Original article

Textile Research Journal

0(00) 1–12

Toward three-dimensional modeling ! The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of the interaction between the air flow DOI: 10.1177/0040517518758006
journals.sagepub.com/home/trj
and a clamped–free yarn inside the main
nozzle of an air jet loom

Akil Osman1, Lucas Delcour1, Ine Hertens1, Jan Vierendeels1,2

and Joris Degroote1,2

Abstract
In air jet looms, the weft yarn is transported from the prewinder to the reed by means of an air flow. In this work, the
motion of a yarn inside a main nozzle during the first stage of an insertion process is modeled and analyzed. In this stage,
the weft yarn is clamped at one side and free at the other side. Therefore, the deformation waves of a clamped–free yarn
are modeled. A three-dimensional, two-way, fluid–structure interaction simulation has been performed in which the yarn
is represented as a flexible cylinder and the arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian technique is employed. The results of the
simulation have been compared quantitatively and qualitatively with experiments. It was, however, not possible to match
the initial position and stress state of the yarn in the simulations to that in the experiments. This causes large differences
between the simulated and measured yarn positions and wave characteristics, especially at the beginning. The agreement
between experimental and simulated wave characteristics notably improves as time progresses, but substantial differ-
ences remain. Analyzing the overall motion of the yarn inside the main nozzle shows that the mixing region, where the
shocks are located, can be considered as an excitation point. In this point, the aerodynamic normal forces are high if the
yarn is not located on the axis of the main nozzle. All deformation waves start from the mixing region and propagate
along the yarn.

Keywords
weft yarn, insertion, main nozzle, fluid–structure interaction, clamped–free, dynamic mesh, deformation waves

The air jet loom is widespread in the textile industry
due to its high productivity. In air jet looms, the weft
yarn is transported from the prewinder to the reed by
means of an air flow. In the first stage of the insertion,
the weft yarn is fixed or clamped by a magnetic pin and
an air flow is built up in the main nozzle. The second
stage starts by releasing the weft yarn, which then accel-
erates by means of aerodynamic forces. In the reed, the
weft yarn speed is kept constant by relay nozzles. When
the weft yarn reaches the end of the reed, it is brought
to a halt and cut off. Subsequently, the reed is moved so
as to push the weft against the cloth.
The main nozzle is mainly designed to generate axial
forces on the weft yarn. However, due to the effect of
gravity, the weft yarn deviates from the axis of the
nozzle, giving rise to normal forces due to shocks and
turbulence. The normal forces deform the weft yarn
and these deformations propagate inside the main
nozzle, affecting both the yarn and the air flow.
Although modeling the motion of yarns in air flows
has attracted many researchers’ interest, most of the
published works ignored the interactions between air
flows and yarns. For example, in Uno,1 Uno et al.,2
1
Department of Flow, Heat and Combustion Mechanics, Faculty of
Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Belgium
2
Flanders Make, Belgium
Corresponding author:
Lucas Franky Delcour, Universiteit Gent, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41
Gent, 9000 Belgium.
Email: lucas.delcour@ugent.be
2 Textile Research Journal 0(00)
Adanur and Mohamed,3,4 Turel et al.,5 Adanur and
Turel,6 Celik et al.7 and Nosraty et al.,8 no air flow
simulations were carried out. The air flow quantities
were obtained based on simplified equations or experi-
ments. These works were aimed at calculating the yarn
speed or the yarn tension or to study the effects of yarn
motion on the performance of air jet looms. Other
research focused on developing numerical models
to model yarn motion, for example, the one-
dimensional model suggested by Vangheluwe et al.,9
De Meulemeester et al.10 and Yamamoto and
Matsuoka,11 or the three-dimensional (3D) model
developed by De Meulemeester et al.12 However, the
air flow–yarn interactions were also not taken into
account. Nevertheless, the works1–12 helped one to
understand the dynamic behavior of yarns, led to
improved performance of air jet looms and provided
numerical models to predict the motion of yarns.
The development of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) and computational structure dynamics provided
powerful tools to carry out air flow–yarn interaction
simulations. For example, Cai and Oxenham13 per-
formed one-way fluid–structure interaction (FSI) simu-
lations of air flow–fiber in the fiber transfer channel of a
rotor spinning machine. They calculated the air flow
with a CFD software package and transferred the result-
ant velocity and pressure to a fiber movement model.
They showed the effectiveness of using numerical tools
to study the dynamics of fibers in textile processes. Zeng
et al.14 performed two-way and two-dimensional FSI
simulations of a fiber in high-speed air flow. They rep-
resented the fiber as beads connected by massless rods;
the air flow was laminar and incompressible. The effect
of the fiber motion on the air flow was taken into
account by a source term. They applied their models
to simulate fiber motion in the nozzle of an air jet spin-
ning machine. However, they mentioned that the pro-
posed procedure was computationally very expensive.
Tang and Advani15 and Kondora and Asendrych16
modeled the motion of fibers by representing the fiber
as a chain of spheres connected by ball and socket joints.
Zeng et al.17 and Sun et al.18 modeled fiber whipping
motion (bending deformations) during the process of
melt blowing by performing two-way FSI simulations.
They derived a structure equation for a flexible fiber,
represented as connected beads, and coupled it with a
flow solver. Pei and Yu19,20 modeled the motion of a
fabric in the vortex spinning nozzle. They performed
two-way FSI simulations using an arbitrary
Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) technique in which the
mesh is dynamic. The air flow was incompressible and
turbulent and the domains of the simulations were two-
dimensional and planar. They studied the effects of some
geometrical parameters of the nozzle, the inlet pressure
and the yarn delivery speed on the dynamic behavior of
a cotton fabric and found good agreement between their
results and experiments. Zhu and Chin21 modeled the
motion of flexible elastic filaments in a viscous pulsatile
flow using the immersed boundary method. Battocchio
et al.22 suggested a two-dimensional multi-body dynam-
ics model to simulate the dynamics of a long polymeric
fiber in a high-speed turbulent flow. They used the
Articulated-Body algorithm to model the fiber motion,
which consisted of a chain of rigid rods. Pei et al.23 mod-
eled the dynamics of a ramie yarn hair by performing
two-way FSI simulations. They used the same procedure
as presented by Pei and Yu,19,20 but considered the air
flow to be compressible. Wu et al.24 carried out two-
dimensional, two-way FSI simulations to analyze
deformations of a weft yarn during the start-up stage
in an air jet loom. They employed the ALE technique
and took into account the pressure effects, but ignored
the viscous forces. They compared the results of the
simulations with photos taken by a high-speed camera
during experiments.
This paper continues the work done by Osman
et al.25 on modeling and analyzing the dynamic behav-
ior of yarns during the insertion process of an air jet
loom. In that work, the motion of a weft yarn during
one complete insertion was modeled by means of FSI
simulations of air flow–yarn. The fluid model was two-
dimensional axisymmetric, the structure model was 3D
and the ALE technique was not used. The fluid mesh
was static and the effect of the yarn motion on the air
flow was modeled by adding a source term. The idea of
this work is to study the motion of a weft yarn during
the insertion process by means of completely 3D two-
way FSI simulations with the ALE technique. In our
previous work, some simplifications were made to carry
out the FSI simulations. However, performing the two-
way FSI simulations in a 3D configuration, as pre-
sented in this paper, increases the cost and duration
of the simulations. In this research, only the motion
of a yarn during the first stage of the insertion is mod-
eled and analyzed, with the yarn clamped at one end
and free at the other end. This avoids complications
related to the axial motion of the yarn. As the forces
on the yarn are strongly dependent on its position,
being able to simulate the yarn motion during the
clamped part of the insertion is an important first
step into simulating the entire insertion process.
Furthermore, this research aims at providing insight
into the problems and possibilities of using 3D FSI
simulations for weft yarn insertion. The results of the
simulations are compared quantitatively and qualita-
tively to experiments. Some of the works mentioned
above, for example Pei and Yu,19,20 also performed
two-way FSI simulations with the ALE technique.
However, the domains of the simulations were two-
dimensional in those works to avoid the complexity
Osman et al.
of 3D two-way FSI simulations with moving grids.
Consequently, the presented work is a significant
improvement compared to the state of the art. It
should be noted that a smooth mono-filament yarn is
used for the current work as this reduces uncertainty on
the surface and structural properties of the yarn. The
proposed simulation methodology could be applied to
any type of yarn, provided that a good structural model
is available for the yarn and that one can model the
influence of the yarn’s surface structure.
Experimental details
The numerical simulations are set up according to a
case that has been investigated experimentally. In the
experiment, the deformations of a clamped–free yarn
were recorded by a high-speed camera in a main
nozzle made of glass. The camera type is Kodak Ekta
Pro EM. The image capture rate was adjusted to 10,000
frames per second to capture clearly the motion of the
yarn. The yarn is a nylon 6.6 mono-filament and its
properties, according to measurements, are as follows:
the diameter is 0.72 mm, the yarn linear density is 464
tex and the Young’s modulus (E) is 2.5 GPa. The yarn
is clamped at the yarn inlet of the main nozzle and is
free at the exit of the tube.
At the beginning of the experiment, the main nozzle
is supplied with a pressure of 0.14 bar (all pressures are
relative to the atmospheric pressure), creating a holding
flow that keeps the yarn more or less on the axis of the
main nozzle. Afterwards, the supply pressure is
increased to 5 bar. There is a tube between the com-
pressed air tank and the main nozzle, but the pressure
at the inlet of the main nozzle is measured during the
experiment. The pressure was sampled at a frequency of
10 kHz using a piezo-resistive pressure transducer with a
least count of 0.046 bar (Meggitt model 8530B, 200 psia
range). Figure 1 shows the measured pressure profile at
the inlet of the main nozzle. The initial pressure corres-
ponds to the pressure of the holding flow, equal to 0.14
bar. After 5.4 ms, a valve is opened and the pressure
increases sharply to 5.35 bar. This value is higher than
the inlet pressure, which is equal to 5 bar. This higher
value is due to pressure waves traveling between the
tank and the inlet of the main nozzle. From 18 to
57 ms, the pressure varies between 4 and 5 bar.
Afterwards, the pressure reduces back to 0.14 bar.
A schematic diagram of the experimental setup is
provided in Figure 2. The camera records the motion
of the yarn in a vertical plane. The motion is recorded,
separately, in two parts of the nozzle tube as the high-
speed camera cannot capture the entire tube at once
with sufficient resolution. The holding flow is already
present at the beginning of the video recordings. This
can be observed in Figure 1 in which the measured
3
Figure 1. Measured pressure profile at the inlet of the main
nozzle during the experiment. The values are relative to the
atmospheric pressure.
pressure at zero time (the beginning of the recordings)
corresponds to the holding flow pressure.
A meridional section of the geometry of the main
nozzle, used in the experiment, is depicted in Figure 3
with the main dimensions indicated.
Simulation setup
Flow solver
The computational fluid domain, which is 3D, consists
of the main nozzle geometry and two additional outer
zones, as shown in Figure 4(a). The yarn is represented
as a cylinder with diameter equal to the yarn diameter
of 0.72 mm. The cylinder extends from the yarn inlet to
the end of the main nozzle tube. The yarn is clamped at
the yarn inlet, as shown in Figure 4(a). At the exit of the
tube, the yarn is free. The mesh is structured, as can be
seen in Figure 4(b), and contains about 367,000 cells.
The mesh is gradually refined toward the mixing region
to more accurately capture the shocks. A somewhat
higher mesh density has also been incorporated at the
tube outlet. The coordinate system is shown in
Figure 4(a); the origin is located at the yarn inlet.
Figure 5 displays the static pressure as calculated on
the yarn if it is fixed on the axis with an inlet pressure of
5 bar. Two different meshes are used with 367,000 cells
and 735,000 cells, respectively.
From Figure 5 it can be seen that the mixing region
is most sensitive to mesh refinement. However, per-
forming calculations on the finer mesh would drastic-
ally increase the computational time. Since the
deviation remains quite limited, it is not expected to
affect the general conclusions.
As the mesh is dynamic, the ALE formulation of the
flow equations is solved (Donea et al.26 and Sanches
4 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Figure 2. Experimental setup.

Figure 3. Meridional view of the geometry of the main nozzle. The red, black and blue lines represent the nozzle body, the needle
and the tube, respectively. (Color online only.)

Figure 4. (a) Meridional view of the computational fluid domain with the boundary conditions. (b) Details of the mesh.
Osman et al.
and Coda27). The air flow is compressible and turbu-
lent; the shear stress transport k–! model (k–! SST)
(Menter28) is used as the turbulence model.
The 3D transient simulations of the air flow have
been performed using Ansys Fluent 17.0, in which the
coupled scheme is used as the solution method for pres-
sure and velocity. The second-order upwind scheme is
used for the convective terms in the density, momentum
and energy equations. The least-squares cell-based
method is used for the gradients. The second-order
implicit scheme is used for the time discretization.
Several methods can be used to handle the dynamic
mesh. The smoothing method is applicable to a struc-
tured and an unstructured mesh and is employed in this
work. The principle of the smoothing method is to dis-
tribute the displacements of the fluid–structure
Figure 5. Static pressure on yarn, obtained from simulation
with yarn fixed on the axis. Mesh 2 contains approximately
double the number of cells of mesh 1.
Figure 6. Computational structural domain.
5
interface over the cells from the surrounding fluid
domain. The Laplacian (diffusion) technique is used
in this work for the extension of the grid displacements.
This technique is based on the Laplace equation to cal-
culate the new positions of the grid nodes.
The boundary conditions are set as follows: the inlet
pressure is set equal to the measured pressure profile
shown in Figure 1. The outlet pressure is set to atmos-
pheric pressure. The wall of the needle, tube and yarn
are set to no-slip walls.
As mentioned above, at the beginning of the experi-
ment the holding flow is already present. Therefore, at
the beginning of the FSI simulation the initial values of
the air flow quantities correspond to the values
obtained with 0.14 bar inlet pressure. The yarn’s initial
position is on the axis of the main nozzle. The conver-
gence tolerances are set to 106 for all flow quantities.
The time step used for the flow simulations equals
5  106 s and 3400 time steps are carried out.
Structure solver
The structural computational domain is shown in
Figure 6. It consists of the yarn as a cylinder and the
tube of the nozzle (which is called the fictive tube, as
will be explained in the next paragraph). The cylinder’s
length is 0.28 m. The structured mesh of the cylinder
contains 4800 elements of type C3D20R. C stands for
continuum elements, which are used for solid analysis,
3D means 3D, 20 is the number of nodes and R stands
for reduced-integration, which reduces the number of
integration points required to calculate the element
matrices. The properties of the cylinder are set to
those of the yarn, which are linear density 464 tex,
Young’s modulus E ¼ 2.5 GPa and Poisson’s ratio
 ¼ 0:39. Neither displacements nor rotations are
allowed at the fixed end of the yarn.
6 Textile Research Journal 0(00)
The fictive tube, shown in Figure 6, is not a meshed
body, but an analytical rigid body. The idea of this
body is to prevent the yarn from moving out of the
main nozzle. Moreover, the radial dimensions of this
fictive tube are 15% smaller than the corresponding
ones from the tube in the fluid domain for dynamic
mesh considerations. If the yarn came into contact
with the actual tube, the fluid mesh between the yarn
and the tube would be completely compressed and the
simulation would crash. Therefore, the yarn motion is
constrained to the fictive tube with smaller diameters,
which prevents failure of the fluid dynamic mesh
motion. Frictionless contact is set between the yarn
and the fictive tube in the tangential direction and
hard contact in the normal direction.
The equation governing the motion of a structure
(the weft yarn in this case) is
@2 u~
s  r   s ¼ fs ð1Þ
@t2
where s is the density of the weft yarn, u~ is the
deformation of the weft yarn, fs is the body force
per unit volume and  s is the stress tensor. Equation
(1) is discretized with the finite element method. The
Hilber–Hughes–Taylor implicit time integration
method is used. The geometrical nonlinearity is
taken into account. In addition to the fluid loads,
which are pressure and viscous traction, gravity is
also included in the structure calculations. The 3D
structural implicit dynamics have been calculated
using Abaqus 6.14 (Simulia Inc., Providence, RI,
USA). The time step that is used in the structural
simulation is the same as the one used in the flow
simulation (
t ¼5  106 s).
Coupling algorithm
The FSI simulation has been performed with two sep-
arate codes. The air flow calculations are strongly or
implicitly coupled with the structural calculations and
the interface Quasi-Newton technique with an approxi-
mation of the inverse of the Jacobian from a least-
squares model (IQN-ILS) has been used (Degroote
et al.29). With an implicit coupling algorithm, the cou-
pling equilibrium conditions on the fluid–structure
interface are satisfied in each time step. These equilib-
rium conditions are the kinematic equilibrium v~ ¼ d~ u
dt
and the dynamic equilibrium  f  n~f ¼  s  n~s , where
v~ is the air flow velocity, n~ is the unit normal pointing
outwards and the subscripts f and s refer to the fluid
and the structure, respectively.
The relative convergence tolerance is set to 106 with
a maximum number of 20 coupling iterations allowed.
However, after a few time steps, three coupling
iterations were sufficient to reach the imposed conver-
gence tolerance.
Results and discussion
Comparison with the experiment
To validate the results of the simulations, they are com-
pared to the experiments. It should be mentioned that
the initial position of the yarn is not the same in the
simulations as it is in the experiments. Although it is
possible to impose an initial deformation in the simu-
lations, obtaining the initial yarn position from the
video recordings is not feasible since only part of the
yarn could be recorded at once. Furthermore, extract-
ing the position of the yarn in three dimensions would
require synchronized footage from a second camera
angle. In addition, inaccuracies in the extracted yarn
position, small deviations in the nozzle geometry or
small variations in local yarn properties can result in
a notably different yarn position after some time.
Moreover, the stress components along the yarn
cannot be obtained from the video footage, prohibiting
a complete description of the yarn’s initial state.
Figure 7 shows the positions of the yarn in three
frames for both the simulation and the experiment. In
the simulations, the initial position of the yarn is on the
axis of the main nozzle. From Figure 7(a) it can be seen
that the yarn in the first frame of the simulation is still
positioned almost perfectly on the axis of the main
nozzle. The video recordings show that from 0 to
5 ms the yarn position remains basically unaltered.
This implies that from 0 to 5 ms, the air flow simply
holds the yarn in the same position. Therefore, it can be
stated that the response of the yarn to the air flow is the
same in the experiment and in the simulation during the
first 5 ms. The difference is just in the initial position of
the yarn.
The different initial position of the yarn in the simu-
lation with regard to the experiment affects the subse-
quent positions. Figure 7(b) and (c) display the
deformations observed during the experiment and the
simulation at a later time. These deformations run
along the yarn. Comparing exactly the position of the
yarn in Figure 7(b) and (c) is not meaningful because of
several reasons. First, the initial position is not the
same in the simulations and the experiments. Second,
local variations in the real yarn properties cannot be
taken into account in the simulations but can influence
the yarn position.
Figure 8 shows three frames of the yarn position in
the second half of the tube. Figure 8(a) shows the pos-
ition of the yarn at 5 ms. Also in this part of the tube,
the position of the yarn has not changed from the
beginning of the video recordings up to 5 ms.
Osman et al. 7

Figure 7. Frames of the yarn during experiments and the corresponding frames of the simulations at time: (a) 5 ms; (b) 12 ms; (c)
15 ms. The domain shown starts from the needle tip to 130 mm downstream. Images are vertically enlarged by a factor 2. The tube
border is highlighted in blue and the yarn (edge) is highlighted in green. (Color online only.)

Figure 8. Frames of the yarn during experiments and the corresponding frames of the simulations at time: (a) 5 ms; (b) 12 ms; (c)
15 ms. The length of the shown domain equals 125 mm; the right-hand side of the domain shown is at the tube exit. Images are
vertically enlarged by a factor 2. The tube border is highlighted in blue and the yarn (edge) is highlighted in green. (Color online only.)
8 Textile Research Journal 0(00)
Figure 9. Wave characteristics and measurement. Point A from the shown wave is followed to calculate the wave speed.
Table 1. Measured waves from the experiment
Wave Frame time [ms] c [m/s]  [mm]
1 7.8–10.4 15.3 70.0
2 12.8–14.7 31.5 100.0
3 15.4–16.6 33.3 80.0
Increasing the inlet pressure of the nozzle forces the
yarn to move back to the axis of the main nozzle, as
shown in Figure 8(b). Then, the deformation waves
move along the yarn, as can be seen in Figure 8(c).
Comparing the mode shapes of the deformation
waves in Figures 7 and 8 has not given a clear conclu-
sion about the results of the simulations. Therefore, the
wave length and speed are considered.
The characteristics of the waves are measured and
calculated, as shown in Figure 9. A point from a wave
is chosen to be followed; that point has to be either a
crest or a trough. For example, in Figure 9 point A from
the chosen wave is followed and the wave speed is calcu-
lated according to c ¼
xA =
t with
xA ¼ xA,frame2 
xA,frame1 and
t ¼ tframe2  tframe1 . The wave length () is
taken directly from the frame, as shown in Figure 9. In
the same way, three waves are measured from the video
recordings and the results are listed in Table 1.
Table 2 lists the obtained values of the wave charac-
teristics from the simulations and the differences com-
pared to those from the experiment. For the first wave
the difference is 61% for the wave speed, but for the
second and the third wave the differences decrease to
6% for the wave speed. It should be mentioned that the
experimental values are only a crude estimate, as
Table 2. Calculated waves from the simulation. The percentage
values are the deviations from the corresponding experimental
values
Wave Frame time [ms] c [m/s]  [mm]
1 8.5–9.9 39.5 (+61.2%) 48.0 (48.8%)
2 10.6–11.8 38.3 (+17.7%) 91.0 (9.9%)
3 14.6–16.2 35.6 (+6.4%) 60.0 (33.3%)
measuring and calculating the waves from the video
recordings is quite challenging.
The difference in mode shapes between the simula-
tion and the experiment, which are seen in Figures 7
and 8, are due to the differences in the wave lengths and
speeds. As the differences decrease with time, it can be
postulated that the different initial position of the yarn
in the simulation and the experiment causes these dif-
ferences. In fact, at the beginning of the simulation, the
yarn is positioned on the axis of the main nozzle, while
the initial position of the yarn in the experiment cannot
be imposed or controlled and is only approximately
positioned on the axis by the holding flow. Based on
the discussion above it can be stated that the different
initial position causes large differences in wave charac-
teristics for the first deformation wave. For subsequent
deformation waves, the obtained wave speeds are
within acceptable accuracy (between 6.4% and 17.7%
difference) of the experimental values.
Yarn motion
The overall motion of the yarn is analyzed based only
on the results of the simulation. Although the
Osman et al. 9

Figure 10. Coordinates of three points from the yarn centerline during the simulations: (a) y-coordinates; (b) z-coordinates. (Color
online only.)

correspondence between experiment and simulation

when comparing the yarn position is rather poor, the
simulations can still provide valuable clues about the
mechanisms behind the yarn deformation.
Three points from the yarn centerline are chosen. By
plotting the coordinates of the three points, it can be
observed how the deformations propagate along the
yarn. The selected points are located in the mixing
zone (see Figure 4), in the middle of the tube and at
the yarn’s free end. Initially, the points are positioned
on the axis at respectively 35.3, 158.4 and 283.0 mm
from the yarn inlet. Figure 10 shows the y- and z-coord-
inates of the three points during the simulations.
Figure 10(a) shows that, in the first 7 ms of the simu-
lation, the yarn falls toward the tube bottom due to
gravity. Moreover, Figure 10 indicates that, for exam-
ple, at 5 ms, the y-coordinates of the three points are
almost the same and the same holds for the z-coordin-
ates. Figure 11 displays frames of the yarn centerline in
the xy- and xz-planes. Note that the scale in
Figure 11(b) is smaller than the scale in Figure 11(a).
In Figure 11(a) it can be seen that the yarn falls due to
gravity, but deformation waves with low amplitudes are
also present. As the yarn falls, it does not experience a Figure 11. Frames of the yarn centerline: (a) y-coordinates;
(b) z-coordinates.
symmetrical flow anymore and, thus, normal forces are
generated due to pressure differences. All deformations
start in the mixing zone and propagate downstream. Figure 12 shows contours of static pressure in the
After 10 ms of simulation time, the amplitudes of the yz-plane at an axial coordinate equal to the coordinate
waves increase along z and y directions, as seen in of the point in the mixing region (red color line in
Figure 10. The wave amplitudes increase due to an Figure 10). The static pressure around the yarn in
increase of the inlet pressure (see Figure 1), which Figure 12 can be divided into two regions: a region
increases the aerodynamic forces on the yarn wall. with high values of static pressure and another with
10
Figure 12. Contours of static pressure in the yz-plane at an
axial coordinate located in the mixing zone, at time: (a) 11.5 ms;
(b) 12 ms.
Figure 13. Frames of the yarn centerline in the xy- and xz-
planes. The highlighted numbers show the location of the same
crest of a wave in the four frames.
low values. The yarn is pushed toward the region of low
pressure.
Figure 13 shows four other frames of the yarn cen-
terline at a later time than the frames in Figure 11. It
can be seen that the amplitudes of these waves are
higher than the ones in Figure 11. The numbers that
are highlighted in Figure 13 show the same crest of a
wave. This wave or crest propagates inside the tube.
Therefore, the speed of the wave can be calculated
based on this crest. The calculated wave speeds are
listed in Table 3.
Textile Research Journal 0(00)
Table 3. Speed of the waves shown in Figure 13 [m/s]
c12 c23 c34
In the xy-plane 41.6 34.9 40.7
In the xz-plane 22.3 30.0 36.5
Figure 14. (a) Yarn centerline position in the xy-plane. (b) Y-
component of viscous force along the yarn centerline. (c) Y-
component of pressure force along the yarn centerline.
The results of the FSI simulation, shown in
Figures 11 and 13, indicate that the deformation
waves start from the mixing region where the shocks
are located. There, the yarn is subjected to strong
normal pressure forces if, locally, it is not perfectly
aligned with the axis.
Figure 14 shows two frames of the yarn position and
the associated y-components of the viscous and pres-
sure force. Figure 14(b) shows that the contributions of
the viscous force in the vertical direction are small. The
y-component of the force depends mainly on the pres-
sure, as shown in Figure 14(c). It can be seen that there
are large contributions in the mixing region where the
shocks are located.
Figure 15 shows the contours of the Mach number.
It can be seen how the Mach number changes around
the mixing region due to the effects of shocks,
Osman et al.
Figure 15. Contours of Mach number in the xy-plane at 13 ms: (a) around the mixing region; (b) between x ¼ 175 and 190 mm.
expansion and compression waves. This is not the case
in another part of the tube, for example in Figure 15(b).
It can be concluded that if the yarn is not on the axis
of the main nozzle, it is subjected to normal forces
generated by the effects of the shocks. The normal
forces deform the yarn and the deformation waves
run along the yarn. Therefore, the location of the
shock can be considered as an excitation point.
The deformation waves can be linked to the pressure
force in this excitation point. Stronger shocks result in
higher pressure forces, which result in larger
deformations.
Conclusion
In this paper, the FSI simulation of air flow–yarn inside
a main nozzle has been presented. The domains of the
simulation are 3D and the ALE technique has been
employed. The first stage of an insertion process has
been modeled. In this stage, the yarn is clamped on
one side and it is free on the other side. The weft
yarn is represented as a cylinder in the simulations.
The deformation waves that run along the yarn have
been obtained and analyzed.
The results of the simulation have been compared
with video recordings of the yarn motion during the
experiments. The initial state of the yarn is not the
same in the simulation and the experiment. Therefore,
large differences between the simulation and the experi-
ment have been observed. However, as time progresses
and the influence of the initial state diminishes, accept-
able wave speeds (between 6.4% and 17.7% difference
with experiments) are retrieved.
By analyzing the global motion of the yarn it could
be concluded that the deformation waves start from the
mixing region and propagate along the yarn. These
deformations result from the presence of the shocks,
which cause a force away from the centerline if the
yarn is not perfectly aligned with it. The contribution
of the viscous forces to the radial motion is negligible
compared to the effect of the pressure forces.
11
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 financially sponsored by Aleppo
University of Syria, by a Starting Grant from the Special
Research Fund of Ghent University and by the Flemish gov-
ernment agency for Innovation by Science and Technology
(IWT), project number 120519.
References
1. Uno M. A study on an air-jet loom with sub-streams
added, part 1: deriving the equation of motion for weft.
J Text Mach Soc Jpn 1972; 18: 37–44.
2. Uno M, Shiomi A and Kise H. A study on an air-jet loom
with sub-streams added, part 2: analysis of various weav-
ing factors by the equation of motion of weft. J Text Mach
Soc Jpn 1972; 18: 86–92.
3. Adanur S and Mohamed MH. Analysis of yarn motion in
single-nozzle air-jet filling insertion, part I: theoretical
models for yarn motion. J Text Inst 1992; 83: 45–55.
4. Adanur S and Mohamed MH. Analysis of yarn tension in
air-jet filling insertion. Text Res J 1991; 61: 259–266.
5. Turel T, Bakhtiyarov S and Adanur S. Effects of air and
yarn characteristics in air-jet filling insertion, part I: air
velocity and air pressure measurements. Text Res J 2004;
74: 592–597.
6. Adanur S and Turel T. Effects of air and yarn character-
istics in air-jet filling insertion, part II: yarn velocity meas-
urements with a profiled reed. Text Res J 2004; 74:
657–661.
7. Celik N, Babaarslan O and Bandara MPU. A math-
ematical model for numerical simulation of weft insertion
on an air-jet weaving machine. Text Res J 2004; 74:
236–240.
8. Nosraty H, Jeddi AAA and Mousalloo Y. Simulation ana-
lysis of weft yarn motion in single nozzle air-jet loom to
study the effective parameters. Indian J Fibre Text Res
2008; 33: 45–51.
12
9. Vangheluwe L, Sleeckx B and Kiekens P. Numerical simu-
lation model for optimisation of weft insertion on project-
ile and rapier looms. Mechatronics 1995; 5: 183–195.
10. De Meulemeester S, Githaiga J, Van Langenhove L, et al.
Simulation of the dynamic yarn behavior on airjet looms.
Text Res J 2005; 75: 724–730.
11. Yamamoto S and Matsuoka T. A method for dynamic
simulation of rigid and flexible fibers in a flow field.
J Chem Phys 1993; 98: 644–650.
12. De Meulemeester S, Puissant P and Van Langenhove L.
Three-dimensional simulation of the dynamic yarn
behaviour on air-jet looms. Text Res J 2009; 79:
1706–1714.
13. Cai Y and Oxenham W. Computer modeling of fiber
movements in high-speed airflow. RJTA 2005; 9: 77–85.
14. Zeng YC, Yang JP and Yu CW. Mixed Euler-Lagrange
approach to modeling fiber motion in high speed air flow.
Appl Math Model 2005; 29: 253–261.
15. Tang W and Advani SG. Dynamic simulation of long
flexible fibers in shear flow. CMES 2005; 8: 165–176.
16. Kondora G and Asendrych D. Modelling the dynamics
of flexibles and rigid fibres. Chem Process Eng Inz 2013;
34: 87–100.
17. Zeng YC, Sun YF and Wang XH. Numerical approach
to modeling fiber motion during melt blowing. J Appl
Polym Sci 2011; 119: 2112–2123.
18. Sun Y, Zeng Y and Wang X. Three-dimensional model of
whipping motion in the processing of microfibers. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2011; 50: 1099–1109.
19. Pei Z and Yu C. Numerical study on the effect of nozzle
pressure and yarn delivery speed on the fiber motion in
the nozzle of Murata vortex spinning. J Fluids Struct
2011; 27: 121–133.
20. Pei Z and Yu C. Investigation on the dynamic behavior
of the fiber in the vortex spinning nozzle and effects of
Textile Research Journal 0(00)
some nozzle structure parameters. J Eng Fibers Fabr
2011; 6: 16–29.
21. Zhu L and Chin RCY. Simulation of elastic filaments
interacting with a viscous pulsatile flow. Comput Meth
Appl Mech Eng 2008; 197: 2265–2274.
22. Battocchio F, Sutcliffe MPF and Teschner F. Dynamic
simulation of long polymeric fibres immersed in a turbu-
lent air flow. In: Eberhard P and Ziegler P (eds) proceed-
ings of the IMSD2012 - the 2nd joint international
conference on multibody system dynamics, Stuttgart,
Germany, 29 May–1 June 2012, http://www2.eng.cam.a-
c.uk/~mpfs/papers/BST2012FibreTurbulentIMSD.pdf
23. Pei Z, Chen G, Mao L, et al. Dynamics of the ramie yarn
hair in the nozzle of the jetwind process and effects of
some nozzle parameters. J Nat Fibers 2015; 12: 430–443.
24. Wu Z, Chen S, Liu Y, et al. Air-flow characteristics and
yarn whipping during start-up stage of air-jet weft inser-
tion. Text Res J 2016; 86: 1988–1999.
25. Osman A, Malengier B, De Meulemeester S, et al.
Simulation of air flow-yarn interaction inside the main
nozzle of an air jet loom. Text Res J. Epub ahead of
print 8 March 2017. DOI: 10.1177/0040517517697646.
26. Donea J, Giuliani S and Halleux JP. An arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element method for transient
dynamic fluid-structure interactions. Comput Meth Appl
Mech Eng 1982; 33: 689–723.
27. Sanches RAK and Coda HB. On fluid-shell coupling
using an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian fluid solver
coupled to a positional Lagrangian shell solver. Appl
Math Model 2014; 38: 3401–3418.
28. Menter FR. 2-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models
for engineering applications. AIAA 1994; 32: 1598–1605.
29. Degroote J, Bathe K-J and Vierendeels J. Performance of
a new partitioned procedure versus a monolithic proced-
ure in fluid–structure interaction. Comput Struct 2009; 87:
793–801.