Mechanical Properties of Woven Fabrics Containing Elastane Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woven fabrics generally have high strength but only limited stretch. This lack of stretch can be overcome by incorporating elastane fibers into the fabric structure. These stretch woven fabrics offer an interesting potential for tight-fitting garments. However, the presence of the elastane fibers may lower the strength of the fabrics. To expand the knowledge on the mechanical behavior of stretch woven fabrics, this study investigated eight commercial fabrics with elastane fiber content between 5 and 51%. Four fabrics were polyester-based and the other four were polyamide-based. The effect of the fabric weight and elastane fiber content on the grab strength, tear strength, and unrecovered stretch was analyzed. It was observed that, at very high elastane fiber content, the load–extension curve was typical to that of an elastane fiber, while the traditional load–extension behavior of woven fabrics with low to average stretch was obtained at lower elastane fiber contents. For the polyester-based fabrics, the grab strength and tear strength generally increased with fabric weight and decreased with elastane fiber content. For the polyamide-based fabrics, a higher elastane fiber content led to a decrease in grab strength, tear strength, and unrecovered stretch. A reduction in tear strength was observed at higher fabric weight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".