Surface Roughness Evaluation of Textile Fabrics: A
Literature Review
Sara Asghari Mooneghi, Siamak Saharkhiz, PhD, S. Mohammad Hosseini Varkiani, PhD
Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence to:
Sara Asghari Mooneghi email: s.asghari@aut.ac.ir
ABSTRACT
Surface roughness is an important and effective
factor in predicting tactile properties of fabrics. The
definition of surface roughness and its different
evaluating methods are divided into two main groups,
subjective and objective, are reviewed. The latter
consists of contact and non-contact methods. The
evaluation in subjective and objective techniques is
done by trained people as a measuring device and an
apparatus, respectively.
Keywords: surface roughness; subjective techniques;
objective techniques; contact methods; non-contact
methods; textiles.
INTRODUCTION
There are two reasons for surface roughness
measurement. The first is to control manufacture and
the second is to help ensure that the products perform
well. In case of textiles, the former is related to
special finishing (pressing or ironing), but the latter is
related to tactile comfort and handling of fabrics [1-
2]. Tactile comfort is important for garments which
touch the human skin. A large number of different
psychological and physiological responses of the
human body along with fabric physical properties are
incorporated to produce the subjective feeling of
fabrics. Tactile feel is a multidimensional concept
which consists of several characteristics including:
compression, friction, bending, surface roughness,
tensile, shear, and thermal behavior. Among these,
surface roughness is a fundamental and effective
factor [3-4].
In this paper, the surface roughness definition is
presented. In addition, some techniques for surface
roughness evaluation of fabrics which are used by
various researchers are reviewed in detail.
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
SURFACE ROUGHNESS DEFINITION
Before defining the surface roughness, the surface
and its components should be identified. Any surface
is generally composed of three components in
accordance with wavelength or frequency. The low,
medium and high frequency range variation are
called form, waviness, and roughness respectively.
Each surface always has these three elements
together and they are expected to be analyzed
separately [1, 5]. There are at least 20 roughness
parameters and some of them are described in the
following sections. It is necessary to notice that these
parameters can be defined for form and waviness as
well, but this paper is devoted to the surface
roughness.
Sampling Length (lr)
The sampling length is the length in the X direction
which is used to identify irregularities of surface
roughness [5-6].
Evaluation Length (ln)
The evaluation length is the length in the X direction
which is used to analyze and evaluate the surface
roughness profile. It can contain one or more,
sampling lengths [5-6].
FIGURE 1. Mean line (Sum of areas A, C, E, G and I, is equal to
K, B, D, F and H) [5]
Mean Line
Mean line is a reference line from which all
measurements are calculated. There are different
ways to define the mean line. Usually, it is placed
where the sum of areas above it is equal to the sum of
areas below it. In Figure 1, the sum of A, C, E, G and
I is equal to K, B, D, F and H.
1 http://www.jeffjournal.org
FIGURE 2. Mean line (least-squares) [5].

Another way is using the least squares line which is a

line from which the sum of squares of the profile FIGURE 4. Local slope [5].
heights is minimal. As shown in Figure 2,
Maximum Profile Peak Height (Rp)
a2+b2+c2++n2 is minimal [5-6].
The distance between the mean line and highest point
of the profile peak is called profile peak height or Zp.
Profile Peaks and Valleys
The Rp is defined as the maximum Zp in one
The outward and inward sections of the profile are
sampling length. This parameter is shown in Figure 5
defined as profile peaks and valleys, respectively.
[5-6].
These parts should join two adjacent profile
intersection points with the mean line. A profile
element is composed of one peak and its adjacent
valley in the assessed profile. As shown in Figure 3,
sections A and B are profile peaks and the section
between points D and E are valleys [5-6].

FIGURE 5. Maximum surface roughness profile peak height [5].

Maximum Profile Valley Depth (Rv)

The distance between the mean line and the deepest
point of profile valley is called profile valley depth or
Zv. The Rv is defined as the maximum Zv in one
FIGURE 3. Profile peaks and valleys [5]. sampling length. This parameter is shown in Figure 6
[5-6].
Ordinate Value Z(x)
The ordinate value is the height of the profile in each
position of x from the mean line. Based on the
location above or below X axis (mean line), Z(x) can
be positive or negative, respectively [5-6].

Local Slope (dz/dx)

Profile inclination in each position of xi is defined as
the local slope (Figure 4) [5-6].

FIGURE 6. Maximum surface roughness profile valley depth [5].

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 2 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
Maximum Height of Profile (Rz)
The sum of the maximum profile peak height and the
maximum profile valley depth in one sampling length
is defined as Rz (RZ=Rp+Rv). This parameter is
approximately equal to the structural roughness of the
fabric surface. In nonwoven and woven fabrics, Rz
changes with differences in construction [5-6].

Mean Height of Profile Elements (Rc)

A profile element consists of one peak and its
adjacent valley in the assessed profile. The distance FIGURE 9. Mathematical evaluation of Ra [5].
between peak and valley is shown by Zt (Figure 7).
Z1 + Z 2 + ... + Z n (2)
Ra =
n

In this equation, Zi is related to the ordinate values

and n is their number. It can also be written as below:

1 n
Ra = Zi
n i =1
(3)

1 1r
lr 0
Ra = Z ( x) dx (4)
FIGURE 7. A profile element [5].

Rc is the average of the profile elements in one Figure 10 graphically shows the determination of Ra.
sampling length and is calculated by Eq. (1). First of all, the mean line is specified (Figure 10 (a)).
Then all areas under the reference line are reversed
1 m (Figure 10 (b)). Finally, Ra is obtained by dividing
Rc = Zt i
m i =1
(1) the sum of the areas enclosed between the roughness
profile and the mean line by the evaluation length.
In this equation, Zti is related to the height of the
profile element and m is the number of elements in
one sampling length (Figure 8) [5-6].

FIGURE 10. Graphically determination of Ra [5].

It is important to notice that the dimension of Ra is

FIGURE 8. Mean heights of surface roughness profile [5] the same as length (usually in microns). Although, Ra
is useful in quality control, it does not distinguish
Arithmetical Mean Deviation of Assessed Profile between profiles of different shapes (Figure 11).
(Ra)
Ra is the most useful and common parameter for
analyzing the surface structure. It is the arithmetical
average of the absolute values of the profile
variations Z1,Z2,+Zn from the mean line in the
evaluation length (Figure 9). Ra is calculated by Eq.
(2).

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 3 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
 1 1r dZ
R a =
lr
0 dX
dx (8)

This parameter is important in various applications

such as in the study of sliding friction and the
reflectance of light from surfaces [5-6].

As mentioned above, there are a large number of

surface roughness parameters obtained from the
profile method and just some are appropriate in
special cases based on the purpose of investigation.

SUBJECTIVE SURFACE ROUGHNESS

EVALUATION OF TEXTILE FABRICS
The first technique used to evaluate the surface
FIGURE 11. Profiles with same Ra and different shapes [5].
roughness of fabrics is subjective methods. This
means, evaluating the surface roughness by trained
It is common in the textile branch to use Mean people as a measuring device. Commonly, in these
Absolute Deviation (MAD) which is calculated as methods, experts touch the fabrics with their fingers
below along with Ra [5-6]. and then predict the surface roughness by using
paired comparisons. The literature indicates that many
1 lr (5) investigators have studied the surface roughness of
lr 0
MAD = Z ( x) Ra dx textiles by using this technique.

Root Mean Square Deviation of the Assessed As a case in point, in 1956, Stockbridge et al. [7]
Profile (Rq) studied the surface roughness of woven and knitted
The root Mean Square Deviation of the Assessed fabrics subjectively. Four groups from low education,
Profile in one sampling length is given by Eq. (6). with little general alertness and little interest in the
experiment till high education, were used. The groups
were asked to evaluate surface roughness of fabrics by
1 1r
Rq =
lr
0
Z 2 ( x)dx (6) touching them with their fingers. Afterwards, they
used the method of paired comparisons and
determined the coefficients of consistency and
Rq is more significant than Ra in statistics and it does unanimity among the subjects. The former was related
not distinguish between profiles of different shapes as to an individuals judgments, and the latter was
well [5-6]. related to the agreement within a group. Results
showed that there was a significant agreement on the
Root Mean Square slope of the assessed profile ranking of roughness between groups of subjects.
(Rq) Subjects also had wide variation in their ability to
This parameter is obtained from the mean square perform the discrimination required.
values of the local slopes in one sampling length.
In recent times, some researchers [8] have used blind
1 1r dZ 2 subjective sensory assessments. This means the
R q =
lr 0
(
dX
) dx (7)
subjects have to cover their eyes because it is believed
that vision can affect the assessment of texture.
Rq is useful in tribological applications. The lower Moreover, there are some reports which compare
the slope, the smaller the friction and wear. Also, the subjective assessments to objective ones. Therefore,
reflectance property of a surface increases in the case we will review them in the following section.
of small Rq [5-6].
OBJECTIVE SURFACE ROUGHNESS
Arithmetical Mean Slope of the Assessed Profile EVALUATION OF TEXTILE FABRICS
(Ra) The purpose of the objective methods is to quantify
This parameter is obtained from the arithmetical the surface roughness using an apparatus. Generally
mean of the local slopes in one sampling length. these methods work in accordance with the surface
profile systems called surface height variation (SHV)

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 4 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
trace. This profile indicates height variation in (Surface Mean Deviation) is calculated as below
selected direction which is used to compute a number (Figure 13):
of roughness parameters. Objective methods are
divided into two groups: contact or mechanical 1 X (9)
SMD = T T dX
methods and non-contact methods. X0

Contact Methods In this equation, X is related to maximum measuring

In these methods, during the measurement process, length, T is the fabric thickness measured by the
the sensor comes to contact with the surface of sensor at location X and T' is the mean fabric
fabrics. Different systems have been assembled in thickness [3, 11].
this case, and some of them are described below.

In 1955, the Cloth Profile Recorder was devised by

Bulter et al. [9]. After that the KES (Kawabata
Evaluation System) system was developed which
works based on the correlation between subjective
sensations such as smoothness, sleekness, firmness,
fullness, crispness and hardness, and physical
characteristics such as extension, bending,
compression, and friction. The handle variations due
to fabric structure and treatments can be quantified
and the correlation between physical characteristics
and subjective sensation is high [10]. KES can
measure the coefficient of friction () and the surface
roughness (mean deviation of surface roughness,
SMD) simultaneously. FIGURE 13. Measuring surface roughness by KES [3].

In 1988, the Multipurpose Fabric Tester was

designed by Hearle and Amirbayat [12-13]. This
instrument measures the surface properties
(roughness and friction coefficient), drape
coefficient, and bending stiffness of fabrics
continuously and only with one sample (Figure 14).

FIGURE 12. Sensing element of KES [11].

As shown in Figure 12, the sensing element consists

of a metallic rod equipped in its free end with a thin
wire in a U form. During the measurement, the sensor
touches the surface of fabric under a constant normal
force. In order to generate an electrical signal
proportional to the vertical displacement of the
sensor, a linear differential transformer is used.
Moreover, to block off the signals which have
frequency higher than 1 mm, a high-pass filter is
applied. In that case, the signal represents only the
upper and lower limits of the thickness variation of
the fabric. Therefore, an integrator is used and SMD
FIGURE 14. Multipurpose Fabric Tester (a) Sample-mounting,
(b) General view of device [12].
The linear transducer has been used for measuring
the surface roughness. It is capable of measuring the
variation of the height to an accuracy of 1 m.
During the test, a steel ball at the tip of the sensor
comes in contact with the surface. The size of the
steel ball is selected based on the type of fabric and
surface

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 5 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
testing. Afterwards, the output signal is rectified and
fed into the microprocessor. In fact, the heights (Hi)
in different points (n) are measured by the instrument
and the surface roughness (R) is calculated by
Eq. (10).
n
( Hi H )
R= i =1 (10)
n
In this equation (H) shows the average of heights.
The results of tests on woven and nonwoven fabrics
indicated that the developed device was compatible
with conventional methods satisfactorily.
In the same year (1988), Lord, Radhakrishnaiah, and
Grove [14] studied the assessment of the tactile
properties of woven fabrics made from various types
of staple-fiber yarns. In this research, ring-spun,
rotor-spun, and friction-spun yarns were used as weft
yarns in a series of woven fabrics. Tactile properties
were measured by KES (roughness and friction) and
a subjective method. Then the investigators tried to
correlate between measured parameters by these two
methods. Reasonable correlation was obtained
between subjective assessment and surface roughness
characteristics over a diversified amount of thread-
spacing Moreover, noticeable difference was
observed in surface roughness between the front and
back surfaces of a fabric. Differences in yarn
structures, especially in plain fabrics (twill fabrics
also were tested) had an influence on the surface
roughness. The results showed that rotor-spun yarns
tend to produce high levels of roughness. Besides,
roughness of fabrics produced from friction-spun
stable-fiber yarns may be compared favorably with
those from ring-spun yarns.
In 1989, Amirbayat and Cooke [13] studied the
changes in surface properties of fabrics during wear.
The Multipurpose Fabric Tester devised by Hearle
and Amirbayat [12] was used to measure surface
properties (roughness and friction) and tests
performed on 20 different woven fabrics. Meantime,
researchers tried to correlate between abrasion
resistance and surface properties, areal density, and
thickness (T) of fabrics. Results showed strong
correlation between these parameters and abrasion
resistance. Moreover, a trial regression equation was
derived to relate mentioned properties with abrasion
resistance, which showed reasonable agreement with
the actual test results. It was concluded that
roughness can also be used to distinguish between
various fabrics better than the coefficient of friction.
In 1992, Ajayi [15] studied smoothness, friction and
handle of woven, knitted and nonwoven fabrics
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
objectively and subjectively. The surface roughness
was not measured directly in this research. In other
words, the hypothesis tested in this work was that any
fabric that has a small coefficient of friction is likely
to be explained as a smooth fabric. The Instron
tensile tester equipped with a friction assembly was
used for the friction measurement. Objectively,
fabrics may present alike / different frictional
resistance to motion and have alike / different friction
coefficients, but subjectively, these fabrics may be
tactually different or alike. This may show that these
quantities may not be a sole index of fabric
smoothness or roughness. Results demonstrated that
where other frictional characteristics such as number
of peaks, amplitude of resistance, and frictional
resistance were roughly the same, the fabric with a
smaller friction coefficient was usually smoother.
FIGURE 15. Multi-directional roughness meter [16].
In 1996, Bueno et al. [16] investigated the surface
roughness of woven fabrics after emerizing
(sanding). The aim was to develop a tribological
method for the quantization of sanding and a control
system for this process. Figure 15 shows the device
used in this work. The Multidirectional roughness
meter is like a record player in which its sapphire
needle is replaced by a steel wire (0.6 mm in
diameter and 5 mm in length). The steel wire is
parallel to the fabric surface and perpendicular to the
displacement. A sample carrier is a plastic disk of a
26 cm diameter which has a small hole in its center
and a 1 cm thick ring of a 19.5 cm mean diameter. As
a result of being grooved, a clamping ring can rest in
the disks grooves. The fabric sample was a disk of
24 cm diameter with a hole in its center. The sample
hole coincides with the disk hole so that the sample
carrier can be centered on the instrument. The output
signal from the piezoelectric sensor was studied in
the frequency domain. The calculated auto spectrum
showed various peaks which are related to the type of
weave or knit and the fabric density. The peaks
height is a parameter that can specify the fabric
6 http://www.jeffjournal.org
surface state with high sensitivity. In fact, the
measured parameter is the sensor strain energy, that
is, the fabric roughness. A study on human touch
revealed that the hand indicates skin strain energy,
and so, the surface roughness. Considering the fact
that the measured parameter in this apparatus is the
sensor strain energy, the researchers claimed that this
contact method is comparable with the hand
evaluation system. Results showed that the peak
height increases with the process intensity and
decreases after sanding. This phenomenon is due to
modification of fabric roughness.
Following their previous work, in 1997, Bueno et al.
[17] measured the surface roughness and investigated
the effects of sanding and raising on the surface state
of woven and knitted fabrics, macroscopically. The
surface roughness was measured by the
multidirectional roughness meter which was devised
one year ago [16]. The instrument provides
information about the fabric state and the
fundamental directions of fabric relief, which depend
on the type of weave or knit. In fact, this technique
specifies the surface state from a tribological point of
view and can be applied for different finishing
processes that modify the surface state, such as
sanding, raising, calendaring or ironing. Similar to
their previous research, the peak heights of the
calculated auto spectrum changed with the process
intensity and decreased after sanding or raising, due
to modification of the fabric profile.
In 2004, Militky and Bazik [1] studied the surface
roughness of heat resistant protective clothing. A
simple technique based on the tracking of a metal
blade on the textile surface and record of necessitated
load, was presented. The contiguous measurement of
load was done by the TIRATEST tensile testing
machine, which shows the surface force variation
(SFV). The force F in different distances from the
reference line changes in contrast to thickness R.
Furthermore, another method based on the image
analysis was used in this work. The image analysis
method was not described in this work completely
and was proposed in another article [2] in 2007.
Additionally, the surface roughness was measured by
KES (marked by researcher as MAD) and a
subjective method. The purpose of this investigation
was to quantitatively compare surface roughness
properties of the clothes and correlate them to the
result of subjective assessment. It was claimed that
the presented method is simple and can be used for
practical measurements. However, the correlation
with KES results was weak. As a result, it was
thought that the image analysis method is likely to be
more useful. Moderate correlation of surface
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
roughness with subjective hand (SH) also showed
that the roughness of tested fabrics is not directly
related to mechanical comfort prediction. Generally,
coarser surface is potentially one of the sources of
worse mechanical comfort.
FIGURE 16. Testing instrument used by Militky and Bazik (2004)
[1].
In 2004, Vassiliadis and Provatidis [11] characterized
the structure of woven and knitted fabrics by using
surface roughness data obtained by KES. Perusals
indicated that the surface roughness properties of
fabrics provide knowledge on their structural
characteristics. The data obtained from the KES
system was signal-processed digitally owing to get
the spectral characteristics of the surface roughness
measurements. In fact, a novel analytical test was
developed to maximize the usage of the data acquired
from the KES system. It is claimed that the presented
method has a non-destructive diameter and can be
applied to woven or knitted fabrics.
In 2005, Kim, D., Shinjung and Kim, E. [3] perceived
touch of worsted fabrics based on their characteristics
using the objective measurement technique. They
showed the possibility of the quantitative method
which was the KES system to predict subjective
sensation of fabrics and influence of the surface-fiber
profile on perceived handle of worsted fabrics.
Although the surface roughness has been identified as
an effective factor on subjective sensation of the
fabric surface, researchers believed that in many
cases, it is not enough especially for worsted or
woolen fabrics that have surface fibers since they
have a large number of surface fibers. Therefore,
quantitative measured surface-fiber profiles and
surface roughness of fabrics were incorporated to
7 http://www.jeffjournal.org
predict perceived softness and warmth of the touch of
fabrics. It is claimed that considering some
limitations, the results and the methods from this
report can be used for the product planning and
finishing process in the textile industry.
In the same year (2005), the back-scattering spectrum
of textiles was studied experimentally by Moussa et
al. [18]. The influence of different parameters such as
the surface roughness was demonstrated
experimentally and theoretically in this article.
In 2005, another investigation was done by Fontaine
et al. [19] to characterize roughness-friction criteria
for a tested surface. In order to do so, a patented
device was developed which was capable of
recognizing fine modifications on the surface state of
textiles.
FIGURE 17. Autospectrum analysis [19].
FIGURE 18. Measurement method used by Fontaine et al. [19].
Figure 18 shows the measuring system. Illustrating
the veracity of the technique, two nonwovens which
had hygienic applications were examined. The
rotating disk which samples are clamped on is the
sample carrier. Afterwards, it is rubbed by an
extremely preloaded thin metallic blade (50m)
excited by surface properties such as friction and
roughness. Throughout contact, the metallic blade
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
vibrates in accordance with eigenvalues of
frequencies (vibration modes). Strain gauges are
located on the blade to measure its vibrations. A
Fourier analysis of the temporal signal from the
sensor is done for calculating the power spectrum
related to frequency with the use of a spectrum
analyzer. This is an auto spectrum in which the
height of the peaks of each mode depends on the
surface state of the tested samples (Figure 17). Here
the surface roughness was calculated by Eq. (11).
1 L
L 0
R= y( x ) y .dx (11)
In this equation, L is the evaluation length, y
is the mean length and y(x) is the height of one point
located on the X axis. Owing to this auto spectrum
(center of the peak), frequencies of vibration modes
were experimentally specified. Researchers only
studied the energies of mode 1 and 3. It has been
shown that the former is sensitive to both friction and
roughness while the latter is sensitive to roughness
only. It was claimed that the developed method is
capable of evaluating all kinds of surface states.
Results showed that the roughness of the spunlace
products was generally more than spun and sofspun
products. Furthermore, the friction in spunlace
products was more important compared to the
spunbonded nonwovens.
In 2007, Bertaux, Lewandowski, and Derler [8]
studied the relationship between friction and tactile
properties of woven and knitted fabrics. The friction
coefficients of fabrics were measured by KES and
textile friction analyzer (TFA). The tactile properties
of the samples were appraised by two types of blind
subjective sensory assessments. First, touch
assessment by thumbs and the second was the prickle
test. The former characterized the surface roughness
and the latter characterized discomfort in terms of
prickle throughout wearing. In addition, the surface
roughness was measured by KES. The researcher
tried to classify fabrics from the viewpoint of tactile
properties and correlate fabric friction and
subjectively perceived touch properties. This
correlation was found just for knitted fabrics which
ascribe to their surface structure. In order to
understand whether or not other parameters could
have affected the obtained correlation, fabric
characteristics including bending, compression, basis
weight, fabric thickness and hairiness were studied.
They found that the related properties in the
correlation between friction and the handle properties
of fabrics using principal component analysis were
bending, thickness and compressibility. On the other
8 http://www.jeffjournal.org
hand, the friction results displayed there was a analogue signal conditioning, provides an output
negative correlation between the friction analyzer and signal proportional to the target position [20].
the KES. This was ascribed to the different testing
conditions such as applied load, sliding speed, contact
area and surface materials and illustrated the
dependence of fabric friction properties on testing
variables.

Non-Contact Methods
The literature indicates that many investigators have
studied the surface roughness of textiles in non-
contact ways. There is not contact between the sensor
and surface in any of these methods. These methods
are divided into two groups: Optical methods and
Image analysis and fractal methods.

Optical Methods
The majority of non-contact methods consist of
optical techniques. These methods use monochrome
light which can be produced by a laser or an optical
fiber bundle and are based on studying light
reflection from the surface. In some methods, all the
reflected light must be taken into account while other
methods are based on its polarization.
FIGURE 19. (a) General view of first optic device; (b) Sample-
mounting [9].
The first non-contact photic method was presented by
Ramgulam, Amirbayat, and Porat in 1993 [9]. The
developed device is able to measure the surface
roughness of woven fabrics based on the
triangulation technique. Figure 19 shows the general
view of the developed device.
Laser triangulation sensors specify the position of
sample by measuring the reflected light form its
surface. A transmitter (laser diode) projects a spot of
light to the surface. Then light reflection is received
by optical lens on a light sensitive device or receiver.
If the position of sample changes from the reference
point, the location of reflected point of light on the
detector changes as well. The electrical signal
demonstrates the spot location on the receiving part
and, following linearization and additional digital or
FIGURE 20. Laser triangulation sensor [20].
In this device, a light beam (25 micron diameter)
produced by a laser diode illuminates the fabric
surface. Then the laser triangulation sensor measures
the distance between itself and the sample surface
with a preciseness of 10 m. Eq. (10) was used to
quantify surface roughness from the obtained data.
Plain woven fabrics were tested for demonstration of
the presented methods capability. Results were also
compared with the given results from KES and
Multipurpose Fabric tester (rotary). It was stated that
the laser sensor works more precisely than the two
contact methods. Moreover, the results obtained from
this device were in better agreement with rotary
systems than those obtained from KES. In that, KES
underestimates the true geometrical roughness which
is related to the size of its contactor and its
measurement trend.
The evaluation of roughness with hand consists of
applying pressure on the fabric surface. Due to this
fact, some researchers believe that the acquired
results from contact methods are more compatible
with subjective methods and they could be the most
appropriate techniques to measure surface roughness.
In order to apply this pressure in the presented
device, it was suggested that the sample surface be
covered with a clear glass during the measurement. It
was indicated that passing a light beam through a
glass had negligible effects on results.

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 9 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
In 1995, profilometric surface measuring systems
were studied by Seifert et al. [21]. A contact method
and a photic method (based on laser triangulation
technique) which were the same in design and only
different in sensor technology and a few technical
details, were used. In order to compare the measuring
systems, three needle bonded fabrics were tested and
surface profile and the roughness parameters were
obtained. Results revealed that both systems had
resolutions smaller than 1 m in the test direction and
so they were appropriate for high precision
measurement. Due to dependency of the measuring
precision to textile characteristics, special calibration
of the measuring system for textiles was expected.
The novelty of the presented device is the result of
having three features together: the circular movement
of the sample, the Fourier signal processing, and the
linear probe. The first feature provides examination
of samples in all directions like the human hand does
during the touch of a surface.
The second feature provides findings of periods. At
last, having the linear probe is very useful. In fact,
during a circular scan, a point like probe can sense all
the threads on its path; thus the spectrum obtained
displays a hump but no peaks (Figure 22). However,
a linear probe shows only the basic directions of the
fabric structure. The main drawback of the presented
device is its sensitivity to color. This technique can
be used for colorless or light-colored fabrics because
of their low light absorption.

In 2000, Bueno, Durand and Renner [23] measured

the surface roughness of fabrics by a non-contact
method. The aim of researchers was the development
of a non-contact method to investigate the surface
state of fabrics.

FIGURE 21. Optical multidirectional roughness meter [22].

In 1999, Bueno, Durand and Renner [22-23] studied

emerizing and raising effects on woven and knitted
fabrics by a non-contact method. In order to do so, an
optical multidirectional roughness meter with the
signal processing system in the frequency domain
was developed which has three main parts: sample
carrier, optical part and signal processing (Figure
21). During the measurement, light spot produced by
a laser transforms into a line. The linear light spot is
projected on the fabric surface and is then reflected.
Afterwards, the reflected light by the beam splitter
goes on the photomultiplier which transforms light to
electrical signal. It is important to notice that the light FIGURE 22. Advantage of a linear probe over a point like probe
beam can be absorbed, scattered or reflected and the [24].
presented device is capable of measuring only the
In order to do so, an optical multidirectional
light reflection.
roughness meter designed in 1999 [22] was used
again but researchers tried to modify it (Figure 21).
To calculate the power spectral density relative to
In the previous device, the reflected beam from fabric
frequency by a spectrum analyzer which showed one
surface is focused on the beam splitter by means of a
or several peaks, the Fourier analysis of the electrical
biconvex lens. But in the current device, it is located
signal from the reflected beam was used. The peaks
between the beam splitter and the photodiode
depended on the structure and the density of fabrics.
(Figure 23). Furthermore, in 2000 the
Moreover, the surface state of fabrics was determined
photomultiplier is replaced by the photodiode. Except
by frequency spectra in which peak heights were
these two, there are no differences between the
inversely proportional to the importance of the pile.
devices. Similar to their previous work, they studied
Results showed that peak heights decreased after
the effects of sanding and raising finishing processes
these two finishing processes due to an increase in
on the surface state of fabrics. Results were similar
hairiness and thus an increase in energy absorption.
with improved accuracy.
Also the heights increased with the process intensity.

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 10 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
In the same year (2000), this group [24] optically
characterized the surface state of fabrics after sanding
and raising processes. The surface roughness was
measured by an optical multidirectional roughness
meter developed in 2000. However, there is a
difference between this device and the one used
before [23]. In the new one (Figure 24), the light
beam projects to the sample surface and the beam
splitter is in a completely parallel way. Moreover, the
hairiness of fabrics was investigated by a hairiness
meter. Results showed that peak heights decreased
after these processes and increased with intensity of
processes. Note that these results were similar to their
previous works.
FIGURE 23. Optical multidirectional roughness meter developed
in 2000 by Bueno, Durand and Renner [23].
FIGURE 24. The new optical multidirectional roughness meter
developed by Bueno, Durand and Renner in 2000 [24].
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
In 2002, Ishizawa et al. [25] measured the surface
properties of woven fabrics using an optical fiber
bundle and a subjective method. A complex
measuring system was designed which evaluates
brightness, roughness and luster of textile surfaces.
Figure 25 shows the measuring system.
FIGURE 25. Measuring system developed by Ishizawa et al. [25].
In this device, the light from LED illuminates the
sample surface. Then the reflected light goes into
optical fibers and is detected by the photodiode and is
transformed to voltage. The signal is amplified and
passed through the low-pass filter. Finally, the output
signal is recorded by a digital multi-meter (Figure 25
a). To measure the surface roughness (Figure 25 c)
the optical fiber bundle is moved horizontally above
the sample and measures the light intensity. The
reflected light intensity from the surface changes
based on the surface irregularities of fabrics, and this
parameter can be transformed into the distance
between the sample surface and the bundle edge (L)
by the output characteristic curve. The mean
deviation of L values demonstrated the surface
roughness of fabrics. Figure 26 shows the output
characteristic curve to the distance between the
sample surface and the bundle edge in the case of
using the mirror as the sample. Results showed that
there was a high correlation between measured light
intensities and values of subjective assessments. As a
matter of fact, it was claimed that this novel method
is useful for evaluating the surface properties of
woven fabrics. The presented technique is rather
simple in which by changing the sensor to fix, tilt or
moving state, brightness, roughness and luster can be
measured. Moreover, the device could be used in on
line measuring.
11 http://www.jeffjournal.org
 It is claimed that this method is suitable for precision
measurement of surface roughness.

In 2007, Tourlonias, Bigue, and Bueno [4] devised a

polarimetric texturometer for woven and nonwoven
fabrics. The presented device was made-up of a
previous optical texturometer [24] which was
equipped with a new measurement part and works
based on analyzing the degree of polarization of
reflected light. Figure 28 shows the polarimetric
texturometer. The degree of polarization is calculated
by Eq. (12) theoretically.
FIGURE 26. Characteristic curve of the measuring system used by
Ishizawa et al. [25].
I || I cross (12)
P=
In 2003, Park et al. [26] evaluated the surface I || + I cross
roughness of woven and knitted fabrics in a non-
contact way. A measuring device based on the laser Here, I is related to intensity of the reflected light.
triangulation technique was devised (Figure 27)
which was composed of a laser displacement sensor
with high accuracy and a linear motor. The sensor
can measure the distance between itself and a sample
surface (therefore the height of the object) with an
accuracy of 1 m. In consequence of having
anisotropy in textile fabrics, a light beam (0.3 mm
diameter) which illuminates the sample surface,
measures the surface roughness over a 2 cm length
along the principal directions. In the presented
technique, the sample is moved with a specified
speed, and then stored 200 data (obtained from the
height measurement) with a microprocessor.
Obtained data can be utilized using Eq. (10) to
quantify the surface roughness. Afterwards, in order
to reduce photic errors, the effects of hairiness and
surface color on the roughness were investigated. FIGURE 28. Polarimetric texturometer [4].

Therefore, the degree of polarization of reflected

FIGURE 27. Measuring device used by Park et al. [26].
Results showed that surface color can be a source of
error, and bright colors have the possibility to have
more errors than dark colors. Also, it was revealed
that the hairiness is an important parameter which
increases the surface roughness. The researcher
demonstrated the effectiveness of the presented
method in comparing the obtained results with KES.
light can be determined by two crossed linear
polarization elements I cross and III. Recording the Icross
and III is enough to characterize the light wave. In
order to measure these two simultaneously, a new
measurement arm was added to the texturometer. The
entire reflected beam from sample surface is divided
into two parts by the beam splitter cube. A polarizer
is placed in the first optical path, the main direction
of which is parallel to the polarization direction of the
incident beam, i.e., parallel to the laser line. In the
same way, a polarizer crossed to this direction is
located in the second optical path. As a result, Icross
and III are measured at the same time and P is
calculated by Eq. (12). The variation of light intensity
during the measurement is related to the surface
structure of fabrics. The output signal was processed
with Fourier analysis. Due to fabric periodic
structure, the PSD displayed several frequency peaks,
the energy of which depends on the fabric surface
state. In case of woven fabrics, P was dependent on

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 12 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
the surface roughness and hairiness and thermo
bonding in nonwovens. Results showed that the
polarization of reflected light reduced by hairiness
due to an increase in surface irregularities.
In 2010, Asghari Mooneghi, Hosseini Varkiyani, and
Saharkhiz [27] studied the surface roughness of
worsted fabrics quantitatively using a laser sensor. In
this study, nine groups of woven fabrics consisting of
three various weft densities (19, 21 and 23 cm-1) and
three various weave (Twill 2/2, Twill 3/1 and
Hopsack 2/2), were used. Comparing various filters
and texture of textiles, the Gaussian Regression filter
was used in order to extract the 3D surface roughness
profile (Figure 29) from the measured surface
profile. Afterwards, five roughness parameters were
extracted using this profile, including average
roughness, root mean square deviation of the surface
roughness profile, maximum profile peak height,
maximum profile valley depth and maximum height
of profile. Results showed that Twill 3/1 always had
higher surface roughness in comparison to other
fabrics in a same weft density. Statistical analyses
also demonstrated that there are significant
relationships between weft density and weave
structure with surface roughness in 95% confidence
range. The advantage of this technique is the
evaluation of roughness parameters not only in warp
and weft direction but also in a 3D way. Since the 3D
parameters provide surface roughness with just one
number in comparison with 2D ones (warp and weft),
they give a better gauge for roughness.
Image Processing and Fractal Methods
Another non-contact technique to evaluate the
surface roughness consists of methods based on the
image processing and fractal dimension. Here, the
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
surface profile is obtained by a camera and image
analysis techniques. Then fractal dimension is
determined by data calculated from the surface
profile. Finally, surface roughness is computed by
fractal dimension.
In 1993, Pourdeyhimi and Sobus [28] studied surface
intensity and roughness (variation of surface
intensity) in order to quantify changes in appearance
of carpet surfaces due to mechanical wear. This
research demonstrated the utilization of gray scale
image analysis to evaluate the micro texture variation
and roughness or relief. Results demonstrated that
simple mechanical wear commonly entails a loss of
relief and variation, but carpet structure had a
significant effect on the observed trends. It was
believed that intensity and fractal dimension are
promising candidates for automated measurement of
carpet appearance. The observation also [19] revealed
that although the image analysis can quantify
appearance loss on carpets, this method cannot be
sufficient to quantify their tactile sensation.
In 2002, Hu, Xin and Yan [29] classified polar fleece
fabric appearance after abrasion by extended
morphological fractal analysis. In this technique, the
digital gray level image is treated as a three-
dimensional surface. Extended fractal analysis is
capable of characterizing fabric textures where the
roughness of these textures is not necessarily scale-
invariant. In other words, this method can be applied
to physically describe surface roughness and texture
regularity with the parameter mfv (multi scale fractal
vector) and to classify the appearance grade with the
Bayes classification method. Experimental results
showed that there was a good agreement between
estimated grades and subjective ones.
13 http://www.jeffjournal.org
 FIGURE 29. Surface and surface roughness profile of Hopsack 2/2 [27].
In 2006, Sul et al. [10] measured surface roughness
of nonwovens by three-dimensional profile data. The
surface friction properties changes of nonwoven
fabrics were studied under repetitious abrasions. Also
surface data to evaluate roughness were obtained by a
3D camera (fractal dimension). For precise surface
roughness measurement, high-pass filtering of the
surface data was applied to detect defects or pilling.
Figure 30 shows the three-dimensional surface
scanning system.
FIGURE 30. Three-dimentional surface scanning system [10].
Results indicated that the presented technique is
independent of specimen color and texture and it is
free from the back-light conditions. The measuring time
is very short (less than one second). As a result, this
technique can be used as an on line, real time
measuring system.
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
In 2007, Militky and Mazal [2] presented an image
analysis technique to evaluate surface roughness of
textiles. Researchers intended to devise a new system
for measuring the surface roughness in a non-contact
way. The RCM system was developed to measure
roughness which uses the special arrangements of
textile bend around sharp edges (Figure 31) and laser
lighting from the top. Figure 32 shows the RCM
system. The result after image processing is so-called
slice which is the roughness profile in the cross
direction at a chosen position in the machine.
Moreover, it is possible to move the sample holder
step by step and reconstruct the surface roughness
plane in two dimensions.
FIGURE 31. Details of RCM apparatus: (a) fabric arrangements;
(b) CCD camera position; (c) lighting system [2].
The obtained data from image processing consists of
heights H(di) in different distances (d) from the
reference line. Thus, the surface roughness can be
calculated based on the mean absolute deviation
(MAD) of these heights. It was claimed that the
14 http://www.jeffjournal.org
presented method, due to being simple could be an
appropriate substitute for all the traditional contact
stylus profiling methods.

FIGURE 33. SEM photographs of samples: (a) Woven fabric; (b)

Knitted fabric; (c) Terry towel [9].

The 5-mm wide contactor of the KES, which at the

same magnification is as wide as half the width of the
photographs, rides over the surface while the laser
beam of 25-micron diameter detects surface
irregularities. The same underestimation of roughness
FIGURE 32. RCM system components [2].
is presented in the result given by the rotary tester
when a 3-mm ball is used. Using a very fine
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS OBJECTIVE contactor for testing these types of fabrics did not
SURFACE ROUGHNESS EVALUATION help either. The contactor dug in and became trapped,
TECHNIQUES which stopped the relative motion of the fabric
Objective surface roughness measurement consists of against it. This happened during a trail to measure the
contact and non-contact methods. There are some roughness of the terry towel using a 1-mm ball with
advantages and disadvantages for each of these two the rotary tester.
methods which are described below.
(b) Contact methods are time consuming and using
(a) All contact methods are able to damage and press the measured data is troublesome. Furthermore, as a
surface fibers downward due to contact between consequence of being time consuming, they are not
sensor and fabric surface. Accordingly, obtained appropriate for on line, real time detection systems in
results from these methods depend on the type and the manufacturing process.
the size of contactor. Also, these methods might
evaluate surface roughness erroneously. This issue (c) Contact methods in comparison with non-contact
was demonstrated by Ramgulam, Amirbayat, and ones are more easily influenced by environmental
Porat in 1993 [9] by comparing three fabrics which conditions such as humidity.
had been tested by KES, Laser Sensor and
Multipurpose Fabric Tester (Rotary). Figure 33 and All these disadvantages resulted in using non-contact
Table I. show the SEM photographs of these fabrics measurement of surface roughness in recent times
and their mean roughness values, respectively. They [10]. However, due to lack of standardization, there
stated that the 6.40-micron roughness given by KES have been many discrepancies between the results
for the towel is not realistic, especially when given by all of these contact and non-contact
compared with the other two samples and their given techniques. The only tool accepted as a commercially
roughness. viable method is KES; and most of the researchers
show the capability of their presented devices by
TABLE I. Mean roughness values of three fabrics given by comparing their results with KES results. However,
different testers (in microns) [9]. some articles [9-10] show that KES results are
unrealistic and underestimated due to the contact
Fabric KES Laser Sensor
Rotary Rotary measurement mechanism and size of the stylus.
(3mm) (3mm) Therefore, the authors think that it is still necessary to
a 2.60 28.37 27.80 32.07
compare results given by various instruments to find
the most accurate surface roughness measurement
b 8.96 93.42 39.60 52.30 system and evaluate the suitability of that method by
c 6.40 183.04 16.39 - testing the set of textile surfaces. In addition, it seems
necessary to compare various surface roughness
parameters and find the most suitable parameters for
fabrics.

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 15 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
After all, the presented techniques listed in this article
have their own advantages and disadvantages which
are briefly listed in Table II.

TABLE II. Comparison of various objective surface roughness evaluation techniques.

Measurement
No Instrument Main Advantages and Disadvantages Sample Used Citing
Method
The Kawabata KES is accepted as a commercially viable tool.
Evaluation Surface roughness can be measured in warp and weft
Woven and [3, 11
1 System for Contact directions.
Nonwoven & 30]
Fabric (KES- In most practices the KES system is too complex and
FB4) expensive for use in factories.
Due to contact between the sensor and the fabric
surface, this device like other contact methods is able
to damage the surface fibers and press them
Multipurpose Woven and
2 Contact downward. Accordingly, the obtained results depend [12]
Fabric Tester Nonwoven
on type, size of the contactor, environmental
conditions and kind of samples.
The measured parameter is similar to KES-FB4.
Considering the measured parameter in this apparatus
Multi-
which is the sensor strain energy, the researchers
3 Directional Contact Woven [16]
claimed that this contact method is comparable with
Roughness Meter
hand evaluation system.
A device by The measured parameter is similar to KES-FB4.
4 Militky and Contact The agreement with KES results is weak. Woven [1]
Bazik The technique is simple and can be used practically.
A device by The measured parameter is similar to KES-FB4.
5 Contact Nonwoven [19]
Fontaine et al. The device can be used for all kind of surfaces.
The measured parameter is similar to KES-FB4.
A device by The presented device works more precisely than KES
Woven,
Ramgulam, Non-Contact / Laser and Multipurpose Fabric Tester.
6 Knitted and [9]
Amirbayat, and triangulation sensor Utilizing a clear glass during the measurement, the
Nonwoven
Porat device can simulate the hand evaluation system.
The technique is simple and can be used practically.
The measured parameter is similar to KES-FB4.
The agreement with KES results is very good.
A device by Park Non-Contact / Laser Results showed that the surface color and its hairiness
7 Woven [26]
et al. triangulation sensor can be a source of error.
Surface roughness can be measured in warp and weft
directions.
Optical The advantages are the circular movement of the
Non-Contact / Light
8 Multidirectional sample, the Fourier signal processing, and the linear Woven [22]
reflection
Roughness Meter probe.
The main drawback of the presented device is its
Modified Optical
Non-Contact / Light sensitivity to surface color. This technique can be used
9 Multidirectional Woven [23]
reflection for colorless or light-colored fabrics because of their
Roughness Meter
low light absorption capability.
Modified Optical The projected light can be absorbed, scattered or
Non-Contact / Light reflected and the presented device is capable of
10 Multidirectional Woven [24]
reflection measuring only the light reflection.
Roughness Meter
The agreement with subjective assessment is very
good.
A device by Non-Contact / Optical The technique is simple and the device can be used for
11 Woven [25]
Ishizawa et al. fiber bundle on-line measurements.
Surface roughness can be measured in warp and weft
directions.
The main advantages are the circular movement of the
sample, the Fourier signal processing, and the linear
probe.
Non-Contact / Using polarization of reflected light, the device is very
Polarimetric Woven and
12 Polarization of efficient in differentiating hairiness from surface [4]
Texturometer Nonwoven
reflected light roughness. Thus, hairiness could have an effect on the
reflected light energy. The results are more precise in
comparison with the Optical Multidirectional
Roughness Meter.

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 16 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
 The advantage of this technique is the ability to
A device by evaluate roughness parameters not only in warp and
Asghari weft directions but also in 3D way. Since the 3D
Mooneghi, Non-Contact / Laser parameters provide surface roughness with just one
13 Woven [27]
Hosseini triangulation sensor number in comparison with 2D ones (warp and weft),
Varkiyani, and they give a better gauge for roughness.
Saharkhiz The method can be used for all kind of fabrics similar
to its counterparts.
Although it cannot be sufficient to quantify tactile
Non-Contact / Image
Gray Scale sensation of carpet, the method is a promising
14 processing and fractal Carpet [28]
Image Analysis candidate for automated evolution of carpet
dimension
appearance.
Extended Non-Contact / Image
The agreement with subjective assessment is very
15 Morphological processing and fractal Knitted [29]
good.
Fractal Analysis dimension
The presented technique is independent of specimen
color and texture and it is free from the back-light
conditions.
Non-Contact / Image
3D Surface The measuring time is too short (less than one
16 processing and fractal Nonwoven [10]
Scanning System second). As a result, this technique can be used as an
dimension
on line, real time measuring system.
The agreement with KES results is not good which is
due to difference in the measurement mechanism.
Being simple, the device could be an appropriate
Non-Contact / Image
substitute for all the traditional contact stylus profiling
17 RCM System processing and fractal Woven [2]
methods.
dimension
The measured parameter is similar to KES-FB4.

CONCLUSION [4] Tourlonias, M., Bigue, L., and Bueno, M.A.,

Surface roughness is an important factor during Polarimetric Measurements of Fabric
touching and handling of fabrics. Here, the surface Surfaces, Optical Engineering, 2007, 46
roughness definition and different techniques for (8), pp 1-9.
evaluating this property of fabrics were reviewed. In [5] Biglari, F.R., and Dashtizadeh, M., Surface
general, there are subjective and objective techniques Metrology and Contact Roughness
to evaluate surface roughness. Since 1955, Measurment, Amirkabir University of
researchers have attempted to measure surface Technology (Tehran Polytechnic) Press,
characteristics of fabrics from a quantitative point of Tehran, 2005.
view. Previously, subjective assessments were used. [6] Seifert, R., Raue, P., Offermann, P., Bahners,
Distinctive techniques have been proposed in this T., Schollmeyer, E., Magel, M., Fuchs, H.,
context since then which have their own advantages Surface Characterisation of Textile Fabrics.
and disadvantages. The objective group also consists Part 1: Surface Characterisation
of contact and non-contact methods. Parameters, Melliand Textilber., 1993, 76 ,
pp 3033, E13E15.
REFERENCES [7] Stockbridge H.C. et. al. The Subjective
[1] Militky, J., and Bajzik, V., Characterization Assessment of the Roughness of Fabrics, J.
of Protective Clothing Surface Roughness, Text. Inst., 1957, 48, pp 26-34.
2nd International Congress on Technical [8] Bertaux, E., Lewandowski, M., and Derler, S.,
textiles, 2004. Relationship between Friction and Tactile
[2] Militky, J., and Mazal, M., Image Analysis Properties for Woven and Knitted Fabrics,
Method of Surface Roughness Evaluation, Textile Res. J., 2007, 77 (6), pp 387-396.
International Journal of Clothing Science [9] Ramgulam, R.B., Amirbayat, J., and Porat, I.,
and Technology, 2007, 19 (3-4), pp 186-193. Measurement of Fabric Roughness by a
[3] Kim, D., Shinjung, Y., and Kim, E., Non-Contact Method, J. Text. Inst., 1993,
Objective Measures for Perceived Touch of 84, pp 99106.
Worsted Fabrics, International Journal of [10] Sul, I., Hong, K., Shim, H., and Kang, T.,
Industrial Ergonomics, 2005, 35, pp 1159- Surface Roughness Measurement of
1169. Nonwovens Using Three-Dimensional
Profile Data, Textile Res. J., 2006, 76 (11),
pp 828-834.

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 17 http://www.jeffjournal.org

Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
[11] Vassiliadis, S., and Provatidis, C., Structural
Characterization of Textile Fabrics Using
Surface Roughness Data, International
Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology, 2004, 16 (5), pp 445-457.
[12] Hearle, J.W.S., and Amirbayat, J., The
Design of a Multipurpose Fabric Tester, J.
Text. Inst., 1988, 79 (4), pp 588598.
[13] Amirbayat, J., and Cooke, W.D., Change in
Surface Properties of Fabrics during Wear,
Textile Res. J., 1989, 59 (7), pp 469477.
[14] Lord, P.R., Radhakrishnaiah, P., and Grove, G.
Assessment of the Tactile Properties of
Woven Fabrics Made from Various Types of
Staple-Fibre Yarn, J. Text. Inst., 1988, 79
(1), pp 3252.
[15] Ajayi, J.O., Fabric Smoothness, Friction, and
Handle, Textile Res. J., 1992, 62, pp 5259.
[16] Bueno, M.A., Lamy, B., Renner, M., and
Viallier-Raynard, P., Tribological
Investigation of Textile Fabrics, Wear,
1996, 195 (1-2), pp 192-200.
[17] Bueno, M.A., Viallier, P., Durand, D., and
Renner, M., Instrumental Measurement and
Macroscopical Study of Sanding and
Raising, Textile Res. J., 1997, 67 (11), pp
779-787.
[18] Moussa, A., Dupont, D., Steen, D., Zeng, X.,
and Elias, M., Experimental Study of Back-
Scattering Spectrum of Textile Structures,
Color Research and Application, 2006, 31
(2), pp 122-132.
[19] Fontaine, S., Marsiquet, C., Renner, M.,
Bueno, M.A., and Nicolletti, N.,
Characterization of Roughness-Friction:
Example with Nonwovens, Textile Res. J.,
2005, 75 (12), pp 826-832.
[20] http://www.sensorland.com/HowPage056.html
[21] Seifert, R., Raue, P., Offermann, P., Bahners,
T., Schollmeyer, E., Magel, M., and Fuchs,
H., Surface Characterisation of Textile
Fabrics. Part 3: Profilometric Surface
Measuring Systems, Melliand Textilber.,
1995, 76, pp 636639, E164E166.
[22] Bueno, M.A., Durand, B., and Renner, M.,
Noncontact Measurements of Sanding and
Raising Effects, Textile. Res. J., 1999,
69(8), pp 570575.
[23] Bueno, M.A., Durand, B., and Renner, M.
Non-Contact Measurement of the
Roughness of Textile Fabrics,
Experimental Techniques, 2000, 24 (2), pp
23-27.
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 9, Issue 2 2014
[24] Bueno, M.A., Durand, D., and Renner, M.,
Optical Characterization of the State of the
Fabric Surfaces, Opt. Engng., 2000, 39 (6),
pp 1697-1703.
[25] Ishizawa, H., Nishimatsu, T., Kamijyo, M.,
and Toba, E., Measurement of Surface
Properties of Woven Fabrics Using an
Optical Bundle, J. Textile Engineering,
2002, 48(1), pp 510.
[26] Park, K.H., Kwon, Y.H., Oh, K.W., and Kim,
E.A., "The Surface Roughness Measurement
for Textiles Fabrics by a Non-Contact
Method for Tactile Perception", 2003, 6th
ADC.
[27] Asghari Mooneghi, S., Hosseini Varkiyani,
S.M., and Saharkhiz, S., Further Study on
Roughness of Worsted Fabrics, AUTEX
2011, Mulhouse.
[28] Poudeyimi, B., and Sobus, J., Evaluating
Carpet Appearance Loss: Surface Intensity
and Roughness, Textile Res. J., 1993, 63 (9),
pp 523-535.
[29] Hu, J., Xin, B., and Yan, H., Classifying
Fleece Fabric Appearance by Extended
Morphological Fractal Analysis, Textile
Res. J., 2002, 72 (10), pp 879-884.
[30] Bernard, A.B, Barker, R., and Hinks, D.,
Factors Affecting Human Comfort
Response to Garments, M. Sc. Thesis,
Textile Engineering Department, North
Carolina State University, 2009.
AUTHORS ADDRESSES
Sara Asghari Mooneghi
Siamak Saharkhiz, PhD
S. Mohammad Hosseini Varkiani, PhD
Amirkabir University of Technology
424 Hafez Ave
Tehran, Tehran 15875-4413
Iran
18 http://www.jeffjournal.org