Investigating mathematical methods for high-throughput prediction of the critical buckling load of non-uniform wool fibers. Issue 9 (May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vetharaniam, Indrakumar; Tandon, Surinder; Plowman, Jeffrey E; Harland, Duane P
• Is Part Of: Textile research journal. Volume 88:Issue 9(2018)
• Page Start: 1002
• Page End: 1012
• Publication Date: 2018-05
• Subjects: textile prickle -- critical buckling load -- wool fiber -- finite element modeling -- numerical modeling -- Euler–Bernoulli beam theory -- flexural rigidity; Textile industry -- Periodicals; Textile fabrics -- Periodicals; Textile research -- Periodicals; Textiles et tissus -- Industrie et commerce -- Périodiques; Textiles et tissus -- Périodiques; Textiles et tissus -- Recherche -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 677.005
• DOI: 10.1177/0040517517693976
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0040-5175

Abstract

The sensation of prickle from textile garments is directly related to the force that a fiber protruding from the fabric surface can exert on the skin without buckling – its critical buckling load (CBL). Finite element modeling (FEM) has previously been used in the literature to predict CBLs for a set of 25 fibers with different along-fiber morphology. With a view to high-throughput analysis of fibers, we investigated two analytical methods that were potentially faster and less computationally intensive than FEM and applied them to calculate CBLs for the same set of fibers. In addition, we tested a numerical integration and gradient search (NIGS) method that we developed by adapting a previously published, non-FEM, numerical approach. The analytical methods that we tested were either inadequately formulated or prone to instability. Our NIGS method was more reliable that the analytical methods (but slower to compute), and its results appeared more accurate than the published FEM results, based on an inconsistency metric that we developed. The published FEM results and the NIGS predictions agreed within 5% for 60% of the fibers, and within 10% for 72% of the fibers (with differences ranging from 0.4% to 19.1%) and generally showed qualitative agreement on the response of CBL to fiber shape, with some notable exceptions. The response of CBL to dimensional variation was complex. This, and the inconsistency between methods, highlights the need for caution when analyzing complicated biological structures, such as wool, and the value of verifying the reliability of any predictions from any approach.