possible. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the greatest distance between the two
textiles, namely 3 and 5 mm, would give better insula-
tion of the ensemble.
The analysis of the AP of each ensemble, calculated
on the basis of the flow rate of the developed flow after
the second layer, shows that it slightly decreases with
the increase of the distance between the textile layers.
2078
Figure 14. Maximum and minimum velocity values for Cases 9–16.
The largest difference is obtained for the pair Sample
K-Sample P, for distances of 0.5, 1 and 3 mm.
The effect of the order of the textile layer downstream
is also higher for the pair Sample K-Sample P, due to
the greater difference in the characteristics of the two
layers: despite the difference between the two samples,
the ensemble Sample K-Sample P has lower AP than
the ensemble Sample P-Sample K.
Conclusions
In this study the AP of ensembles of two woven struc-
tures was investigated by means of CFD, using the
theory of jet systems. This method was verified and
applied successfully for prediction and investigation
of the AP of single-layer woven structures. The present
study showed the applicability of the approach for
modeling the AP of two layers of woven structures.
The analysis of the numerical results for 16 ensem-
bles showed that the AP of the ensembles is strongly
influenced by the order of arrangement of the layers
and the distance between them.
It was found that higher AP was obtained when a
macrostructure with lower porosity was placed as a first
layer in the ensemble. It was also found that the dis-
tance between the layers had an effect mainly on the
flow velocity through the air gap between the two tex-
tile layers, as well as on the maximal velocity of the flow
through the second layer in the ensemble. The lowest
AP was obtained for a distance of 3–5 mm between
the layers.
The presented approach can be successfully applied
for further studies on the topic of woven structure per-
meability. The method can be useful also for detailed
analysis of a flow after a set of textile barriers.
Textile Research Journal 86(19)
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 received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Angelova RA. Textiles and human thermophysiological
comfort in the indoor environment. New York: CRC
Press, 2016.
2. Saville BP. Physical testing of textiles. Cambridge: The
Textile Institute. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, 2003.
3. Kulichenko AV and Langenhove LV. The resistance to
flow transmission of porous materials. J Textil Inst 1992;
83: 127–132.
4. Xu G and Wang F. Prediction of the permeability of
woven fabrics. J Ind Textil 2005; 34: 243–254.
5. Belkacemi Kh and Broadbent AD. Air flow through
textile at high differential pressure. Textil Res J 1999; 69:
52–58.
6. Jakšić D and Jakšić N. Porosity of the flat textiles.
In: Dubrovski PD (ed.) Woven fabric engineering. Rijeka,
Croatia: InTech, 2010, pp.255–272.
7. Ogulata RT and Mavruz S. Investigation of porosity and
air permeability values of plain knitted fabrics. Fibers
Textil East Eur 2010; 82: 71–75.
8. Gibson PW, Desabrias K and Godfreay T. Dynamic per-
meability of porous elastic fabrics. J Eng Fibers Fabrics
2012; 7: 29–36.
9. Epps HH. Prediction of single-layer fabric air permeability
by statistics modeling. J Test Ecal 1996; 24: 26–31.
Kyosov et al.
10. Nazarboland MA, Chen X, Hearle JW, et al. Effect of
different particle shapes on the modeling of woven fabric
filtration. J Inform Comput Sci 2007; 2: 111–118.
11. Grouve WJB, Akkerman R, Loendersoor R. et al.
Transverse permeability of woven fabrics. In: 11th
ESAFORM conference on material forming, Lyon,
France, 23–25 April 2008.
12. Rief S, Glatt E, Laourine E, et al. Modeling and CFD-
simulation of woven textiles to determine permeability
and retention properties. AUTEX Res J 2011; 11: 78–83.
13. Elnashar EA. Volume porosity and permeability in
double-layer woven fabrics. AUTEX Res J 2005; 5:
207–217.
14. Padaki NV, Alagirusamy R, Deopura BL, et al. multi-
layer interlocked woven fabrics: simulation of RTM mold
filling operation with preform permeability properties.
RJTA 2010; 14: 23–34.
2079
15. Angelova RA, Stankov P, Simova I, et al. Three dimen-
sional simulation of air permeability of single layer woven
structures. Cent Eur J Eng 2011; 1: 430–435.
16. Angelova RA, Stankov P, Simova I, et al. computational
modeling and experimental validation of the air perme-
ability of woven structures on the basis of simulation of
jet systems. Textil Res J 2013; 83: 1887–1895.
17. Stankov P. Three dimensional turbulent flows in the heat
and mass transfer processes. DSc Thesis, Technical
University of Sofia. Bulgaria, 1998.
18. Mezarsiöz S and Ogulata RT. Prediction of the air per-
meability of knitted fabrics by means of computational
fluid dynamics. Tekstil ve Konfeksion 2014; 24: 202–211.
19. Peksen M, Acar M and Malalasekera W. Computational
modelling and experimental validation of the thermal
fusion bonding process in porous fibrous media. Proc
IMechE Part E J Process Mech Eng 2011; 225: 173–182.