Textile Research Journal Article

Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool

and Cotton Fabrics
Jimmy K. C. Lam1
Abstract In this study, the mechanical proper- Institute of Textiles & Clothing,
ties of fifty-eight light-weight wool/wool-blend The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
fabrics and twenty medium to heavy-weight cotton
denim fabrics were analyzed by multi-dimensional Ron Postle
techniques of principal component analysis. The School of Chemistry, University of New South Wales,
technique reduced the dataset of wool/wool-blend Sydney 2052, Australia
fabrics into seven components and explained 86%
of the population variance. For the cotton denim
fabrics, the dataset was reduced into five compo-
nents and explained 95% of the population vari-
ance. Fabric surface properties and fabric bending
and shear properties were the most important
properties to explain the fabric stiffness hardness
and tailorability for these two fabric classes. The
results show how multivariate statistical analysis
techniques of fabric mechanical and surface prop-
erty data for two very different groups of fabrics
can provide a basis for the specification and con-
trol of fabric quality along the textile and apparel
supply chain. These reduced datasets with the
most important component extracted first and the
least important component extracted last, allow
the supply chain members to focus directly on the
key factors for product design and development.

Key words fabric objective measurement, fabric

hand, fabric surface, tension, compression, bend-
ing, shear, wool/wool blend fabrics, cotton denim

The comparative studies on low-stress mechanical properties
of wool and cotton fabrics using the fabric objective measure-
ment (FOM) technology demonstrate that a large amount of
fabric data is readily available to the textile and apparel sup-
ply chain [1]. However, the vast amount of FOM data makes
the interpretation very difficult [2]. Therefore, the immediate
application of FOM to the industry is very limited except for
a few research institutions and very large companies.
In addition, the techniques used by the comparative
studies can only analyze a few data simultaneously. Such an
analysis is normally based on fiber type, weave structure or
the fabric end use. It is difficult to analyze all the variables
simultaneously, not to mention the interaction between
variables and their effects on the fabric mechanical proper-
ties such as tensile, bending, shear and surface characteris-
tics [3]. The mechanical variables discussed in the present
paper1 include thirty parameters. If, for example, it is
required to correlate each pair of fabric variables for low-
stress mechanical properties, we would need to consider
435[(30 × 29)/2] combinations. Clearly, correlation tables
of this order of magnitude are very tedious to analyze and
this represents a major problem for the interpretation of
fabric mechanical property data in the scientific literature.
1
Corresponding author: e-mail: tclamj@inet.polyu.edu.hk

Textile Research Journal Vol 76(5): 414–425 DOI: 10.1177/0040517506062768 www.trj.sagepub.com © 2006 SAGE Publications
Figures 1–3 appear in color online: http://trj.sagepub.com
 Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool and Cotton Fabrics J. K. C. Lam and R. Postle 415 TRJ

In the present study, the statistical technique of multi-
variate factor analysis was employed. Factor analysis is a
technique for analyzing the pattern of complex, multi-
dimensional data set relationships. It can be utilized to
examine the underlying patterns or relationships for a large
number of variables and to determine whether the informa-
tion can be condensed or summarized into a smaller set of
factors.
Factor analysis differs from the dependence techniques,
in which one or more variables are explicitly considered
dependent variables and all others are the independent
variables.
The advantage of factor analysis is that it is an independ-
ent technique in which all variables are simultaneously con-
sidered, each related to all others still employing the concept
of the variate, the linear composite of variables. In factor
analysis, the factors are formed to maximize their explanation
of the entire variable set, not to predict dependent variables.
In this study, factor analysis was used to analyze wool
and wool-blend fabrics and cotton denim fabrics in terms

Table 1 Fabric characteristics for 58 wool/wool-blend fabrics.

Weight Threads per cm Yarn count (Tex)

(g/m2) Warp Weft Warp Weft
Pure wool (31 samples)
Range 140–273 22–59 19–38 18–41 18–44
Average 185 31 26 31 30
Wool/wool-blend (27 samples)*
Range 125–242 21–55 16–33 22–45 22–45
Average 172 28 24 30 30
* The wool-blend fabrics contain wool/polyester fibers with blend percentages of wool/polyester of 90/10; 80/20; 75/25; 60/40; 50/50.

Table 2 Fabric mechanical parameters measured on KES-F instruments for wool/wool-blend and cotton denim fabrics.
Parameter symbol Description Unit
Tensile
EMT Fabric extension at 5 N/cm width %
LT Linearity of load extension curve –
WT Energy in extending to 5 N/cm width J/m2
RT Tensile resilience %
Shear
G Shear rigidity N/m
2HG Hysteresis of shear at 8.7 mrad N/m
2HG5 Hysteresis of shear at 87 mrad N/m
Bending
B Bending rigidity µNm
2HB Hysteresis of bending moment mN
Surface
MIU Coefficient of friction –
MMD Mean deviation of MIU –
SMD Geometrical roughness µm
Compression
LC Linearity of compression-thickness curve –
WC Energy in compression fabric under 5 kPa J/m2
RC Compression resilience %
T0 Fabric thickness at 50 Pa pressure mm
Tm Fabric thickness at 5k Pa pressure mm
Fabric characteristics
W Mass per unit area g/m2
Fiber Pure wool /wool-blend
Weave Weave structure (plain or twill)
For the tensile, bending and surface properties, each parameter has two values, representing the warp and weft directions of the fabric.
TRJ 416 Textile Research Journal 76(5)
of their low-stress mechanical properties of extension,
compression, bending, shear and surface characteristics [4]
(measured on the KES-F instruments). The characteristics
of the wool/wool-blend fabrics considered in the present
study are shown in Table 1 and the measured parameters
from KES-F are shown in Table 2. The wool-blend fabrics
contained wool and polyester fibers with blend percentages
of 90/10, 80/20, 75/25, 60/40, and 50/50, with the major
fiber content being wool.
Structured Approach to Multivariate
Analysis
To apply the multivariate factor analysis technique to the
fabric mechanical parameters measured on the KES-F
instruments, a five-stage structured approach model was
used. This model-building approach focuses the analysis
using a well-defined research plan, starting with a concep-
tual model detailing the relationships to be examined.
Table 3 summarizes the five-stage structured model used in
the present study.
In this report, model interpretation based on rotated
factor solutions is discussed for both wool/wool-blend fab-
rics and cotton denim fabrics. Further details for each
stage of the model are presented elsewhere [1].
Rotated Factor Solution for Wool/
Wool-blend Fabrics
The purpose of factor rotation is to redistribute the varia-
bles evenly among all the components extracted from prin-
cipal component analysis. The initial solution obtained
from principal component analysis (called the unrotated
Table 3 Five-stage structured model approach.
Stage Purpose
1. Research To summarize 30 fabric mechanical parame-
objectives ters measured on the KES-F instruments into
smaller data set for easy interpretation.
2. Analysis plan Using R-type factor analysis on all the 30 fab-
ric mechanical parameters.
3. Assumption test Testing on correlation coefficient, multi-col-
linearity of the data set
4. Extraction Using principal component analysis for data
method summarization for all wool/wool-blend and
cotton fabrics
5. Model Using rotated factor solutions for data inter-
interpretation pretation.
factor solution) extracts the factors in the order of their
importance. That is, the first component tends to have
most variable loadings and accounts for the largest amount
of variance. The second and subsequent components are
then based on the residual variance and therefore account
for successively smaller portions of variance. This principal
component method, however, makes the data interpreta-
tion rather difficult as every variable seems to be concen-
trated in the first few components.
We therefore used the Varimax rotation method of
principal component analysis for the wool and wool-blend
fabrics. The Varimax method has proved to be very useful
on orthogonal rotation in the principal component analysis
[5, 6].
The results of the Varimax rotation are shown in
Table 4. To access the variables in each extracted compo-
nent in Table 4, the highest loading factor for each fabric
mechanical parameter is selected; the result is shown in
bold type with an asterisk in Table 4. The percentage of the
variance as explained by each of the seven components for
wool/wool-blend fabrics for the rotated factor solution is
shown at the top of Table 4.
(a) Component 1
Component 1 accounted for 19.9% of total explained vari-
ance for wool/wool-blend fabric mechanical properties.
There are seven fabric mechanical parameters that have
the highest loading with Component 1, six of which are
tensile parameters namely EMT1, EMT2, LT1, LT2, WT1
and WT2. Both LT1 and LT2 are negatively correlated with
Component 1. The last mechanical parameter in Compo-
nent 1 is the compression energy WC, which again is nega-
tively correlated with Component 1. The percentage
contributions of these seven fabric parameters for Compo-
nent 1 are shown in Figure 1.
The strong correlation of tensile parameters of fabric
extensibility, linearity and tensile energy and fabric com-
pression energy (WC) with Component 1 means that fabric
extensibility and firmness are important elements for the
mechanical properties of these high-quality relatively light-
weight wool and wool-blend fabrics. The average warp
extensibility was 4.4% and weft extensibility was 7.2%,
which fall within the acceptable region of the HESC (Hand
Evaluation Standardisation Committee) Data Control
Chart for both men’s winter and summer suits [4].
The tensile energy (WT) measures the energy under the
load–extension curve for a fixed applied load and there-
fore, is directly related to fabric extension, EMT. Hence,
both EMT and WT have strong positive correlations with
Component 1. The fabric compression energy, WC is nega-
tively correlated with Component 1 representing a direct
relationship between Component 1 and fabric firmness.
The tensile linearity (LT) measures the ratio of actual
fabric tensile energy to the total energy for a hypothetical
 Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool and Cotton Fabrics J. K. C. Lam and R. Postle 417 TRJ

Table 4 Rotated principal component analysis on the wool and wool-blend fabrics (rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
normalization).
Component
Explained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Variance% 19.9% 17.4% 15.6% 15.2% 7.1% 5.7% 5.1%
Compression parameters
To –0.03 0.01 0.04 MKVOG –0.17 0.16 –0.12
Tm 0.07 –0.05 0.11 MKVNG –0.15 0.10 0.25
EMC –0.21 0.11 –0.16 –0.22 –0.03 0.09 ÓMKVMG
LC –0.51 0.37 0.10 –0.34 –0.05 0.08 MKROG
WC ÓMKTOG 0.39 –0.08 0.06 –0.28 0.19 –0.23
RC 0.18 –0.01 –0.03 ÓMKUOG 0.35 0.00 0.08
Bending parameters
B-1 0.05 –0.10 0.24 MKUNG 0.21 0.06 0.05
B-2 –0.11 0.20 MKTSG 0.41 –0.07 –0.23 0.03
2HB-1 –0.05 –0.06 MKUMG 0.30 0.19 –0.07 0.26
2HB-2 –0.07 0.14 MKVPG 0.04 0.00 –0.19 0.09
Shear parameters
G 0.16 –0.22 MKSQG –0.02 0.57 0.07 0.21
2HG 0.00 –0.23 MKVMG 0.01 0.06 0.07 –0.09
2HG5 –0.45 0.08 MKUQG –0.08 –0.10 0.09 –0.03
Tensile parameters
EMT-1 MKUUG –0.21 –0.03 0.20 0.04 0.05 0.10
EMT-2 MKUUG –0.24 –0.17 –0.11 0.06 0.15 0.01
LT-1 ÓMKSSG 0.11 0.08 0.01 –0.23 0.39 0.15
LT-2 ÓMKTMG 0.10 –0.01 0.23 –0.20 0.49 0.14
WT-1 MKURG –0.23 –0.01 0.21 –0.01 0.12 0.14
WT-2 MKURG –0.22 –0.17 –0.13 0.05 0.22 0.02
RT-1 0.29 –0.06 0.11 –0.36 MKTUG –0.08 –0.11
RT-2 0.26 –0.04 0.07 –0.14 MKRSG –0.55 0.15
Surface parameters
MIU1 –0.07 MKTMG 0.35 0.04 –0.46 –0.08 –0.04
MIU2 0.25 MKSQG 0.48 0.07 –0.42 –0.02 0.13
MMD1 –0.28 MKUVG –0.07 –0.14 0.03 0.01 0.20
MMD2 –0.25 MKUTG –0.06 –0.20 –0.09 0.04 –0.12
SMD1 –0.35 MKUVG –0.14 –0.01 0.09 0.10 –0.04
SMD2 –0.35 MKUQG –0.13 –0.10 –0.01 0.17 –0.09
Structural parameters
W 0.19 –0.38 0.03 MKUQG 0.00 0.01 0.12
Fiber –0.25 –0.16 0.16 –0.19 –0.03 ÓMKUPG 0.06
Weave 0.52 ÓMKSOG –0.31 0.07 0.09 –0.03 0.07
1 and 2 refer to warp and weft directions respectively.
*Highest loading factor for each fabric mechanical parameter.

linear load–extension curve. A negative correlation of LT
with Component 1 can again be related to the strong posi-
tive correlation between fabric extensibility EMT and
Component 1. The strong negative correlation between LT
and EMT is a direct result of the fabric tensile test method
adopted by the KES tensile tester [4] whereby the fabric is
extended to a fixed maximum load prior to recovery.
Although it could be argued that the measurement of EMT
may not add greatly to the information provided by meas-
uring LT, the fact is that both parameters are obtained
simultaneously from the one fabric tensile test and are thus
included in the present analysis.
TRJ 418 Textile Research Journal 76(5)
Component 1 which is strongly related to the tensile
properties of the textile fabrics was named the “Fabric
Extensibility” in this analysis.
(b) Component 2
Component 2 accounted for 17.4% of total explained vari-
ance for the mechanical properties of the light-weight wool
and wool-blend fabrics. All the measured fabric surface
characteristics of MIU1, MIU2, MMD1, MMD2, SMD1
and SMD2 which are all positively correlated with Compo-
nent 2 are shown in Figure 2. The remaining property in
Component 2 is the weave structure which has a negative
correlation (with Component 2).
Surface properties play an important role for the fifty-
eight wool and wool-blend fabrics investigated in the present
Figure 1 Percentage distribution
of fabric mechanical parameters in
Component 1.
study. Plain weave shows higher values of MIU, MMD and
SMD than twill or satin weaves represented by the negative
correlation between Component 2 and the weave structure.
In the analysis, plain weave was arbitrarily regarded as posi-
tive and other weave structures such as twill were regarded
as negative. The present results show that measurements in
both warp and weft directions play an important role in
explaining the surface properties of wool and wool-blend
fabrics.
These parameters explain the important attributes of
the wool and wool-blend fabrics in terms of surface fric-
tion, smoothness or roughness, coarseness and hairiness.
These attributes represent essential features of high-qual-
ity wool and wool-blend suiting materials.
The main properties contributing to Component 2 were
the fabric surface geometry and surface friction together
Figure 2 Percentage distribution
of fabric mechanical parameters in
Component 2.
 Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool and Cotton Fabrics J. K. C. Lam and R. Postle
with weave structure. Component 2 was therefore termed
“Fabric Surface Geometry and Weave Structure” in the
present study.
(c) Component 3
Component 3 accounted for 15.6% of total explained vari-
ance and it incorporates six fabric bending and shear
mechanical parameters, all of which have strong positive
correlation with Component 3. Three parameters repre-
sent fabric bending properties (B2, 2HB1, 2HB2) and the
other three parameters represent fabric shear properties
(G, 2HG, 2HG5).
The positive correlation of fabric bending and shear
parameters with Component 3 is to be expected for wool
and wool-blend fabrics as both bending and shear stiffness
and hysteresis are directly related to wool fabric stiffness,
firmness and crispness. These fabric parameters are very
important in terms of wool fabric quality and tailoring per-
formance.
It is interesting that warp bending rigidity (B1) is not
included in Component 3 in the present study, but is
included in Component 4. This may be a reflection of the
fact that warp bending rigidity B1 for the fifty-eight wool
and wool-blend fabrics is more significant in terms of fab-
ric thickness (Component 4) than directly in terms of fab-
ric bending and shear properties (Component 3).
Component 3 was termed the “Fabric Bending and
Shear Rigidity and Hysteresis” for the wool and wool-
blend fabrics.
(d) Component 4
Component 4 accounted for 15.2% of the total explained
variance of the wool fabric mechanical properties and
incorporates four fabric mechanical parameters and one
structural parameter. They are To, Tm, RC, B1 and W. The
first three parameters are fabric compression properties,
the fourth is the warp fabric bending rigidity and the last is
fabric weight (W).
The high positive correlation of fabric thickness (To and
Tm) with Component 4 can be explained in terms of the
influence of wool fiber properties on fabric thickness and
fullness. A bulky or high crimp wool fiber variety would
yield more air space between fibers in the fabric, which is
therefore thicker than fabric produced from less bulky
wool fiber varieties. The positive correlation between fab-
ric (warp) bending rigidity B1 and Component 4 is also
related to the effect of fabric thickness.
Fabric weight (W) is correlated with fabric thickness
(both To and Tm) and is an important property to explain
the fabric bulkiness and softness of these wool/wool-blend
fabrics. The negative correlation of RC with Component 4
means that fabric compression resilience decreases when
increasing fabric thickness. A heavy pressing would pro-
419 TRJ
duce a thinner finished fabric material which is relatively
difficult to compress and will give a higher compression
resilience.
Component 4 was therefore termed the “Fabric Bulki-
ness and Weight”.
(e) Component 5
Component 5 accounted for 7.1% of total explained vari-
ance and incorporates two fabric mechanical parameters,
namely RT1 and RT2.
Tensile resilience (RT) is measured as the ratio of
recovered energy per unit area to the energy of extending
the fabric in the load–extension curve. A positive correla-
tion of RT (both warp and weft) with Component 5 means
that wool fabrics having high values of Component 5 are
highly elastic during fabric extension. The spiral and helix
shape of the crimped wool fiber structure can to some
extent explain the elastic behavior of wool fabrics.
Component 5 was termed the “Fabric Tensile Resilience
Component”.
(f) Component 6
Component 6 accounted for 5.7% of the total explained
variance and incorporates one fabric parameter, fiber com-
position.
The fiber composition in the present study consists of
two types, namely pure wool or wool-blend fabrics (wool/
polyester or wool/silk). This component plays a relatively
small role in the explanation of the total variance of the
fabric mechanical properties for the whole population.
Component 6 in the present study was termed the
“Fiber Component”.
(g) Component 7
Component 7 accounted for 5.1% of the total explained
variance and consists of two fabric mechanical parameters,
namely EMC and LC.
The EMC is the fabric compressibility and is measured
as the ratio of the difference between surface thickness at
4.9 kPa and 49 Pa, expressed as a ratio of the original fabric
thickness at 49 Pa. This negative correlation of EMC with
Component 7 can be explained in terms that some fabrics
are highly pressed during finishing, the surface thickness is
reduced and so the fabric density is increased, therefore
giving a relatively low EMC value. The small positive cor-
relation of LC with Component 7 is also a function of the
inverse relationship between fabric compressibility EMC
and linearity LC.
Component 7 was therefore named “Fabric Compressi-
bility”.
TRJ 420 Textile Research Journal 76(5)

Table 5 Summarized results of rotated factor solution for mechanical properties of 58 wool and wool-blend fabrics.
Component Name Mechanical parameters Explained variance
1 Extensibility EMT1, EMT2, -LT1, -LT2, WT1, WT2, -WC 19.9%
2 Surface geometry and weave structure MIU1, MIU2, MMD1, MMD2, SMD1, SMD2, 17.4%
-(Weave)
3 Bending and shear rigidity and hysteresis B2, 2HB1, 2HB2, G, 2HG, 2HG5 15.6%
4 Fabric bulkiness and weight To, Tm, -RC, B1, W 15.2%
5 Tensile resilience RT1, RT2 7.1%
6 Fiber -(Fiber) 5.7%
7 Compressibility -EMC, LC 5.1%
qçí~ä USKMB

(h) Summary
Table 5 summarizes the results of the rotated factor solu-
tion for the fifty-eight lightweight wool and wool-blend
fabrics analyzed in the present study.
The seven component factors listed in Table 5 alto-
gether explain 86% of the total variance for the mechanical
properties of the fifty-eight wool/wool-blend fabrics ana-
lyzed in the present work.
The first two components together with Component 5
in Table 4 account for 44.4% of the total variance of the
mechanical properties of the light-weight wool and wool-
blend fabrics. These three components can be evaluated
fully from the fabric tensile and shear tester (KES-FB1)
and fabric surface tester (KES-FB-4). This means that only
two KES-F mechanical testers are needed to account for
44.4% of the total variance of the wool and wool-blend
fabrics. As the KES-FB1 also performs a fabric shear test,
this test can therefore account for approximately half the
variance of Component 3.
Altogether, these two KESF testers (the fabric tensile/
shear tester and the fabric surface tester) together with
some knowledge of fiber composition (Component 6)
explain approximately 58%, which is over half of the total
variance, of the mechanical properties for the 58 wool and
wool-blend fabrics. Most of the remaining variance can be
explained by obtaining the fabric weight W and by carrying
out a fabric compression test (using the KES-F fabric com-
pression tester) leaving only a small unexplained part of
the variance attributable to the relatively difficult-to-meas-
ure fabric bending properties.

Table 6 Fabric characteristics for 20 medium/heavy-weight cotton denim fabrics.

Fabric sett
Fabric W (Threads per cm) Yarn count (Tex) Stretch
ID Composition Structure g/m2 Ends Picks Warp Weft weft
C1 Cotton Twill 252 50 24 30 37 No
C2 Cotton Twill 311 50 19 30 84 No
C3 Cotton Twill 199 43 23 28 28 No
C4 Cotton Twill 265 47 20 30 59 No
C5 Cotton/Lycra Twill 260 50 24 30 29.5 + 70 Denier Yes
C6 Cotton Twill 362 31 18 59 59 No
C7 Cotton Twill 430 24 16 84 98 No
C8 Cotton Twill 421 24 19 84 84 No
C9 Cotton/Lycra Twill 409 31 18 84 60 + 70 Denier Yes
C10 Cotton Twill 303 28 18 49 84 No
C11 Cotton/Lycra Check 243 31 24 37 37 + 70 Denier Yes
C12 Cotton/Lycra Herringbone 251 31 24 37 37 + 70 Denier Yes
C13 Cotton/Lycra Twill 281 59 20 30 37 + 70 Denier Yes
C14 Cotton Corduroy 303 25 50 49 37 No
C15 Cotton/Lycra Twill 343 35 18 62 37 + 70 Denier Yes
C16 Cotton Twill 453 27 18 69 107 No
C17 Cotton/Lycra Twill 409 25 22 84 59 + 40 Denier Yes
C18 Cotton/Lycra Twill 290 43 24 37 59 + 150 Denier Yes
C19 Cotton Twill 414 29 20 61 84 No
C20 Cotton Twill 499 24 17 107 98 No
 Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool and Cotton Fabrics J. K. C. Lam and R. Postle 421 TRJ

Rotated Factor Solution for Cotton
Denim Fabrics
The multivariate technique of principal component analy-
sis used for wool and wool-blend fabrics was also applied
to twenty medium to heavy-weight cotton denim fabrics
manufactured in Hong Kong and China. Table 6 shows the
fabric characteristics of these denim/trouser fabrics includ-
ing eight fabrics containing Lycra in the weft. Table 7 shows
the results after Varimax rotation by principal component
analysis.

Table 7 Rotated principal component analysis on the cotton denim fabrics (Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization).
Component
Explained 1 2 3 4 5
Variance 35.4% 19.6% 17.1% 12.2% 11.1%
Tensile parameters
EMT1 –0.68* 0.51 0.20 –0.06 0.32
EMT2 0.04 –0.95* –0.22 –0.06 0.12
LT1 0.08 –0.03 0.26 0.94* 0.15
LT2 –0.69* 0.54 0.37 0.05 0.31
WT1 –0.67* 0.50 0.22 0.06 0.37
WT2 –0.14 –0.95* –0.16 –0.04 0.11
RT1 0.74* –0.50 –0.42 –0.03 0.08
RT2 –0.24 0.92* 0.15 –0.02 0.25
Bending parameters
B1 0.73* 0.06 –0.01 0.64 –0.03
B2 0.18 0.25 0.93* 0.06 0.14
2HB1 0.59 –0.28 0.02 0.73* –0.19
2HB2 0.04 0.16 0.76* 0.59 –0.12
Shear parameters
G –0.13 0.54 0.82* 0.09 0.09
2HG –0.40 0.04 0.85* 0.17 –0.22
2HG5 –0.11 0.62 0.73* –0.09 –0.12
Compression parameters
LC 0.70* –0.04 –0.65 0.24 –0.14
WC 0.90* 0.21 –0.07 0.02 –0.37
RC –0.70* –0.14 –0.44 –0.24 –0.05
Surface parameters
MIU1 0.97* 0.12 –0.03 –0.07 0.07
MIU2 0.93* 0.11 –0.04 0.26 –0.11
MMD1 –0.25 –0.02 0.21 –0.02 0.92*
MMD2 0.90* –0.16 0.20 0.10 0.08
SMD1 –0.15 0.11 –0.22 0.17 0.94*
SMD2 0.94* –0.01 –0.14 0.22 –0.14
Thickness/structural parameters
To 0.93* 0.07 –0.06 0.13 –0.14
Tm 0.83* –0.15 –0.28 0.39 0.22
EMC –0.13 0.38 0.39 –0.52 –0.62*
W 0.35 0.15 0.10 0.76* 0.48
FIBER –0.31 –0.92* –0.13 0.16 –0.01
1 and 2 refer to warp and weft directions, respectively.
* Highest loading factor for each fabric mechanical parameter.
TRJ 422 Textile Research Journal 76(5)
(a) Component 1
Component 1 accounted for 35.4% of the total explained
variance for these 20 cotton denim fabrics and contains
fourteen mechanical parameters. These parameters can be
grouped into three areas, namely surface characteristics
(MIU1, MIU2, MMD2 and SMD2), compression proper-
ties (LC, WC, RC, To and Tm) and tensile properties
(EMT1, LT2, WT1 and RT1) and one parameter on bend-
ing (B1). The distribution of each mechanical property for
Component 1 is shown in Figure 3.
The first group of surface properties accounted for 36%
of Component 1 to explain the fabric properties for the
twenty medium to heavy-weight cotton fabrics which are
used for trousers and denim. Some denim fabrics are
inserted with Lycra in the weft direction to make the denim
highly extensible in the weft direction. As such, the weft yarn
plays a significant role in these fabrics. This can be explained
in terms of the surface characteristics of MMD2 and SMD2
in Component 1. Both MMD2 and SMD2 show a significant
effect on surface properties for these denim fabrics because
of the insertion of Lycra yarn in the weft direction.
Both MIU1 and MIU2 are included in the surface prop-
erties of the cotton fabrics which can be explained by the
fact that equal values of these parameters are obtained in
the warp and weft directions.
The second group accounted for 33% of Component 1 to
explain fabric compression properties. Fabric thickness (To
and Tm both measured at different pressure) is correlated
with fabric weight to explain the fabric fineness, coarseness
and roughness (for the denim fabrics). The positive correla-
tion of LC and WC and negative correlation with RC can be
explained from the correlation matrix for these cotton fab-
rics. Both LC and WC are related to measures of the energy
used to compress the fabric up to 4.9 kPa pressure (under
the compression–thickness curve).
There is a negative correlation of RC with fabric thickness
(Tm or To); that is, when the fabric thickness increases, the
fabric compression resilience is reduced. The possible expla-
nation may be that highly compressed fabric (decreased
thickness) is accompanied by increased compression resil-
ience because of the finishing treatment applied to some of
these cotton fabrics.
The third group accounted for 25% on Component 1 to
explain fabric extensibility. The tensile parameters EMT1
and WT1 are highly correlated, with correlation coefficient
of 0.91. The negative value of EMT1 and WT1 with respect
to Component 1 means that Component 1 is preferred for
a less extensible fabric in the warp direction. This is true
for these twenty cotton fabrics as the average warp extensi-
bility was 7.5% (1.5–11.3%) and the average weft extensi-
bility was 15.1% (3.9–56%) greatly influenced by the Lycra
inserted in the weft direction for some fabrics).
The relationship of RT1 and EMT1 has a negative cor-
relation coefficient of –0.78 for these twenty cotton fabrics.
Therefore, a negative correlation of EMT1 to Component
1 would imply a positive correlation of RT1 to Component
1. The reason is that the tensile resilience RT1 is a measure
of the recovery process in the force–extension curve. A
higher fabric extension means that the recovery process
will take a longer time and therefore less energy is recov-
ered. The relationship between RT and EM is therefore
negative.
The last mechanical parameter in Component 1 is
warp-bending rigidity (B1) which is positively correlated
with Component 1. The explanation is that fabric bending
rigidity is correlated with fabric weight and the fabric
weight in turn is correlated with fabric thickness. The
bending rigidity and thickness play an important role in
fabric stiffness and softness and these two attributes are
important elements when defining quality jean fabrics.
Figure 3 Distribution of mechani-
cal properties for Component 1 on
cotton denim fabrics.
 Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool and Cotton Fabrics J. K. C. Lam and R. Postle
In summary, Component 1 contains fabric mechanical
parameters of tensile, compression, bending and surface
properties in order to define medium to heavy-weight cot-
ton trouser and denim fabrics. Component 1 was therefore
termed the “Basic Tensile, Compression, Bending and Sur-
face Requirements” for medium to heavy-weight cotton
fabrics in the present work.
(b) Component 2
Component 2 accounted for 19.6% total explained vari-
ance and consists of four mechanical parameters. Three
are tensile parameters, EMT2, WT2 and RT2, and the
fourth parameter is fiber composition (Fiber).
The three tensile parameters are all measured in the
weft direction. EMT2 and WT2 are both negatively corre-
lated to Component 2 and RT2 is positively correlated to
Component 2.
The negative correlation of EMT2 and WT2 to Compo-
nent 2 means that Component 2 is preferred for cotton
fabrics with moderate weft extension and tensile energy.
The weft extension for these twenty cotton fabrics ranges
from 3.9 to 56% with an average of 15.1%. This result may
demonstrate that extremely high weft extension is not the
key property in these cotton fabrics.
The last parameter for Component 2 is fiber composi-
tion (Fiber). All fabrics for these twenty samples are pure
cotton with some fabrics having the insertion of Lycra yarn
in the weft direction. If the correlation with pure cotton in
the fiber composition is positive, then the correlation with
Lycra in these fabrics would be negative. This means that
the Lycra yarn used in the weft direction for these twenty
cotton fabrics has a significant effect on Component 2.
Since all the mechanical parameters in Component 2
represent tensile properties of fabric in the weft direction,
Component 2 in the present study was termed the “Weft
Extension Properties”.
(c) Component 3
Component 3 accounted for 17.1% of the total explained
variance and incorporates five mechanical parameters. Two
parameters are for fabric bending (B2 and 2HB2) and three
parameters are for shear (G, 2HG and 2HG5). All five
parameters are positively correlated with Component 3.
The positive correlation of shear parameters with Com-
ponent 3 can explain the important fabric properties of
fullness, firmness, hardness, crispness and stiffness for
these twenty heavy-weight cotton fabrics for denim and
trousers. The product of shear rigidity and fabric extensi-
bility may be related to the fabric formability in the bias or
diagonal direction of the fabric, which can be related to the
tailorability of these twenty heavy-weight cotton fabrics in
the making up process.
423 TRJ
The positive correlation of B2 and 2HB2 with Compo-
nent 3 can explain the fabric properties of stiffness, hard-
ness and firmness, which are important attributes of
denim. Component 3 includes only the bending parame-
ters in the weft direction which can be explained by the
importance of Lycra yarn added in the weft direction for
these twenty cotton fabrics.
Components 3 contains mechanical parameters on
bending (weft direction) and shear for these medium to
heavy-weight cotton fabrics for denim and trousers and
was named “Shear and weft bending” in the present study.
(d) Component 4
Component 4 accounted for 12.2% of total explained vari-
ance and contains two mechanical parameters and one fab-
ric structural parameter. They are LT1, 2HB1 and W
(fabric weight per unit area) and all are positively corre-
lated with Component 4.
The fabric weight (W) is one of the important structural
parameters for the twenty medium to heavy-weight cotton
fabrics and has a high correlation with fabric thickness
(Tm). The correlation between W and Tm is 0.90 and fab-
ric weight explains the fabric properties of aerial density
and thickness.
The mechanical parameters of LT1 and 2HB1 are both
measured in the warp direction. The correlation of LT1
and 2HB1 with Component 4 means that the tensile linear-
ity and bending hysteresis in the warp direction have a sig-
nificant effect on Component 4.
Component 4 has two constituent mechanical parame-
ters in the warp direction and was named “Warp Tensile
Linearity and Bending Hysteresis” in this study.
(e) Component 5
Component 5 accounted for 11.1% of total explained vari-
ance and it has three parameters, namely MMD1, SMD1
and EMC.
The first two parameters, MMD1 and SMD1, explain
the fabric surface characteristics in the warp direction. For
these twenty medium to heavy-weight cotton fabrics for
denim and trousers, the fabric surface characteristics are
very important and the weft surface parameters of MIU2,
MMD2 and SMD2 were already included in Component 1
in the present study. It can be seen that the weft direction
plays a very significant role in explaining the fabric surface
characteristics of these twenty cotton fabrics and therefore,
they are placed in Component 1.
The parameters of MMD1 and SMD1 in Component 5
are used to supplement the explanation of fabric surface
characteristics in Component 1. Component 5 explains the
surface roughness and deviation of coefficient of friction of
these twenty cotton fabrics in the warp direction.
TRJ 424 Textile Research Journal 76(5)
Table 8 Summary of mechanical parameters for cotton denim fabrics.
Component Name
1 Basic tensile, compression, bending and surface
requirements
2 Weft extension properties
3 Shear and warp bending
4 Warp tensile linearity and bending hysteresis
5 Supplementary warp surface parameters
qçí~ä
The last parameter in Component 5 is EMC, which is
negatively correlated with Component 5. The parameter
EMC measures the change in fabric thickness under differ-
ent pressures. A negatively correlated value of EMC can
imply that the fabric is highly pressed in finishing, the
space between each fiber is reduced and the fabric density
is increased. As a result, fabric thickness decreases giving a
negatively correlated value of EMC. The parameter EMC
in Component 5 is used to supplement the parameters of
To and Tm in Component 1.
Component 5 in the present study was named “Supple-
mentary Warp Surface Properties”
(f) Summary
The mechanical parameters included in each component
to explain these twenty medium to heavy-weight cotton
denim and trouser fabrics are shown in Table 8.
It should be noted that the Component 1 for these denim
fabrics included surface characteristics, extensibility and
compression parameters. As denim is normally a strong stiff
fabric, tensile and compression tests are important for
denim. As most denim will have special finishing treatments
(e.g. washing and indigo dyeing), the surface characteristics
are important for high-quality denim or trouser fabrics.
Components 1 and 2 together can account for 55% of
the total variance implying that fabric objective measure-
ments such as tensile, compression and surface testing are
essential for medium to heavy-weight cotton fabrics.
The use of Lycra in the weft yarn for some of these
denim fabrics is reflected in Components 1 and 2 in the
present study. This elastic yarn has a significant effect on
fabric surface and mechanical properties as demonstrated
in this study.
Since similar materials and production methods were
used for the 20 cotton denim fabrics, the principal compo-
nent analysis can successfully reduce the data set into five
components explaining over 95% of the total population
variance.
Mechanical parameters Explained variance
MIU1, MIU2, MMD2, SMD2, LC, WC, -RC, 35.4%
To, Tm, -EMT1, -LT2, WT1, RT1, B1
-EMT2,-WT2, RT2, -(Fiber) 19.6%
B2, 2HB2, G, 2HG, 2HG5 17.1%
LT1, 2HB1, W 12.2%
MMD1, SMD1, 11.1%
-EMC
VRKQB
Conclusions
The principal component analysis was found to be very
useful to analyse the complex, multi-dimensional relation-
ships of the fabric objective measurement (FOM) datasets
for both wool/wool-blend fabrics and cotton denim fabrics
used for the present study.
As the principal component analysis is an independent
technique and does not explicitly require the variable to be
divided into dependent and/or independent variables (as is
normally required in multiple stepwise regression analy-
sis), this technique has potentially much greater applicabil-
ity to the specification of fabric quality along the textile
and apparel supply chain.
Although the end use for the lightweight wool/wool-
blend fabrics is for suiting material and the cotton fabrics
are used for denim casual wear, these two very different
fabric groups showed certain similarities in terms of fabric
mechanical properties examined by the principal compo-
nent analysis technique.
Firstly, fabric surface properties (MIU, MMD, SMD)
represent an important component for both wool and cot-
ton fabrics. This surface component accounted for 17.4%
(Component 2) of total population variance for wool/wool-
blend fabrics and a significant part of the 35% (Compo-
nent 1) of total population variance for cotton fabrics.
These fabric surface properties for wool fabrics can explain
the fabric smoothness and softness which are directly
related to the fabric handle. For the cotton fabrics, Com-
ponent 1 included fabric surface properties, compression
properties and fabric thickness which are essential proper-
ties for the medium to heavy-weight cotton fabrics used for
denim and trousers for casual wear.
Secondly, the bending and shear properties (B2, 2HB2,
G, 2HG, 2HG5) represent another important component
to explain the fabric quality and performance for both wool
and cotton fabrics. These properties accounted for 17.1%
(Component 3) of total population variance for wool/wool-
blend fabrics and 15.6% (Component 3) of total popula-
tion variance for cotton fabrics. These bending and shear
properties are important parameters to explain fabric
hardness, stiffness and tailorabity for these fabrics.
 Multivariate Studies of Mechanical Properties for Wool and Cotton Fabrics J. K. C. Lam and R. Postle 425 TRJ

On the other hand, there are some unique features of Acknowledgements

these two kinds of fabrics. The medium to heavy-weight cot-
ton denim fabrics show strong fabric elasticity because of the The authors wish to acknowledge the sponsorship from the
insertion of Lycra yarn in the weft direction. This elastic Institute of Textiles and Clothing (ITC) at the Hong Kong
yarn has a significant effect on fabric mechanical properties Polytechnic University for providing partial financial sup-
and is shown in Component 2 (EMT2, WT2, RT2) in the port for this research work.
present study explaining 19.6% of population variance.
Another unique feature of these medium to heavy-weight
cotton denim fabrics is the fabric weight (W) in Component Literature Cited
4 which explained 12.2% of total population variance. As
denim fabrics are commercially expressed in terms of fabric 1. Lam, J. K. C. “Application of Fabric Technology to Supply
weight, this feature is reflected in the present study. Chain Management in the Hong Kong Textile and Apparel
The results show how multivariate statistical analysis Industries.” PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Aus-
techniques of fabric mechanical and surface property data tralia, 2003.
2. Bishop, D. P., Fabric: Sensory and Mechanical Properties, Tex-
for two very different groups of fabrics can provide a basis
tile Progress 26(3), (1996).
for the specification and control of fabric quality along the
3. Gong, R., and Mukhopadhyay, S., J. Textile Inst. 84, 192
textile and apparel supply chain. These reduced datasets (1993).
with the most important component extracted first and the 4. Kawabata, S., “The Standardization and Analysis of Hand
least important component extracted last, greatly facilitate Evaluation,” 2nd edn, The Textile Machinery Society of
the data interpretation in the textile and apparel supply Japan, Osaka, Japan, 1980.
chain. 5. Kaiser, H. F., A Second Generation Little Jiffy, Psychometrika
35, 401–415 (1970).
6. Kaiser, H. F., Little Jiffy, Mark IV, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 34,
111–117 (1974).