4.5 Article

Development of a tool to measure the pressure comfort of a cap (II) - by the analysis of correlation between objective pressure and subjective wearing sensation

期刊

TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
卷 77, 期 7, 页码 520-527

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0040517507080681

关键词

cap; comfort; comfortable fittablity index; pressure distribution; pressure sensation

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [핵06A2902, R11-2005-065-02001-0] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A tool to evaluate the subjective wearing comfort of baseball caps from the objective measurement of pressure was developed. Comfortable fittability index (CFI) and holding power (HP) were defined to represent the subjective wearing comfort of caps. In order to define the CFI, average pressure and pressure distribution of cap pressure were obtained and subjective sensations were evaluated by wearing test. Two sets of caps were evaluated, one set made of elastic fabric (F-caps) and the other set made of non-elastic fabric (S-caps). F-caps exerted lower average pressure and smaller pressure distribution. In wearing test results, F-caps were comfortable within the wide rage of the cap size. From the results obtained, we tried to find the statistical relationship between the objective pressure and HP or CFI values. HP values increased with the increase of average pressure and also with pressure distribution, regardless of the textile properties. We analyzed the regression equation to estimate HP and pressure sensation utilizing average pressure and pressure distribution, and constructed the regression equation to estimate CH using the calculated pressure sensation. We programed such estimated data in an algorithm and connected the measuring equipment of a cap pressure. Finally, a tool was developed to measure comfort and HP of a baseball cap from measuring the pressure inside caps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据