Textile Structure
how cloth is put together
Generator

A thread withdrawn from a plain weave and from a satin

A thread withdrawn from a plain weave and from a satin
A thread withdrawn from a plain weave and from a satin. One pick of a sheeting being pulled from 1.60 mm of cloth, in a plain weave and in a five-end satin, at a friction coefficient of 0.30. The drawn width of each thread is the tension in it at that point, to a common scale; the faint rules are where the thread actually turns, which is at its interlacings and nowhere else. A plain weave turns 2.80 times per millimetre and a satin 1.12, so the plain weave's tension compounds 2.78-fold over this length against the satin's 1.46. What the drawing cannot show is that the wrap angle is taken from a plain-weave geometry in both panels: a satin's crimp is genuinely smaller, so its real turns are gentler than these and its grip weaker still.

One pick of a sheeting being pulled from 1.60 mm of cloth, in a plain weave and in a five-end satin, at a friction coefficient of 0.30. The drawn width of each thread is the tension in it at that point, to a common scale; the faint rules are where the thread actually turns, which is at its interlacings and nowhere else. A plain weave turns 2.80 times per millimetre and a satin 1.12, so the plain weave's tension compounds 2.78-fold over this length against the satin's 1.46. What the drawing cannot show is that the wrap angle is taken from a plain-weave geometry in both panels: a satin's crimp is genuinely smaller, so its real turns are gentler than these and its grip weaker still.

4 essays call hold-section. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the weave its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.

A thread withdrawn from a plain weave and from a satin. One pick of a sheeting being pulled from 1.60 mm of cloth, in a plain weave and in a five-end satin, at a friction coefficient of 0.30. The drawn width of each thread is the tension in it at that point, to a common scale; the faint rules are where the thread actually turns, which is at its interlacings and nowhere else. A plain weave turns 2.80 times per millimetre and a satin 1.12, so the plain weave's tension compounds 2.78-fold over this length against the satin's 1.46. What the drawing cannot show is that the wrap angle is taken from a plain-weave geometry in both panels: a satin's crimp is genuinely smaller, so its real turns are gentler than these and its grip weaker still. What cloth is

A thread is gripped where it turns

The arithmetic this site has used for fraying, seam slippage and tuft anchorage counts every crossing a thread makes as a grip and adds them up. A thread lying flat on the surface of a satin presses on nothing at all, and a thread that is gripped is gripped by a friction that compounds along its length rather than adding. Both corrections were recorded as missing and both are here.

 Stick, slip, and the ratio between the two coefficients. The force in a thread as a cloth is agitated, with a static coefficient of 0.300 and a kinetic one of 0.225 — a ratio of 0.75, which is what fibre on fibre measures. The force climbs until it reaches the static limit, the contact breaks away, and while it is sliding it resists only at the kinetic limit. So a cloth that is being shaken can be left anywhere in the narrower band, and a cloth at rest anywhere in the wider one. What the trace cannot show is how much this buys: the band does not narrow in the ratio of the coefficients, because the restoring force stiffens away from the minimum, and the real narrowing is nearer 0.87 than 0.75. What cloth is

Two coefficients, not one

Every friction on this site is a single number, and the account of why a cloth relaxes better when it is agitated depends entirely on there being two. Separating static from kinetic changes what a resting state is: a cloth at rest is held by one coefficient and a cloth being shaken by the other, and the band it can be left in narrows — by less than the ratio, because a cloth's restoring force is not linear in its extension.

 The resting band with two coefficients in it. The range of extensions a sheeting can be left in, at rest and while being agitated, at three ratios of kinetic to static friction. The upper bar of each pair is the stuck band, held by the static coefficient; the lower is the band a cloth being shaken can be left in, held by the kinetic one. Agitation narrows the band but by less than the ratio of the coefficients: at 0.75 the narrowing is 0.868. The restoring force is not linear in the extension, so cutting the friction by a quarter does not move the band's edges by a quarter of the way in. What the bars cannot show is where a given piece of cloth actually stops inside its band, which depends on which side it came from. After the loom

Why agitation helps a cloth relax

Every standard relaxation procedure agitates: tumble it, wash it, steam it, work it. The explanation given is that agitation lets the fabric find its own dimensions, which is true and is not a mechanism. The mechanism is that a sliding contact resists less than a stuck one — and putting a number on it shows the effect is real, is smaller than the obvious arithmetic suggests, and does not account for what a relaxation procedure achieves.

 The crossover length in four weaves. The gripped length at which a pick of a sheeting breaks rather than slides, in four weaves at a friction coefficient of 0.30. It is a millimetre or two for a plain weave and 8.0 mm for an eight-end satin, which is what a cut edge of each does. The interlacing rate appears in the answer only as a factor outside the logarithm, so the ratios between the four are exactly the ratios of their interlacing rates — in this model and in the sum of independent contacts alike. The rung below expected the float correction to change that ordering; it does not. It changes the size, by a factor of 3.7. What the rows cannot show is that all four use one cloth's crimp, so a satin's genuinely gentler turns are not in them. Weaves

A float presses on nothing

The rung below expected the float correction to change how a satin's hold compares with a plain weave's, by something like the ratio of their interlacing rates. It does not change the comparison at all — the interlacing rate leaves the answer outside the logarithm and divides straight out of any ratio. What it changes is the absolute answer, by a factor of four, for every weave alike.

The whole library · All essays