Original article

Textile Research Journal

2016, Vol. 86(19) 2056–2066

Effects of fabric construction and shear ! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
thickening fluid on yarn pull-out from DOI: 10.1177/0040517515619357
trj.sagepub.com
high-performance fabrics

Abhijit Majumdar and Animesh Laha

Abstract
Yarn pull-out is one of the major modes of fabric failure during an event of impact. In this article, the effects of weave and
fabric sett on yarn pull-out force have been investigated for untreated and shear thickening fluid (STF) treated p-aramid
fabrics. Further, the effect of different fluid treatments on yarn pull-out behavior has been analyzed using p-aramid and
ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fabrics. For all levels of fabric sett, plain woven fabrics exhibited
higher yarn pull-out force compared to twill, matt and satin weaves. STF impregnation increased the yarn pull-out force
considerably for p-aramid and UHMWPE fabrics and this was found for all the weaves in the case of the former. However,
increase in fabric sett beyond a threshold level caused yarn breakage before yarn pull-out in case of STF-treated plain
woven p-aramid fabrics. Yarn pull-out force was found to have good association with the energy absorption by the
high-performance fabrics during low-velocity impact (6 m s–1). The normalized yarn pull-out force was higher for two
consecutive yarns than for two yarns with a single gap.

Keywords
fabric sett, p-aramid, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, shear thickening fluid, yarn pull-out

Fabrics woven from high-performance yarns like absorption in a fabric during impact.6 However, the
Kevlar, Technora, Twaron, Dyneema, Spectra, etc., in-depth knowledge of underlying phenomena of
demonstrate good energy absorption capability during energy absorption is still lacking in the available litera-
impact owing to their high modulus and high tensile ture. Amongst all the stated modes of fabric failure
strength.1 Researchers have identified different modes during impact, yarn pull-out is observed to be the
of failure of woven fabrics during impact, which most common. So, a thorough analysis of the yarn
includes yarn extension, yarn failure and yarn pull- pull-out mechanism is essential for a profound under-
out.2 Manimala and Sun3 investigated the failure of standing of impact resistance performance of fabrics.
Kevlar fabrics during their in-service mode and It has already been established that energy absorp-
reported yarn breakage and yarn sliding to be the tion associated with the yarn pull-out mechanism
major contributors. Tabiei and Nilakantan4 concluded is purely coupled with the inter-yarn friction.2,7–9
that during the event of impact, rupture of bonds Kirkwood et al.7,8 concluded that within the fabric
(at the molecular level) and yarn pull-out and bowing
(at the macroscopic level) are the mechanisms of
failure. Similarly, Nilakantan at al.5 suggested yarn
pull-out and yarn sliding to be the elementary modes Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi,
India
of energy dissipation. Overall, the breaking of primary
bonds in fiber, primary yarn rupture, bowing, second- Corresponding author:
ary yarn failure, fibrillation, yarn pull-out, etc., can be Abhijit Majumdar, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 110 016, India.
considered as various modes of impact energy Email: majumdar@textile.iitd.ac.in
Majumdar and Laha 2057

structure, the summation of frictional forces existing are the prime governing parameters determining the
between the crossover points of ends and picks are single yarn pull-out force. Yarn pull-out force has
equivalent to the yarn pulling force. Duan et al.10 also been reported to be dependent upon yarn sizing,
stated that fabrics having high inter-yarn friction pull-out speed and pre-tension of the fabric.5,28 Bilisik
absorb more energy during impact. It has also been et al.29–34 performed a series of studies on yarn pull-out,
observed that low inter-yarn friction enables the yarns and developed a statistical model35 showing fabric den-
in the fabric to slide past each other easily. Therefore, sity, sample dimensions and numbers of yarns to be
to achieve full utilization of capabilities of high- pulled-out as the major determinants of yarn pull-out
performance fibers for impact energy absorption, the force.
inter-yarn friction should be sufficiently high.11–13 Although some reported researches are available on
Considering the fact that lubricating agents like yarn pull-out, some fundamental aspects are yet to be
water, oil etc., tend to reduce the inter-yarn friction, explored by the researchers. This is due to the fact that
they should be avoided to prevent reduction in impact high-performance fabrics are available only in some
resistance performance of fabrics.14 On the contrary, standard specifications (styles 745, 363, 802 for
researchers have taken different approaches to improve Kevlar) and weaving these fabrics with customized con-
the inter-yarn friction by various means like applica- figuration is not an easy task. In this research, the
tions of natural rubber latex,15 shear thickening fluids effects of different weaves, fabric sett, chemical treat-
(STFs)16–23 and development of metal oxide nano ments and pull-out configurations on yarn pull-out
rods.6 behavior of high-performance fabrics have been
STF is a non-Newtonian fluid that exhibits shear explored. The relationship between yarn pull-out
thinning behavior at low shear rates but shows a force and energy absorption at low-velocity (6 m s–1)
steep rise in viscosity beyond its characteristic critical impact has also been investigated.
shear rate.18 At low shear rate, the particles present in
STF arrange themselves in different layers and move in
a streamline pattern. This is known as shear thinning, Materials and methods
as the viscosity reduces with the increase in shear rate.
However, beyond the critical shear rate, the particles
Materials
jump out from one layer to another and form larger Two sets of samples were used in this research. The
clusters of particles known as ‘hydroclusters’. As a first set of samples was manufactured, whereas the
result, viscosity rises sharply with the increase of second set of samples was commercially available. In
shear rate. This is termed as shear thickening. Many the first set, multifilament p-aramid (Technora) yarn of
researchers have treated high-performance fabrics 720 denier was used to prepare fabrics of five different
with STF for improving the energy absorption during weaves, namely plain, 3/1 twill, 2/2 twill, 2/2 matt and
impact. Manimala and Sun3 and Srivastava et al.23 5 end satin, as shown in Figure 1. The measured tena-
observed that in case of untreated Kevlar fabrics, city and initial modulus of the Technora yarn were
only the primary yarns that are in contact with the 12.67 g/denier (CV ¼ 8.6%) and 633.3 g/denier
impactor undergo deformation, forming long loops (CV ¼ 2.1%), respectively. These weaves were chosen
created by yarn pull-out. On the other hand, in as they can be woven using only four heald shafts
STF-treated fabrics, even the secondary yarns, which except for the satin, for which five heald shafts are
are away from the impactor, contribute to energy required. Besides, plain, 2/2 twill, 3/1 twill and 5 end
absorption. Of late, Hwang et al.6 observed that by satin have different float lengths of one, two, three and
growing ZnO nano rods over the surface of the high- four, respectively, which covers a very wide range.
performance fabric, significant improvement in peak Higher float length than four results in a very infirm
load and energy absorption can be obtained. fabric that is difficult to use for practical purposes. All
Sebastian et al.24 and Kirkwood et al.7,8 found that the fabrics were woven with different fabric setts (Ends
sample dimensions, transverse tension and number of per inch or EPI  Picks per inch or PPI ¼ 25  25,
yarns to be pulled-out are the main influencing factors 30  30 and 35  35) using a single rigid rapier sample
in determining the yarn pull-out force. Dong and Sun25 loom (Figure 2). The areal density of fabric for a parti-
developed a two-dimensional (2D) finite element model cular sett does not change significantly with weave. The
of single yarn pull-out by considering various para- details of fabric areal density for different weaves and
meters, namely fabric sett, yarn count, yarn crimp, setts are summarized in Table 1.
fiber modulus, fiber diameter and fiber friction. Zhu In second set of samples, two commercially available
et al.26 and Valizadeh and Lomov27 too concluded, balanced plain woven fabrics, namely p-aramid
through a three-dimensional (3D) finite element (Kevlar) and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene
model, that sample dimensions and transverse force (UHMWPE-Spectra), were used. The areal density and
2058 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

× × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×
× × × × × × × × × × × × ×

Figure 1. Different weaves: (a) plain; (b) 3/1 twill; (c) 2/2 twill; (d) 2/2 matt; (e) 5 end satin.

Table 2. Specifications of samples used in the second set of

experiments

Sample specifications p-aramid (Kevlar) UHMWPE (Spectra)

EPI  PPI 22  22 21  21
Areal density (gm–2) 210 228
Yarn denier 1000 1200
Number of filaments 1000 120
UHMWPE: ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.

dispersion and ease the penetration of STF into fabric

samples. Fabric samples were impregnated with four
Figure 2. Single rigid rapier sample loom. different fluids, namely water, PEG, STF and silica-
water suspension, using a Mathis Lab Padder. The pad-
ding mangle pressure and speed were 2 bar and
Table 1. Areal density (gm–2) of fabric samples used in the first 3 m min–1, respectively. In the case of STF and silica-
set of experiments water treatments, fabric samples were subsequently
Mass per unit area (gm–2)
kept in a hot air oven at 80 C for 30 minutes in order
to evaporate ethanol and water, respectively.3,23
Fabric sett Fabric sett Fabric sett
(in–1) 25  25 (in–1) 30  30 (in–1) 35  35
Weave (984  984 m–1) (1181  1181 m–1) (1378  1378 m–1) Yarn pull-out test
Plain 160.3 187.4 227.8 The yarn pull-out test was carried out on a universal
3/1 twill 157.3 187.9 220.2 tensile testing machine using a lower jaw, purposely
2/2 twill 155.3 190.5 220.5 fabricated to enable pull-out of single or multiple
2/2 matt 157.7 186.6 213.6 yarns without producing any fold or distortion in the
5 end satin 159.1 184.5 220.0 fabric sample. The fabric sample was mounted in the
frame of a fabricated lower jaw with the help of fixed
and movable clamps, as shown in Figure 3. The tension
sett of the two fabrics were comparable, as given in in the fabric was kept at a constant level by adjusting
Table 2. the position of the movable clamp that is attached with
a screw mechanism. The pull-out test was conducted
with a constant upper jaw speed of 500 mm min–1.
STF synthesis and treatment of fabric For each sample, 10 tests were conducted and the aver-
Spherical colloidal silica nano-particles (MP1040) age was calculated.
having 100 nm average particle size were obtained Figure 4 shows the dimensions of the fabric sample
from Nissan Chemicals, Japan, and was used for the for the yarn pull-out test. A sample of 16 cm  12 cm
synthesis of STF. Synthesis was done by dispersing dimension was cut and was further given a profiled
silica nano-particles in polyethylene glycol (PEG) shape, such that a free length of 1.5 cm each at the
having molecular weight of 200, keeping solid content left and right extremities can be used to fix the sample
of the former at 60% (w/w). Ethanol was used as dilu- in the test frame of 9 cm width. The length of the
ent (1:4 v/v) to reduce the surface tension of the sample was divided into two parts: upper 8.5 cm
Majumdar and Laha 2059

Figure 3. Yarn pull-out test set up. 1: movable jaw; 2: yarn

to be pulled; 3: frame; 4: fabric sample; 5: adjustable screw;
6: fastener (to fix fabric); 7: clamp holder.

Figure 4. Fabric sample dimension for yarn pull-out test.

having the yarns in the transverse direction removed;
and lower 7.5 cm as intact fabric. For performing the
yarn pull-out test, the requisite number of free yarns in maximum and the minimum yarn pull-out forces are
the longitudinal direction were held by the upper jaw. obtained in plain and 5 end satin weaves, respectively.
The free length of yarn was used by the upper jaw for Since the yarn in a plain woven fabric has the maximum
gripping. number of interlacements, the yarn pull-out force is
expected to be higher in comparison to those weaves
having fewer interlacements. During yarn pull-out, fric-
Yarn pull-out configurations tional resistance acts at the crossover points of ends and
Figure 5 depicts various pull-out configurations, picks and therefore higher pull-out force is required
namely single yarn, two consecutive yarns, two yarns when the number of interlacements is more. It is also
with a single gap and three consecutive yarns. Such observed that the yarn pull-out force increases conco-
configurations were chosen to determine the nature of mitantly with the increase in fabric sett. This can also
relationship between the forces required to pull-out a be attributed to the increase in the number of interlace-
single yarn and multiple yarns (both consecutive and ments with the increase in fabric sett. This increment in
alternate) from fabric. yarn pull-out force is found to be most prominent in the
case of plain weave. For plain weave, increase in fabric
sett from 25  25 to 35  35 causes an increase in yarn
Low-velocity ‘falling dart’ impact resistance test
pull-out force by the highest extent (almost 4.4 times)
The low-velocity impact resistance of untreated and whereas for satin weave, the enhancement is the least
STF-treated p-aramid (Technora) fabrics was evaluated (1.5 times). Irrespective of weave, the fabrics with a sett
on a ‘falling dart’ type impact resistance tester of 25  25 show the least yarn pull-out force, which can
(CEAST), following ASTM D 3763. Fabric samples be attributed to their open structure.
of size 16 cm  16 cm were held between two circular Figure 7 shows the yarn pull-out force exhibited by
jaws having rubber grips. The inner and outer dia- STF-treated fabric samples having different weaves and
meters of the circular jaws were 76 and 108 mm, respec- setts. The yarn pull-out force increases after the STF
tively. The impact tests were conducted with a treatment irrespective of weave, sett and pull-out con-
hemispherical impactor of 13 mm diameter hitting the figurations. As the velocity of yarn pull-out (500 mm/
fabric at a speed of 6 ms–1. For each sample five tests min) is quite low, the STF is not expected to get the
were conducted and the average was calculated. trigger required for shear thickening. However, the pre-
sence of silica nanoparticles is expected to increase the
surface roughness of yarns, causing higher yarn pull-
Results and discussion out force. Like the untreated fabric samples, the highest
yarn pull-out force is obtained in plain weave and the
Effects of weave, sett and STF on yarn pull-out force
least in satin weave. For the lowest fabric sett (25  25),
Figure 6 shows the single yarn pull-out test results for the increment in yarn pull-out force due to STF treat-
untreated p-aramid (Technora) fabrics having different ment is found to be the maximum (300%, that is, from
weaves and setts. Irrespective of fabric sett, the 6.2 to 24.8 N) in plain woven fabrics. Besides, for plain
2060 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

Figure 5. Different yarn pull-out configurations: (a) single yarn; (b) two consecutive yarns; (c) two yarns with single gap; (d) three
consecutive yarns.

Figure 6. Yarn pull-out force for untreated p-aramid fabrics.

Majumdar and Laha 2061

Figure 7. Yarn pull-out force for shear thickening fluid-treated p-aramid fabrics.

Figure 8. Yarn pull-out force versus impact energy absorption for p-aramid fabrics.

weave, the change in fabric sett from 25  25 to 30  30 will exceed the breaking strength of the yarn. For other
causes almost 278.8% increase (from 24.8 to 93.9 N) in weaves (3/1 twill, 2/2 twill, 2/2 matt and 5 end satin),
yarn pull-out force. On increasing the fabric sett further pull-out force increases concomitantly with the increase
to 35  35, yarn pull-out does not happen, as the yarn in fabric sett and the effect is more pronounced when
breaks before the commencement of sliding. This has the sett is increased from 30  30 to 35  35.
happened due to excessive yarn-to-yarn friction caused
by the higher sett and additional effect of STF. Relation between yarn pull-out force and low-velocity
Consequently, the yarns are inhibited from sliding
past each other during the test, leading to yarn break-
impact performance
age rather than pull-out. It should be noted from Figures 8 and 9 depict the scatter plot of yarn pull-out
Figure 7 that the yarn pull-out force of 93.9 N obtained force and energy absorption by untreated and STF-
in the case of fabric sett of 30  30 is comparable with treated p-aramid fabrics, respectively, during low-velo-
the breaking strength of 720 denier Technora yarns city impact. It is observed that there is good association
(average tenacity is 12.67 g/denier). Therefore, it is cer- between the yarn pull-out force and impact energy
tain that yarn pull-out force for fabric sett of 35  35 absorption. This implies that if the yarn pull-out force
2062 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

Figure 9. Yarn pull-out force versus impact energy absorption for shear thickening fluid-treated p-aramid fabrics.

Figure 10. Yarn pull-out force for p-aramid fabrics.

is more, the yarns resist the impacting force and thereby four types of fluids. Details of these fabrics have
contribute in energy absorption by extension or rupture already been given in Table 2. Four different configura-
of the fibers. In contrast, if the yarn pull-out force is tions, namely single yarn, two consecutive yarns, two
less, then the failure of the fabric is dominated by the yarns with a single yarn gap and three consecutive
yarn pull-out and the potential of the high-performance yarns were used for the yarn pull-out tests. To facilitate
yarn remains underutilized. Therefore, improving the unbiased comparison of results, in the case of multiple
yarn pull-out force up to the optimum level could be yarns, the total yarn pull-out force was normalized by
the key in designing woven fabrics intended for impact dividing it with the number of yarns to obtain the force
resistance applications. corresponding to single yarn. Figure 10 shows the yarn
pull-out test results for p-aramid (Kevlar) fabrics with
Effect of different fluid treatments on yarn pull-out different pull-out configurations and treatment condi-
tions. Overall, STF-treated fabrics show the highest
force
yarn pull-out force, followed by silica-water-treated
Commercially available p-aramid (Kevlar) and samples and untreated samples. Since water and PEG
UHMWPE-Spectra woven fabrics were treated with are known to create a lubricating effect between the
Majumdar and Laha 2063

Figure 11. Yarn pull-out force for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fabrics.

yarns, the yarn pull-out force reduces in comparison to fabrics. Like p-aramid fabrics, UHMWPE fabrics also
that of untreated fabrics for all configurations, show higher normalized yarn pull-out force for
the effect being more prominent in the case of PEG. two consecutive yarns than those of single yarn and
In general, normalized yarn pull-out force is higher two yarns with a single gap. Besides, for p-aramid
for two consecutive yarns than those of single yarn and UHMWPE fabrics with STF and silica-water treat-
and two yarns with a single gap. This can be explained ments, the normalized yarn pull-out force for three con-
on the basis of the mechanics of fabric structure as secutive yarns is much higher than those of other three
discussed in the Effect of different configurations on configurations.
yarn pull-out force section.
Figure 11 depicts the normalized yarn pull-out Effect of different configurations on yarn pull-out
results for UHMWPE (Spectra) fabrics for different
force
treatments and pull-out configurations. The results
are quite similar to those obtained in the case of Two consecutive yarns in a plain woven fabric are inter-
Kevlar fabrics, although the yarn pull-out forces are laced in opposite phases, that is, up and down, as
higher for UHMWPE fabrics. This can be attributed shown in Figure 12(a). When pull-out force is applied
to the higher linear density of yarn in the UHMWPE on two consecutive yarns, both of them try to move
fabric, which caused greater yarn-to-yarn contact area. towards the fabric plane by removing their waviness
However, silica-water-treated fabrics show the highest or crimp. Consequently, they apply force (F) on the
yarn pull-out force, followed by STF-treated fabrics transverse yarn, as shown in Figure 12(b), thereby caus-
and untreated fabrics. This difference with respect to ing the latter to take a more curvilinear path. Thus, the
Kevlar fabrics may have happened due to the presence maximum angle of the transverse yarn axis with the
of a water repellent finish in Kevlar fabrics. The fabric plane () increases. The magnitude of force
absence of any surface finish in the case of acting at the crossover points of warp and weft yarns
UHMWPE fabrics causes better deposition of silica can be calculated from the following equation:36
particles on the fibers and thus yarn-to-yarn friction
increases drastically, resulting in very high yarn pull- 8m sin
F¼ ð1Þ
out force. Silica-water-treated fabrics show the highest p2
normalized yarn pull-out force of 102.6 N for three
consecutive yarns followed by 74.4 N for two consecu- where m is the bending modulus of yarn,  is the
tive yarns. The corresponding values are 45.7 and maximum angle of the yarn axis with the fabric plane
35.8 N, respectively, for STF-treated UHMWPE and p is yarn spacing.
2064 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

(a) (b) Yarn in transverse direction

Yarn in up position

θ
Force
F

p’
Yarn in down position

(c) Yarns to be pulled-out (d)

θ1

2p 2p’

Figure 12. Crimp interchange of yarns during pull-out: (a) two consecutive yarns before pull-out; (b) two consecutive yarns during
pull-out; (c) two yarns with a single gap before pull-out; (d) two yarns with a single gap during pull-out.

As  increases during yarn pull-out, the magnitude yarns. The effect of weave and sett on yarn pull-out
of reaction force given by the transverse yarn also force has been studied using p-aramid (Technora)
increases. So, the yarn being pulled-out has to over- yarns. Plain woven and 5 end satin fabrics demon-
come more frictional resistance at the crossover strated the highest and the lowest yarn pull-out force,
points. On the other hand, during the pull-out with respectively. The yarn pull-out force showed concomi-
two yarns with single gap configuration, the intermedi- tant increase with the increase in fabric sett. The yarn
ate yarn being stationary does not try to be straight or pull-out did not happen in the case of STF-treated plain
move towards the fabric plane. So, this intermediate woven fabrics having a sett of 35  35 inch–1, as the
yarn takes part in crimp interchange with the transverse yarns broke before the commencement of pull-out.
yarn. Thus, the transverse yarn does not become as The yarn pull-out force showed good association with
crimped as happens in case of pull-out of two consecu- the energy absorbed by the untreated and STF-treated
tive yarns. This can be understood from Figures 12(b) p-aramid fabrics during low-velocity ‘falling dart’ type
and (d) as 1 < . So, the reaction force that occurs at impact testing. It is necessary to verify this association
the crossover point becomes less as compared to that at high-speed bullet impact.
for pull-out of two consecutive yarns. Thus, it can be The treatment of STF and silica-water suspension
concluded that two consecutive yarns require higher increased the yarn pull-out force of p-aramid (Kevlar)
yarn pull-out force than two yarns with a single gap. and UHMWPE (Spectra) fabrics significantly, as they
In the case of pull-out of three consecutive yarns, increased yarn-to-yarn friction. However, yarn pull-out
the transverse yarn has to take a highly curvilinear force diminished when the fabrics were treated only
path and, as a result, very high reaction force acts on with PEG or water. The normalized yarn pull-out
the yarns being pulled-out. The treatments with STF force was found to depend on pull-out configurations.
and silica-water increase the inter-yarn friction. The Normalized yarn pull-out force for two consecutive
increased inter-yarn friction coupled with high reaction yarns was higher than those for single yarn and two
force at the crossover points causes the normalized yarn yarns with a single gap. This happened due to the assis-
pull-out force for three consecutive yarns to be much tance provided by the intermediate yarn, positioned
higher than those obtained in other configurations. between two yarns, which were being pulled-out,
in crimp interchange with the transverse yarns.
After STF and silica-water treatments, the normalized
Conclusions
yarn pull-out force for three consecutive yarns
An exhaustive study on yarn pull-out has been con- was much higher than those obtained in other
ducted using fabrics woven from high-performance configurations.
Majumdar and Laha 2065

Acknowledgements 12. Cunniff PM. A semi empirical model for the ballistic
The authors are grateful to the Terminal Ballistic Research impact performance of textile-based personnel armor.
Laboratory (TBRL), Chandigarh, India, for providing tech- Text Res J 1996; 66: 145–58.
nical assistances for this research work. 13. Cheeseman BA and Bogetti TA. Ballistic impact into
fabric and compliant composite laminates. Compos
Struct 2003; 61: 161–173.
Declaration of conflicting interests 14. Bazhenov S. Dissipation of energy by bulletproof aramid
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with fabric. J Mater Sci 1997; 32: 4167–4173.
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this 15. Ahmad MR, Wan Ahmad WY, Salleh J, et al. Effect of
article. fabric stitching on ballistic impact resistance of natural
rubber coated fabric systems. Mater Design 2008; 29:
Funding 1353–1358.
16. Haris A, Lee HP, Tay TE, et al. Shear thickening fluid
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
impregnated ballistic fabric composites for shock wave
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
mitigation. Int J Impact Eng 2015; 80: 143–151.
article: This work was supported by the Terminal Ballistic
17. Lee YS and Wagner NJ. Rheological properties and
Research Laboratory (TBRL), Chandigarh, India (grant no.
small angle neutron scattering of a shear thickening,
TBRL/ CARS/61/2014).
nanoparticle dispersion at high shear rates. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2006; 45: 7015–7024.
References 18. Wagner NJ and Brady FJ. Shear thickening in colloidal
1. Bajaj P and Sriram. Ballistic protective clothing: an over- dispersions. Phys Today 2009; 62: 27–32.
view. Indian J Fibre Text Res 1997; 22: 274–291. 19. Hassan TA, Rangari VK and Jeelani S. Synthesis, pro-
2. Majumdar A, Butola BS and Srivastava A. An analysis of cessing and characterization of shear thickening fluid
deformation and energy absorption modes of shear (STF) impregnated fabric composites. Mater Sci Eng A
thickening fluid treated Kevlar fabrics as soft body 2010; 527: 2892–2899.
armor materials. Mater Design 2013; 51: 148–153. 20. Kang TJ, Kim CY and Hong KH. Rheological behavior
3. Manimala JM and Sun C. Investigation of failure in of concentrated silica suspension and its application to
Kevlar fabric under transverse indentation using a homo- soft armor. J Appl Polym Sci 2012; 124: 534–1541.
genized continuum constitutive model. Text Res J 2014; 21. Zielinska1 D, Olejniczak BD, Wierzbicki L, et al.
84: 388–398. Investigation of the effect of para-aramid fabric impreg-
4. Tabiei A and Nilakantan G. ballistic impact of dry nation with shear thickening fluid on quasi-static stab
woven: a review. Appl Mech Rev 2008; 61: resistance. Text Res J 2014; 84: 1569–1577.
010801–010813. 22. Park Y, Kim Y, Baluch AH, et al. Empirical study of the
5. Nilakantan G, Merrill RL, Keefe M, et al. Experimental high velocity impact energy absorption characteristics of
investigation of the role of frictional yarn pull-out and shear thickening fluid (STF) impregnated Technora
windowing on the probabilistic impact response of kevlar fabric. Int J Impact Eng 2014; 72: 67–74.
fabrics. Compos Part B 2015; 68: 215–219. 23. Srivastava A, Majumdar A and Butola BS. Improving
6. Hwang HS, Malakooti MH, Patterson BA, et al. the impact resistance performance of Kevlar fabrics
Increased inter yarn friction through ZnO nanowire using silica based. Mater Sci Eng A 2011; 529: 224–229.
arrays grown on aramid fabric. Compos Sci Technol 24. Sebastian SARD, Bailey AI, Briscoe BJ, et al. Effect of a
2015; 107: 75–81. softening agent on yarn pull-out force of a plain weave
7. Kirkwood KM, Kirkwood JE, Lee YS, et al. Yarn pull- fabric. Text Res J 1986; 56: 604–611.
out as a mechanism for dissipating ballistic impact energy 25. Dong Z and Sun CT. Testing and modeling of yarn pull-
in kevlar KM-2 fabric part I: quasi-static characterization out in plain woven Kevlar fabrics. Compos Part A 2009;
of yarn pull-out. Text Res J 2004; 74: 920–928. 40: 1863–1869.
8. Kirkwood JE, Kirkwood KM, LeeYS, et al. Yarn pull- 26. Zhu D, Soranakom C, Mobasher B, et al. Experimental
out as a mechanism for dissipating ballistic impact energy study and modeling of single yarn pull-out behavior of
in kevlar KM-2 fabric part II: predicting ballistic per- Kevlar 49 fabric. Compos Part A 2011; 42: 868–879.
formance. Text Res J 2004; 74: 938–948. 27. Valizadeh M and Lomov S. Finite element simulation of
9. Lee YS, Wetzel ED and Wagner NJ. The ballistic impact a yarn pull-out test for plain woven fabrics. Text Res J
characteristics of Kevlar woven fabrics impregnated with 2010; 80: 892–903.
a colloidal shear thickening fluid. J Mater Sci 2003; 38: 28. Nilakantan G and Gillespie JW Jr. Yarn pull-out behav-
2825–2833. ior of plain woven Kevlar fabrics: effect of yarn sizing.
10. Duan Y, Keefe M, Bogetti TA, et al. Modeling friction Compos Struct 2013; 101: 215–224.
effects on the ballistic impact behavior of a single-ply 29. Bilisik K. Properties of yarn pull-out in para-aramid
high-strength fabric. Int J Impact Eng 2005; 31: 996–1012. fabric structure and analysis by statistical model.
11. Rao MP, Duan Y, Keefe M, et al. Modeling the effects of Compos Part A 2011; 42: 1930–1942.
yarn material properties and friction on the ballistic 30. Bilisik K. Shear characterization of para-aramid
impact of a plain-weave fabric. Comps Struct 2009; 89: (Twaron) fabric by yarn pull-out method. Text Res J
556–566. 2012; 82: 1442–1456.
2066 Textile Research Journal 86(19)

31. Bilisik K and Korkmaz M. Multilayered and multidirec- 34. Bilisik K. Determination of stick-slip stage of single and
tionally-stitched aramid woven fabric structures: experi- multiple yarn ends pull-out in para-aramid (Kevlar)
mental characterization of ballistic performance by woven fabric. J Ind Text 2012; 43: 90–115.
considering the yarn pull-out test. Text Res J 2010; 80: 35. Bilisik K and Yildirim B. Properties of stick-slip stage of
1697–1720. yarn pull-out in para-aramid woven fabric. Fibers Polym
32. Bilisik K and Yolacan G. Single and multiple yarn pull- 2013; 14: 630–638.
out on E-glass woven fabric structures. Text Res J 2011; 36. Hearle JWS, Grosberg P and Backer S. Structural mech-
81: 2043–2055. anics of fibers, yarns, and fabrics. Volume 1, New York:
33. Bilisik K. Stick–slip behavior of para-aramid (Twaron) Wiley-Interscience, 1969.
fabric in yarn pull-out. Text Res J 2013; 83: 13–33.