Abstract

The investigation of shear behavior of natural fibers helps out to study the aesthetic and
performance of woven fabrics. Woven fabrics have numerous functions accordingly their
mechanical properties. Shear behavior of the woven fabrics is one of the properties which affects
on different parameters of fabrics like drapability, pliability and other hand properties. Shear
behavior explains the terms shear angle, shear forces and also shear lock angles. There are two
basic methods are used in different experimental works which is mentioned in research papers.
The first one is Trellis-Frame(picture frame)test and another is Bias-Extension method.
Contradicting both test methods, Bias-Extension method is an easy test to calculate the Shear
behavior as it needs only two jaws and a load cell. On contrary, Picture-frame test is a time-
consuming test and needs more complex setup as compare to Bias-Extension test but the result are
unambiguous .

Introduction
Shear behavior of textile material is tested usually by using two methods i.e. Bias-extension
method and Picture-frame test.

Figure 1 Kinematics of Bias Extension test

Bias-Extension method
In this method, specimen sample is cut in rectangular shape with 150mm length and 50mm width.
Yarns are initially oriented in 45˚ to direction of applied force. Testing was performed at
10mm/min speed and 2.5 kN load cell was used. Basically, there are three regions in the specimen
where force is acting.

Region A: In this region, there is maximum force acting because there is no clamping in this area.
There will be extension in the specimen as force acts on it.

Region B: In this region, one yarn direction is clamped, and another is free. So, force will act
partially in this region.

Region C:This is the region where warp and weft are clamped completely and there will be no
force acting on sample in this region.

Results
Using force-displacement curves obtained on the computer screen, we can evaluate the results.

Figure 2Force Displacement curves

Figure 2(a) is the graphical representation of the samples under test. The results obtained are highly
satisfied and are used in further studies. For more understanding, the curve area is divided into
integral parts . Figure 2(a) represents the point where the sample started to slip from the jaw area.
This can be believed a disadvantage of the Bias-Extension test as compare to the Picture Frame
test.(Taha, Abdin, & Ebeid, 2013)
Picture Frame Test
This is also called shear frame test. It provides the most reliable results as compare to the Bias-
Extension Test due to wide range of shear angles.

Details of Equipment
The shear frame has a size of 220 mm × 220 mm as shown in figure.

Figure 3Frame and specimen size data

The picture frame contains two cross headmounting, groove drums , arms and a bolt-nut
configuration as shown in the figure.

Figure 4 assembly of frame and resulting deformation

Results
At the beginning of the test, there will be slight deformation which is dominated by the relative
motion of neighboring yarns which is restricted due to the friction between weft and warp yarns.
This region shows the shear behavior of the fabric. Further applying force on the specimen, warp
and weft yarns begin to pack tightly making compact structure which restricts the further rotation
of yarns, thus causing a sharp increase in force and fabric stiffness. This phenomenon is often
referred to as “shear locking”. Assuming that shear deformation is likely equal in the specimen,
the axial force-displacement curves are converted into shear force and shear angles applying
𝑑 𝐹
cosθ=√2 𝐿𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒 + 𝐿 and 𝐹𝑠ℎ = 2𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 where θ is the frame angle and 𝐹𝑠ℎ is the resultant
𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒

shearing force. The shearing angle γ is assigned value zero at the beginning when warp and weft
are at angle zero. Later, angle can be calculated by using γ= 90 2 θ.

References

Taha, I., Abdin, Y., & Ebeid, S. (2013). Comparison of picture frame and Bias-Extension tests
for the characterization of shear behaviour in natural fibre woven fabrics. Fibers and
Polymers, 14(2), 338–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12221-013-0338-6