Textile Structure
how cloth is put together
Concept

Canopy criterion — where it appears

The pure number n_A λ², the hairs per unit area times the square of their own length, which asks whether a protruding fibre can reach its neighbour. Above one there is a layer and below one there are isolated whiskers; every ordinary woven cloth is below it.

Named by 13 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A yarn's diameter is a contour, not a length. The fraction of the space beside a 20 tex cotton yarn that is occupied by hair, against height, grossed up from the modelled population by the measured split between the long and short populations. At the yarn's own surface it is 8.9% — the layer is almost entirely gap — and it falls away exponentially from there. Every instrument that reports a yarn diameter is picking a contour of this curve, and the contours are far apart: a threshold that needs half the space filled is never met at all, one that needs a twentieth is met at 355 µm, and a hair counter triggers out at 2353 µm. The earlier model gave the layer a single thickness of 25 µm, which is a fair description of where most of the material is and wrong about its extent by more than a decade. What the curve cannot say is which contour any particular instrument uses, which is a fact about the instrument.

A cloth is more opaque than it is closed

Opacity is not cover — this collection established that already and left the discrepancy attributed to the thickness of the threads. Part of it is not in the threads at all. A hair standing in a hole blocks light exactly as well as a thread does and costs nothing in air.

pattern · Opacity Whether a cloth's hairs can reach one another. n_A λ² for each construction in this site's table — the hairs per square millimetre times the square of their own length, which is the pure number that asks whether a hair can touch its neighbour. It is a count times an area, so it has to be a pure number. Every one of them is under one, which means no ordinary woven cotton cloth has a hair layer at all: it has isolated whiskers on a bare surface. The dashed line is the threshold. The spread across the whole table is only 1.9-fold, because the density goes as the sett times the root of the count and those move in opposite directions as a cloth is made finer — so construction is almost powerless here, and everything that crosses this threshold does so by finishing rather than by weaving.

A knit gives up its fibres more easily

Knitwear pills and shirting does not, and the fibres are often the same fibres. The difference is a count of yarn per unit area and a pressure between threads, and both of them push a knit over a threshold that a woven cloth of the same yarn cannot reach.

knits · Knit Hair, nap and pile are one construction at three settings. 12 mm of sheeting at one pair of scales, carrying each of this site's three protruding surfaces — 50 pixels to the millimetre along the cloth and 29 off it. They are the same object, fibre standing off a cloth with a density, a length and an anchor, and they differ by 9-fold in density and 4.8-fold in length. What actually separates them is the third line under each name: hairs are held by whatever the twist happened to leave, a nap by the float it was pulled from, and a pile by a W or a V through three picks. Only the last two were chosen. The pile's tufts are drawn in the float colour because that is what a woven pile is, and they are all one length because a blade cut them; the hairs and the nap are drawn as measured quantities and their lengths come from the population's own exponential. Each panel clips to the room it has, and the densest of the three is drawn at the model's own number rather than thinned.

Hair, nap and pile are one construction

This site now has three surfaces made of fibre standing off a cloth, arrived at from three different directions and in three different fields. They are the same object at three settings, and what separates them is not what they are but how much of them anybody decided.

fancy · Pile At 0.1 kilopascals the plate is standing on hair. A flat foot pressed onto sheeting at 0.1 kPa, over 3 mm of cloth. It stops 25 µm above the cloth's own crowns, because that is where the hairs it is bending can carry the load: of the 10 hairs drawn, 9 reach higher than the foot and are laid over under it, and the rest are untouched. The vertical scale is set by the approach and not by the layer — 5188 pixels to the millimetre off the cloth against 192 along it — because the foot's height above the crowns is tens of micrometres and the layer it stands in is more than a millimetre, so a picture at one scale shows the second and not the first. The thickness reported is 0.432 mm against 0.382 mm for the cloth itself, so 12% of the reading is a population and not a fabric. The hair layer carries up to 0.23 kPa before the foot reaches the crowns at all. A laid-over hair is drawn as two straight segments where a real one is an elastica: the corner is a convenience and the height it turns at is the measurement. What the picture cannot show is that a bent hair leans on its neighbours, which the arithmetic behind it does not know either.

A light touch never reaches the crowns

This collection found that a plain weave touches at points and every other cloth touches along lines, and that the difference is an exponent rather than a factor. It is a real result about a real surface, and at the pressures a fabric is actually touched at, nothing ever reaches that surface.

cloth · Contact One canopy, two opposite outcomes, decided by a sign. What a canopy does to a drop, for sheeting raised 32-fold. A rough surface multiplies the cosine of the intrinsic contact angle by its roughness ratio, which here is 2.0 — a hair is a cylinder and contributes πd of surface for every d of shadow. So a fibre that wets at all is driven to complete spreading, and one that does not is driven to a Cassie state sitting on 32.4% solid and air. The dashed diagonal is what the bare fibre would do; the canopy pushes every point away from ninety degrees, in whichever direction it already lay. Raising is therefore not a wetting treatment or a repellency treatment — it is an amplifier, and which one it turns out to be was settled by the chemistry before the raising machine was switched on. What the figure cannot show is which state a real drop reaches, because both are available near the hinge and the one it finds depends on how it arrived.

The hairs decide the sign of the wetting

Raising a cloth is not a wetting treatment and it is not a repellency treatment. It is an amplifier, and which of the two it turns out to be was settled in the dyehouse before the raising machine was switched on — by whether the fibre's own contact angle was above or below ninety degrees.

cloth · Water How much of an abrasion loss is not damage. The share of a reported abrasion mass loss that is hair rather than cloth, for sheeting as woven and raised 64-fold. The first material off a fabric is its hair layer, which is 0.107% of a bare cloth's mass and 6.84% of a napped one's — and which regenerates, so it keeps coming off. A bare cloth is through it by 5344 cycles and the test then reaches the crowns, where the loss means damage. A napped cloth is not through it by 342000, which is more cycles than any standard test runs, so a Martindale on a fleece never measures the fabric at all. Two cloths taken to the same mass loss have therefore not lost the same thing, and the more heavily napped one may not have been damaged. a-cloth-loses-its-strength-before-its-mass made the same point about a different pair of quantities; this is the same failure one layer further out.

Abrasion takes the hairs first

An abrasion test reports milligrams lost against cycles, and the first milligrams off any fabric are not fabric. On a bare cloth that stage is over in a few thousand cycles. On a napped one it is not over by the end of the test, so a Martindale on a fleece never measures the fleece.

applied · Damage The strong fibre is the one that pills. Standing pills per unit area by fibre, relative to wool, at one and the same fuzz supply — every row is the same cloth raised the same amount, so the only thing varying is how long a pill survives once it exists. A pill is not made, it is kept: rubbing generates it and rubbing breaks the anchor fibres that hold it, and an anchor survives in proportion to how much force it takes to break. So polyester carries 18 times wool's standing population from the same generation rate, and the ordering here is exactly the ordering of tenacity and nothing else. Wool sheds its pills because wool anchors break. No two real fabrics have the same fuzz supply, which is why a wool knit still pills more than a cotton shirting in practice — the comparison drawn here isolates the anchor and says nothing about the generation, and reading it as a ranking of fabrics would be wrong.

A pill is anchored, not made

Every account of pilling starts with how a ball of fibre forms and stops there, which explains why fabrics pill and not why some of them stay pilled. A pill is not a thing that happens; it is a standing population, and the number on a fabric at any moment is a generation rate times a lifetime.

applied · Pilling A print is as sharp as the hairs are long. How far ink carried on a hair reaches past a printed edge into the unprinted cloth, for sheeting in three states. A hair lying near the edge bridges as far as its own length, and the number bridging at least a distance x is (n_A λ/2)e^(−x/λ) — an exponential with the population's own decay length — so the visible feather is a quantile rather than a mean, taken here at one hair per 50 millimetres of edge. As woven the feather is 1911 µm, which is a fifteenth of an inch and coarser than any screen worth engraving: the cloth cannot hold better than 7 lines to the inch whatever the printer does. Singeing caps it at the flame's own reach of 200 µm and takes the cloth to 63 lines — a factor of 10, bought by burning off a fraction of one per cent of the cloth's mass. That is why singeing comes before printing and why nobody prints a fine figure on a raised cloth.

A print is as sharp as the hairs are long

Singeing comes before printing in every finishing route ever written down and the reason given is that the cloth must be smooth. The reason is sharper than that: ink carried on a fibre end reaches as far as the fibre is long, so the feather on a printed edge is a quantile of a hair population and nothing else.

finishing · Coating A fifth of a strong fibre buys most of its pilling. How long a pill survives on a wool fabric as nylon is blended into it, relative to the pure wool. A pill is held by several anchor fibres and survives while any of them holds, so its life is set by the strongest anchor it happens to have — and the chance that a pill with 8 anchors has at least one strong one is 1 − (1 − x)^8, which is already 83% at a fifth. The blend therefore gets 83% of the pure strong fibre's pill life while keeping the whole of the weak fibre's fuzz supply, which is the worst of both. Nine tenths of the way arrives by 30%. No average of the two fibres' properties produces this curve: it is a maximum over a small sample, and a maximum is not an average. It is also why a fifteen-per-cent polyamide in a wool knit is notorious, and the arithmetic says the reputation is deserved.

The strong fibre is the one that pills

A pill survives while any one of its anchors holds, which is a maximum over a small sample rather than an average — and a maximum behaves nothing like an average. A fifth of a strong fibre in a blend buys four fifths of the pure strong fibre's pill life while leaving the whole of the weak fibre's fuzz supply in place.

applied · Pilling A thickness is a property of the pressure it was measured at. What a gauge reports for sheeting against the pressure it presses with. At 1 kPa it reads 0.382 mm, which is the cloth; at 0.02 kPa it reads 0.555 mm, which is the cloth plus 87 µm of hair on each face. The difference is 31% of the reading and it is not a compressibility: nothing in the fabric has been squashed, the foot has simply stopped in a different place. That is why every thickness standard specifies its pressure to two figures, and why comparing a thickness from one standard with a thickness from another is comparing two different measurements of two different objects. The dashed line is the cloth's own geometric thickness, which no reading below the crossover ever reaches.

A compression curve is two laws in series

A published fabric compression exponent is a fitted number with no derivation attached, and this site has already said why: the range it is fitted over straddles two regimes. One of them turns out not to be in the cloth at all.

mechanics · Compression Warmth is a canopy, and a canopy grows as a logarithm. Thermal resistance of sheeting against how much its hair population has been multiplied by raising, both faces counted. The unraised cloth is given no still air at all, because its hairs cannot reach one another — n_A λ² is under one and there is no canopy to hold air still. Past the threshold the canopy's depth is λ·ln(n_A λ²), so every doubling of the hair population adds the same depth of nap and no more: the steps here are 434 µm apiece, all the way up. At 256× the nap is 3.07 mm deep and worth 39 times the cloth it grows on, which is the whole reason a flannel is warm and a poplin of the same yarn is not — a canopy is two parts in ten thousand fibre, so its conductivity is air's, while the cloth itself is a quarter fibre. What is claimed is a conduction resistance across a depth of nearly still air; whether the air is still is a question about flow and is not asked here.

Warmth is mostly the hairs

This collection established that a fabric's thermal resistance is its thickness and not its fibre, and that twice the thickness is twice the warmth. It never asked what the thickness was made of. On a raised cloth almost none of it is cloth.

mechanics · Insulation A shot effect needs a fibre with no ends. The peak-to-trough contrast of an eight-end satin in sheeting as the cloth is turned in the light, against how much hair stands on it. Bare, the contrast is 37 to one, because a straight thread's normals lie in the plane across it and the warp and the weft therefore reflect a quarter turn apart. A hair layer does two things and only one of them matters: it blocks, which takes the same factor off the peak and the trough and changes no contrast at all, and it returns light of its own, which is added to both. A hair population points every way at once, so its return has no azimuth in it — and adding a constant to both ends of a ratio of 37 destroys the ratio. On an ordinary spun cotton the contrast is already down to 5.1 to one; singeing recovers it to 29; raising kills it outright at 1.00. The one fibre with no staple length is the one fibre with no fibre ends, and every shot fabric ever woven is made of one.

A hair layer veils a highlight

An eight-end satin's shine swings by a large factor as the cloth is turned, because a straight thread's normals lie in the plane across it. Put fibre ends on it and the swing disappears — not because the hairs block the light, which changes no contrast at all, but because they return light of their own that has no direction in it.

weaves · Shine A woven filter catches what its rating says it cannot. What fraction of a particle stream is intercepted by the hair layer of a filter cloth, against particle size, at three levels of raising. The cloth's own largest opening is 290 µm, so by geometry it stops nothing smaller than that at all — and the hairs catch a few per cent of particles ten and a hundred times finer, because a particle whose path passes within its own radius of a hair touches it. On a bare cloth the numbers are small; the point is that they are not zero, because a cake grows from the particles that stop, and once a cake exists the cloth is no longer doing the filtering. Raising the same cloth 32-fold takes a ten-micrometre capture from 0.8% to 23%, which is why a napped filter cloth exists. Interception is taken as the bare geometric ratio of the two diameters with no flow model behind it, so every number here is a lower bound.

A woven filter beats its own rating

A filter cloth's rating comes from the largest channel through it, and by geometry it stops nothing smaller. It stops a few per cent of particles ten times smaller anyway, on the fibre ends standing in its holes — and a few per cent is not filtration. It is exactly enough to start a cake, and after that the cloth is not filtering.

applied · Filtration

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Hair layerRaisingHair coverageSingeingPillingHair balanceNapAbrasionBearing curveBuckling loadCanopy depthClear opening

All concepts