4.5 Article

Objective evaluation of the handle of blankets

Journal

TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
Volume 71, Issue 8, Pages 701-710

Publisher

TEXTILE RESEARCH INST
DOI: 10.1177/004051750107100809

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study develops mathematical equations for an important quality of blankets, good handle, based on the compression and surface properties, thickness, weight, and thermal parameters. The handle of blankets is subjectively evaluated by thirty-nine judges. Two methods are investigated for evaluating the quality of blankets on the basis of these subjective evaluations. The first method uses Equations KN101-W and KN301-W, which were developed for evaluating the quality of men's winter suiting, to predict blanket quality. Equation KN101-W converts the fabric characteristic parameters into primary hand values (HV), then the overall quality value (total hand value or THV) is derived from these primary hand values using Equation KN301-W. The application of these equations to blankets is based on the idea that there may be similarities between the human sensation-based concept of good handle for men's winter suiting and that for blankets. The second method involves a new equation for directly evaluating the THV of blankets from the compression, surface, construction, and thermal properties of the blankets. This second method is based on the idea that the effects of thermal properties on THV must be investigated, although the interrelation of these thermal properties and primary hand is not explained by Equation KN101-W. Some characteristic parameters that are applied to Equation KN101-W may be omitted because they are less important to the THV of blankets. This makes the equation simpler, and applying the equation to blanket design becomes easier. The evaluation equations are investigated to ascertain their ability to predict the handle of blankets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available