Influence of Technology Process on Responsiveness of Footwear Nonwovens

Open access


Nonwovens represent a part of technical textiles that are used for clothing (“cloth tech”). Nonwovens are also used in the footwear industry mainly for functional purposes, where the aesthetic properties are not of great importance. They are mainly used for support and reinforcement of footwear. All three groups of textiles are used for footwear, i.e. woven fabrics, knitted fabrics and nonwovens that are produced directly from fibres, yarns or threads mainly from chemical fibres and in a small proportion from natural fibres.

Footwear textiles need to have good mechanical properties (at compressive loading), abrasion resistance, permeability properties and heat resistance. These properties are in close connection with the nonwoven structure or composite materials.

The basic intention of the presented research was to analyse the influence of the technology process on nonwovens for footwear responsiveness. Analysed footwear nonwovens in the presented research were on one side coated but on the other side consisted of a two-layer laminate. For this purpose, two different technological processes were used (coating and lamination). The results of the presented research showed that laminated samples express higher elastic recovery at compressive loading than coated samples. The treatment does not have an important influence on elastic recovery at compressive loading. Laminated samples express higher water permeability and lower absorption of water than coated samples, even after 24 hours of treatment in distilled water and compressive loading. The treatment of specimens in distilled water for 24 hours and compressive load of 789.6 N does not have an important influence on elastic recovery at compressive loading, water vapour permeability, air permeability and absorption of analysed samples. Air permeability could not be measured on coated samples.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Shishoo R. (2005) Woodhead publishing in textiles : textiles in sport. Cambridge Woodhead publishing limited 70–171.

  • [2] Gong R. H. (2011) Specialist yarn and fabric structures : developments and applications Cambridge Woodhead publishing limited 109 – 116.

  • [3] Fung W. (2002) Coated and laminated textiles. Cambridge Woodhead publishing limited 33 – 150.

  • [4] Li J. H. Hsieh J. C. Lou C. W. Hsieh C. T. Pan Y. J. Hsing W. H. and Lin J.H. (2016) Needle-punched thermally-bonded eco-friendly nonwoven geotextiles : Functional properties Materials Letters 183 77–80.

  • [5] Bratchenya L. A. Tolochkova O. N. and Lebedeva M. V. (2015) Creation of nonwoven shoe materials with improved hygienic properties Fibre Chemistry 43 (5) 369–371.

  • [6] Messaoud M. Vaesken A. Aneja A. Schacher L. Adolphe. D. Schaffhauser J. B. and Strehle P. (2015) Physical and mechanical characterizations of recyclable insole product based on new 3D textile structure developed by the use of a patented vertical-lapping process Journal of Industrial Textiles 44 (4 ) 497–512.

  • [7] Kinge A. P. Landage S. M. and Wasif A. I. (2013) Nonwoven for artificial leather International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences 2 (2) 18–31.

  • [8] Debnath S. Madhousoothanan M. (2011) Studies on compression properties of polyester needle-punched nonwoven fabrics under dry and wet conditions Journal of Industrial Textiles 41 (4) 292–308.

  • [9] Shabaridharan K. Das A. (2013) Study on thermal and evaporative resistances of multilayered fabric ensembles Journal of The Textile Institute 104 (10) 1025–1041.

  • [10] Ventura V. Ardanuy M. Capdevila X. Cano F. and Tornero J. A. (2014) Effects of needling parameters on some structural and physical-mechanical properties of needle-punched nonwovens Journal of The Textile Institute 105 (10) 1065–1075.

  • [11] Aksoy A. Kaplan S. (2013) Production and performance analysis of an antibacterial foot sweat pad Fibers and Polymers 14 (2) 316–323.

  • [12] Saxena M Pappu A. Haque R. and Sharma A. (2011) Sisal fiber based polymer composites and their applications. Cellulose fibers: bio- and nano-polymer composites Springer Link 589–651.

  • [13] Foulk J. Akin D. Dodd R. and Ulven C. (2011) Production of flax fibers for biocomposites. cellulose fibers: bio- and nano-polymer composites Springer Link 61–95.

  • [14] Ganesan P. Karthik T. (2016) Development of acoustic nonwoven materials from kapok and milkweed fibres The Journal of The Textile Institute 107 (4) 477–482.

  • [15] Phongam N. Dangtungee R. and Siengchin S. (2015) Comparative studies on the mechanical properties of nonwoven- and woven-flax-fiber-reinforced poly(butylene adipate-Co-terephthalate)-based composite laminates Mechanics of Composite Materials 51 (1) 17–24.

  • [16] Mishra R. Behera B. and Militky J. (2014) Recycling of textile waste into green composites: performance characterization Polymer Composites 35 1960–1967.

  • [17] INDA – Leading Global Trade Association of the Nonwovens Industry.

  • [18] Zhu G. Kremenakova D. and Wang Y. (2015) Study on the thermal property of highly porous nonwoven fabrics Industria textila 66 (2) 74–79.

  • [19] Dedov A. V. (2004) Nonwoven material with Low density and high mechanical strength Fibre Chemistry 36 (2) 126–128.

  • [20] Standard Test Method for Impact Attenuation of Athletic Shoe Cushioning Systems and Materials (2013) ASTM F1976 – 13 6 p.

  • [21] Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials (2016) ASTM E96:E96M 8 p.

  • [22] Textiles – Determination of the permeability of fabrics to air (1995) ISO 9237 5 p.

  • [23] Water Repellency: Static Absorption Test (1983) AATCC 21 4 p.

  • [24] Jakšić D. and Jakšić N. (2004) The porosity of masks used in medicine Tekstilec 47 (9–12) 301–304

  • [25] Jakšić D. and Jakšić N. (2007) Assessment of Porosity of Flat Textile Fabrics Textile Research Journal 77 (2) 105–110.

  • [26] Nagla J. R. (2014) Statistics for Textile Engineers New Delhi : Woodhead publishing 5–90.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.927
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.016

CiteScore 2018: 1.21

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.395
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.044

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 40 40 5
PDF Downloads 22 22 6