Vasile et al. tore trouser-shaped specimens of linen and hemp–linen woven fabric, in plain, panama and twill weaves, on a tensile tester, and report: “The lowest tear force was registered for plain weave in both the cases of hemp–linen and linen fabrics.”
What did Hossain et al.’s ANOVA find decides tear strength, and what decides tensile strength, in 100% cotton woven fabric?
For tear in the warp direction, Hossain et al. write: “The main effect of the fabric design is significant, F(7,14)=2.89, p=0.04; that is average warp way tear strength (Y1) differs significantly from design to design”. The loom setting did not have that effect: “Table 3 indicates that the loom setting’s main effect is insignificant, F(2,14)= 0.92, p=0.42, which means that the average warp way tear strength (Y1) is almost the same for the three loom setting.”
Tear in the weft direction followed the same pattern. For loom setting, “the main effect of loom setting is not significant, F(2,14)=1.59, p=0.24”. For weave, “the main effect of the fabric design is significant, F(7,14)=3.20, p=0.03”.
Tensile strength was the reverse. “The main effect of the loom setting is very significant on the yield of Y3, F(2,14)=316.9, p=0.00.” For weave, “the fabric design effect is insignificant; the average yield of warp way tensile strength (Y3) is almost the same for eight designs with same loom setting, F(7,14)=2.07, p=0.12.”
The cotton samples were woven from one cotton yarn in eight weave designs, each at three loom settings (different reed and heald counts), on a sampling rapier loom. Tear was measured on an Elmendorf-type pendulum tester after enzymatic desizing, washing, drying and relaxing. Desizing is one of several enzyme treatments for cotton.
Which weave tore hardest in Hossain et al.’s cotton fabrics, and what do the authors credit for it?
Hossain et al. write: “The tear strength of matt fabric is higher than that of rib, twill, and sateen, with a similar float length (Fig. 5).” In their ANOVA for warp tear, “the highest average of warp way tear strength (Y1) was yielded for design 2 plain matt.”
The authors credit float length and the way warp and weft cross. “According to float length, it can be said that the float length of the fabric significantly affects tear strength. With the increased float length, more yarns are close to each other, thus increasing tear strength.” They add: “Thus contact between warp and weft yarn or interlacement pattern or variation in weave design plays a vital role in warp and weft tear strength”.
Float length alone does not explain the order of the cotton results in Table A. The sateen floats over three yarns; the regular matt floats over two. Yet in the warp direction at the densest loom setting, the sateen tore at a lower force than both matts and the second warp rib.
The authors also write that “the strength increases with the increase of heald counts”. Their charts measure this as change relative to the plain weave, not in newtons: “Fractional change in weft way tear strength with respect to plain weave.” In newtons, the sateen and both twills tore at a lower force at the densest setting than at the other two settings.
The irregular matt reading in the warp direction at the densest setting is close to the stated capacity of the tear tester, which the authors list as “Elma Tear with max load 133 N”. For that reason, it may not be a precise value.
| Loom setting | Design | Law’s max thread density | EPCm | PPCm | Warp tear (N) | Weft tear (N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed 60/heald 30 | Plain | 22 | 15 | 14 | 56.390 | 64.011 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | Plain Warp Rib | 30 | 14 | 14 | 92.132 | 78.373 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | (2) Plain Regular Matt | 30 | 16 | 13 | 100.950 | 103.010 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | Plain Warp Rib | 33 | 15 | 14 | 62.296 | 76.838 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | (3+1) Plain Irregular Matt | 33 | 17 | 14 | 75.424 | 70.724 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | Z-twill | 30 | 16 | 14 | 80.386 | 88.242 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | Z-twill | 33 | 15 | 14 | 84.252 | 88.754 |
| Reed 60/heald 30 | Sateen | 33 | 17 | 14 | 81.405 | 92.152 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | Plain | 22 | 19 | 17 | 39.681 | 48.406 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | Plain Warp Rib | 30 | 21 | 18 | 105.640 | 85.288 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | (2) Plain Regular Matt | 30 | 20 | 17 | 106.390 | 102.505 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | Plain Warp Rib | 33 | 20 | 18 | 108.470 | 84.684 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | (3+1) Plain Irregular Matt | 33 | 21 | 18 | 93.060 | 95.304 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | Z-twill | 30 | 20 | 18 | 96.719 | 100.558 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | Z-twill | 33 | 20 | 18 | 83.534 | 90.806 |
| Reed 40/heald 40 | Sateen | 33 | 21 | 18 | 72.418 | 85.810 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | Plain | 22 | 25 | 24 | 18.858 | 32.798 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | Plain Warp Rib | 30 | 26 | 25 | 63.872 | 56.667 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | (2) Plain Regular Matt | 30 | 25 | 25 | 100.408 | 104.193 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | Plain Warp Rib | 33 | 26 | 25 | 122.200 | 64.117 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | (3+1) Plain Irregular Matt | 33 | 27 | 26 | 132.810 | 129.400 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | Z-twill | 30 | 26 | 26 | 59.613 | 72.977 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | Z-twill | 33 | 26 | 25 | 47.421 | 48.136 |
| Reed 60/heald 60 | Sateen | 33 | 27 | 26 | 41.407 | 71.366 |
In which direction did Vasile et al.’s linen and hemp–linen trouser-tear specimens fail to tear across?
Vasile et al. report: “Within the test period, all five specimens of each fabric tore in the warp direction. By contrast, in the weft direction, five specimens of FLAX PLAIN, three specimens of FLAX TWILL and HEMP PLAIN, and no specimen of HEMP PAN, HEMP TWILL, and FLAX PAN tore across this direction.”
The six fabrics were woven on an industrial loom. All share a bleached flax (linen) warp. The weft is either flax, giving the linen fabrics (FLAX), or hemp, giving the hemp–linen fabrics (HEMP). Each weft was woven as plain, panama (PAN) or twill.
The researchers first tried a pendulum (Elmendorf) tear test on these linen and hemp–linen fabrics. “This attempt failed as the force needed to tear the specimen exceeded the maximum force exerted by the instrument.” They then used a trouser-shaped specimen: a strip with a slit, whose two legs were pulled apart on a tensile tester.
Which weave wore through first in Vasile et al.’s Martindale abrasion test on linen and hemp–linen woven fabric?
Vasile et al. write: “Among the six fabrics analyzed, the panama weave was clearly the most sensitive to abrasion when compared with the plain and especially the twill weaves.” On the weft fibre, they write: “It was observed that fabrics with the same weave seemed to be equally resilient to abrasion, regardless of the type of weft.”
| Fabric | Weft | Weave | Cycles to breakdown |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEMP PLAIN | Hemp | Plain | 5000 |
| HEMP PAN | Hemp | Panama | 4000 |
| HEMP TWILL | Hemp | Twill | 6000 |
| FLAX PLAIN | Flax | Plain | 5000 |
| FLAX PAN | Flax | Panama | 4000 |
| FLAX TWILL | Flax | Twill | 6000 |
Vasile et al. call this result only “partially in line” with earlier work, which “reported more abrasion in the twill and satin weaves than in plain and panama, attributed to the longer floating yarns of the former two weaves.” On twill, the two results disagree: the earlier work found more abrasion in twill, while twill lasted longest in Vasile et al.’s Martindale test.
Sources: Hossain, M. M., Alimuzzaman, S. & Ahmed, D. M. (2023). “Tear and Tensile Strength of 100% Cotton Woven Fabrics’ Basic Structures: Regression Modelling”. Fibres and Textiles 30(2), 14–25. DOI 10.15240/tul/008/2023-2-002. https://dspace.tul.cz/items/cc620c63-5386-4717-96e9-403bb1c2fa2e/full. Vasile, S., Vermeire, S., Vandepitte, K., Troch, V. & De Raeve, A. (2024). “Effect of Weave and Weft Type on Mechanical and Comfort Properties of Hemp–Linen Fabrics”. Materials 17(7), 1650. DOI 10.3390/ma17071650. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11012718/.
Developing a womenswear range? See how we work as a ladies garments manufacturer in India.
View the B2B lookbooks → a glimpse of our latest collections. Request the full range: more designs on request.
