Kwon et al.

Fash Text (2021) 8:30

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-020-00244-3

RESEARCH Open Access

Performance evaluation of water‑repellent

combat uniforms using a static manikin
and human subjects under a rainfall tower
system
Juyoun Kwon1, Kijoon Kim2, Jeongkyun Ju3 and Joo‑Young Lee4*

*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract
4
Professor, Department The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the water-repellent properties of
of Textiles, Merchandising
and Fashion Design, Seoul newly-developed combat uniforms using a rainfall tower system. Two types of water-
National University, 1 repellent- combat uniforms with an identical level of water repellency through textile
Gwanak‑ro, Gwanak‑gu, tests (WR_M and WR_T) were compared with an untreated-combat uniform (Control).
Seoul 151‑742, Korea
Full list of author information A static manikin was used to evaluate water-repellent properties in a standing posi‑
is available at the end of the tion and eight male subjects participated to test walking effects under artificial rainfall.
article The results showed that it took to saturate the upper body was longer for WR_T than
WR_M and Control in the standing position for both normal and heavy rain conditions
(P < 0.05). The lower body in WR_T was rarely wet in the standing position after 60 min,
whereas the lower body was partially wet while walking within 30 min. Changes in
clothing weight after the rainfall test were 729 ± 21, 256 ± 36 and 137 ± 25 g per trial
for Control, WR_M, and WR_T, respectively (P < 0.001). Subjects expressed better tactile,
less colder, less heavier, and less humid sensations and less uncomfortable feeling for
WR_T than Control or WR_M (P < 0.05), while WR_M was better only for tactile sensa‑
tion and heaviness than Control (P < 0.05). Ten-time-washes had not impaired the
water-repellent properties of WR_M or WR_T. These results indicated that the rainfall
tower test is valid to verify water-repellent property of clothing ensemble and suggest
a possibility of classifying the water repellency of clothing ensemble into sub-levels of
an excellent and a fair class. Further studies on wider range of experimental conditions
to validate the current results are required.
Keywords: Water repellency, Combat uniforms, Thermal comfort, Rainfall tower, BS EN
14360, Technical wear design, Clothing ergonomics

Introduction
While basic physical properties, such as tensile strength, abrasion resistance, flexibil-
ity, thickness, stiffness, launderability, camouflaging, colour fastness, or air perme-
ability, are tested as requirements of ordinary combat uniforms, water repellency is
not yet required for Korean combat uniforms (KDS 8305-3012, 2018). Instead, a mili-
tary raincoat is provided in case of rains. Water repellency for combat uniforms has

© The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​
mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 2 of 16

been studied by the NSRDEC (The Natick Labs) in the US. In general, water-repellent
fabrics have been used for sportswear, personal protective equipment, firefighters’
clothing, outdoor work wear, car covers, and medical bedding. Lowering the surface
tension of base textiles by means of a fluorine-rich or fluorinated coating is one way
to repel water. At present, the use of shorter C-6 fluorinated coating is considered
as environmentally safe and the US Army has evaluated commercially available C-6
fabrics (such as, “EverShield”) in order to examine appropriate application to their
military uniforms (Gibson 2005).
Water-repellent military uniforms which protect soldiers from getting wet are bene-
ficial. Such uniforms can be beneficial for soldiers although the water-repellent fabrics
have different properties from waterproof fabrics which exclude water under pressure
such as heavy/driving rain or cross bodies of water. Water-repellent coatings could mini-
mize soldier’s contact with cold water and thus minimize the saturation of their cloth-
ing in general. The hypothermia of soldiers subject to cold and rain could be minimized
through water repellent combat uniforms. Furthermore, water-repellent combat uni-
form may be somewhat helpful in protecting soldiers from chemical and biological (CB)
contaminations. CB protective clothing relies on a fluorocarbon finished outer-shell fab-
ric to minimize surface wetting by water and liquid chemicals. Such an outer-shell fabric
offers as much as a 90% reduction in permeation of toxic chemicals through clothing
(Truong & Pomerantz 2018). Also, omniphobic coated textiles pick up dirt about eight
times less than untreated fabric (Truong & Pomerantz 2018).
There are a number of test factors to evaluate the water-repellant performance of tex-
tiles: contact angle, time of wetting, time to dry, the droplet weathering, liquid adsorp-
tion, drop roll off, or vertical wicking resistance. However, these test factors are typically
conducted on plain fabrics and do not take into account factor such as clothing design,
closures, openings, layering, or seams. These latter test factors are especially relevant for
during walking or running, and for thermal comfort (such as, thermal resistance, evapo-
rative resistance, and air permeability) the factors could be tested. To address this issue a
rainfall tower system with the ability to evaluate protective function of clothing ensem-
ble from rainfall is vital. BS EN 14360 (2004) specifies a test method for determining
the rain-protective function of clothing using a static manikin under a rainfall tower. An
adult-sized manikin wearing test clothing is exposed to artificial rain for a specific period
in the rainfall tower. There is very little research using a manikin and the test method of
BS EN 14360 (2004). The rainfall tower system is a building comprising a circular tub at
least 5 m above the floor, which supplies water from an inflow pipe and allowed control-
ling the density of rainfall.
In this context, we evaluated the water-repellent performance of newly-developed
combat uniforms using both a static manikin and human subjects in the rainfall tower
system. The hypotheses were as follows: (1) wetting time would take longer for the
water-repellent combat uniforms than for the current combat uniform in both static and
walking conditions, (2) the upper body inside combat shirts would become wet quicker
than the lower body regions inside combat pants in both static and walking conditions,
(3) water repellency of hydrophobic coating would not reduce through washes, and (4)
clothing microclimate humidity would continue to increase even during recovery after
the rain-stopped in human wear trials.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 3 of 16

Methods
Physical characteristics of experimental combat uniforms
Two kinds of water-repellent (WR) combat uniforms, which were newly-developed for
the present study, were compared to the current Korean combat uniform. Original tex-
tiles of the combat uniform (Polyester 70% and Rayon 30%) were coated using C-6 fluori-
nated water repellents (Company M) and perfluorinated compounds free (PFC-free)
water repellents (Company T) but with the different techniques of two different com-
panies. Detailed technologies were not disclosed to the public because the technologies
were company confidential. The physical characteristics of the three combat uniforms
of the present study are presented in Table 1. All combat uniforms consisted of a long-
sleeved shirt and a long-legged pants. The total weights of the clothing ensembles (shirt
and pants) were 959 g, 957 g and 989 g for the Control, WR_M, and WR_T combat uni-
form, respectively. The static manikin test and human wear trials evaluated the three
types of combat uniforms.

Test using artificial rainfall and a static manikin

A rainfall tower system was installed with an artificial rainfall system that caused rain to
fall from a height of 10 m above the ground (Fig. 1). The rain was set to fall from an area
of 2 × 1 m (width × longitudinal) and with 1000 water droplets per 1 ­m2 following BS EN
14360 (2004). The three types of combat uniforms in Table 1 were evaluated under the
normal rain condition (150 ± 50 mm·h−1) and heavy rain condition (300 ± 50 mm·h−1).
Combat uniforms which had undergone 10 washes were compared with each condition
(3 types of combat uniforms × with/without washes × normal/heavy rain = 3 × 2 × 2 = a
total of 12 experimental conditions). In general, a washing fastness test is conducted
after 10 and 20 washes (Choi et al. 2008), and the test in the present study was conducted

Table 1 Physical characteristics of the current and two water-repellent combat textiles
Property of textiles Test method Untreated Water- Water-
textiles repellent repellent
(Control) (WR_M) (WR_T)

Water-repellent coating material – Untreated C-6 PFC-free

Fabric weight (g·cm−2) 0.018 0.017 0.019
Fabric thickness (mm) 0.346 0.398 0.360
Tensile strength _ warp/weft (N) KS K 0520 > 540/> 450 920/590 660/510
Tearing strength _ warp/weft (N) > 30/> 30 49/34 110/110
Stretch and recovery rate (%) KS K 0352 > 65 87.5 86.1
Air permeability (cfm) KS K 0570 30.2 27.7 31.2
Water repellency before washing (level) KS K 0590 0 5 5
Water repellency after 30-time washing (level) KS K ISO 4920 0 3 4
Resistance to water penetration of seam ­(cmH2O) KS K ISO 811 Wetted 13.7 14.4
Water vapor permeability-calcium test KS K 0594 9432 7576 7985
(g·m−2·24 ­h−1)
Water vapor permeability (g·m−2·24 ­h−1) KS K 0594 Wetted 30,973 27,388
Water vapor resistance ­(m2·Pa·W−1) ISO 11092 2.40 3.59 3.07
Moisture absorption/quick drying rate (OMMC, AATCC 195 3 1 1
level)
Three to five measurements were averaged
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 4 of 16

Fig. 1 Rainfall tower system (left), rain nozzles of the top (middle) and the static manikin with combat
uniform (right)

Fig. 2 Eleven body regions where humidity sensors were attached

after 10 washes based on the number of summer combat uniforms provided for each
soldier and training schedules in routine. The static manikin was a replica of an adult
male (a height of 182 cm, consisting of the head, torso, buttocks, arms, hands, legs, feet,
etc.). Cylindrical humidity sensors (HM 1599LF, TE connectivity company, Switzerland)
were attached to the 11 body regions of the manikin surface to determine when rain-
water penetrated the combat uniform (Fig. 2). This study evaluated the performance of
water-repellent uniforms based on static manikin as well as human wear trials, and the
identical measurement sites in the manikin and human wear trials were selected from
the measurement locations presented in the BS EN 14360 (2004). The combat shirts and
pants were positioned on the manikin without underwear, and plastic bags were used
to cover the head and neck in order to avoid water entering through the neck opening.
The size of all the test garments was identical. After 60 min of exposure to rainfall, we
allowed the test garments to drain for 2 min, following BS EN 14360 (2004), and then
removed the test garments carefully. The air temperature and humidity inside the rain-
fall tower was maintained at 25 °C and 65%RH. All data from the humidity sensors were
continuously recorded every 1 s for 60 min.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 5 of 16

Human wear trials in the rainfall tower system

Eight healthy male subjects (28.4 ± 5.42 y in age, 174 ± 5 cm in height, and
71.4 ± 8.6 kg in body weight) participated in the three experimental conditions of
the three combat uniforms. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The
experiment was approved by the institutional review board of Seoul National Uni-
versity (IRB # 2008/002-004). Three identical combat uniforms were selected for the
static manikin test. Human subjects wore briefs, combat boots, a combat uniform
shirt and trousers. The order of participation was counter-balanced to avoid any
possible order effect.
The ambient air temperature and humidity inside the rainfall tower were main-
tained at 22.0 ± 0.5 °C and 86 ± 7%RH for the rainfall condition and at 22.9 ± 0.6 °C
and 79 ± 4%RH for the rest condition (no rain period). The experimental protocol
consisted of 10-min rest in a sitting position outside the rainfall tower followed by
30-min of walking at a speed of 4–5 km·h−1 on a stepper (IN MOTION-easybike, All
trade international Ltd, China) with 70 beats per minute of a metronome, followed
by a 20-min recovery in the same sitting position at the same location as the rest ses-
sion (60-min protocol in a trial). Prior to donning the experimental clothing, cloth-
ing microclimate temperature and humidity sensors (TR-72U, T&D Corp., Japan)
were attached to the four body parts (the chest, upper back, forearm and thigh) and
clothing microclimate temperature and humidity were continuously recorded every
5 s. Clothing microclimate is defined as the temperature and humidity of air layer
between clothing and body surface, which differs from the skin (surface) tempera-
ture or humidity.
Subjects evaluated themselves via questionnaire during the 20-min recovery session,
just after 30-min of walking in order to evaluate the water-repellent properties under a
rainfall condition. Subjects evaluated themselves in terms of tactile skin sensation, soft-
ness, wetting time, heaviness of wet clothes, humidity sensation, thermal sensation and
thermal comfort on a seven-point categorical scale. In addition, an additional question
on the wet areas and general performance of combat uniforms was provided. The total
masses of the dry and wet clothing were measured just before starting and just after fin-
ishing each trial using a scale (Resolution 5 g, FM-917, CAS, Korea). The time process of
measuring wetted clothing mass was accurately followed by the experimental protocol.

Data analysis and statistics

For both the static manikin test and the human wear trials, the wetting time was deter-
mined by the moment that microclimate humidity reached 90%RH, followed the recom-
mendation of Cha et al. (2015). For the human wear trials, the values of the rest, walking,
and recovery sessions were the averages of the 0–10, 10–40, and 40–60th minute peri-
ods, respectively, and those values were used as representative values for each phase.
Repeated measures ANOVA and Wilcoxon tests were performed to evaluate any differ-
ences between the three conditions. Perceptual data from the subjective evaluation were
analyzed with non-parametric statistical tests. The relationship between the clothing
microclimate temperature and perceptual data was analyzed with the Spearman correla-
tion. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 6 of 16

Results
Static manikin test
Wetting time
There was a significant difference in the wetting time for the upper body among the
three uniform conditions and WR_T showed longer time of wetting than that in Con-
trol condition. (P < 0.001, Table 2). WR_M was positioned between WR_T and Control.
No statistical differences were found between no-wash and 10-time wash conditions.
Regarding the normal and heavy rain conditions, on average, combat uniforms were
wet earlier for the heavy rain than for the normal rain condition, but this difference was
not statistically relevant (Table 2). No statistical difference between left and right body
regions were found (P = 0.102). In the case of Control, all regions of the upper body were
wet within 10 min, while WR_M and WR_T conditions showed around 10–15 min and
15–30 min for wetting, respectively. For the lower body parts, many cases of no wetting
were found for WR_M and WR_T. In particular, no lower body regions were wet for
WR_T during the normal rain (Table 2). Among the chest, upper back and forearm, it
was difficult to discern what body region was became wet the fastest because of different
tendencies of the normal/heavy, no wash/washes and 3 uniform conditions. Differences
in wetting time between the right and left body regions were found (Table 2).

Clothing microclimate humidity

Among the 11 body regions, three were taken as representative for humidity over the
60 min time course (Fig. 3). The current combat uniform (Control) was wet in 10 min,
whereas water-repellent combat uniforms, especially WR_T, were wet later or not wet
even after 60 min. For the heavy rain condition, lower body parts even covered by water-
repellent uniforms were wet in 60 min (Fig. 3). Similar time courses in the clothing
microclimate humidity for the 10-time wash conditions were observed.

Human wear trial

Wetting time
The wetting time was quicker for the Control than for WR_T but no significant differ-
ence was found among the three uniforms (Fig. 4). For Control and WR_M, time of wet-
ting did not differ for the four regions but upper back and forearm were different for
WR_T (P < 0.05). All three combat uniforms tended to be wet in the upper back region
the quickest, while the forearm part tended to be wet the latest (Fig. 4).

Absorbed water mass after rainfall test

Changes in clothing weight between before and after the rainfall test were 729 ± 21,
256 ± 36 and 137 ± 25 g per trial for Control, WR_M, and WR_T, respectively (P < 0.001)
(Fig. 5).

Clothing microclimate humidity and temperature

The difference in the microclimate humidity of the three combat uniforms at each period
was not significant (Fig. 6), but significant differences according to body regions were
 Kwon et al. Fash Text
(2021) 8:30

Table 2 Wetting time on the 11 body regions of the static manikin at 150 and 300 mm·h−1
Unit: min No washes 10-time washes Pr Pw Pu

Normal rain Heavy rain Normal rain Heavy rain

a b c
Control WR_M WR_T Control WR_M WR_T Control WR_M WR_T Control WR_M WR_T

Chest (R)* 2 9 12 5 9 4 4 9 35 3 7 5 0.229 0.498 0.067

Chest (L) 9 31 40 11 20 13 6 29 22 8 11 8 0.082 0.317
Upper back (R) 6 8 31 3 3 4 9 22 32 6 25 14 0.174 0.174 0.015
Upper back (L) 9 8 13 8 9 17 6 11 36 8 10 11 0.499 0.544
Forearm R) 2 3 7 1 2 30 4 3 25 5 2 40 0.463 0.489 <0.001
Forearm (L) 6 7 32 15 19 26 5 7 28 5 4 5 0.776 0.166
Mean (SD): upper body 5.7 (3.1) 11.0 (10.0) 22.5 (13.5) 7.2 (5.2) 10.3 (7.7) 15.7 (10.9) 5.7 (1.9) 13.5 (9.9) 29.7 (5.6) 5.8 (1.9) 9.8 (8.2) 13.8 (13.3) 0.338 0.828 <0.001
Abdomen 4 57 N.S. 5 31 N.S. 6 3 N.S. 12 28 N.S.
Thigh (R) 5 N.S. N.S. 13 31 42 14 16 N.S. 8 N.S. N.S.
Thigh (L) 6 N.S. N.S. 10 N.S. N.S. 42 N.S. N.S. 7 21 10
Buttock (R) 30 N.S. N.S. 5 N.S. N.S. 25 N.S. N.S. 26 11 N.S.
Buttock (L) N.S. N.S. N.S. 21 33 N.S. 38 N.S. N.S. 50 N.S. N.S.
a,b
and c represent Control, water-repellent M, and water-repellent T, respectively
r,w
and u mean significant differences according to 2 rains, 2 washes and 3 uniforms, respectively
*(R) and (L) represent (right) and (left)
N.S. means cases which did not reach 90%RH of humidity until the end of the 60-min rainfall exposure
Page 7 of 16
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 8 of 16

Fig. 3 Time courses of microclimate humidity when wearing combat uniforms with no washes

Fig. 4 Time of wetting on four body regions while walking at 150 mm ­h−1 rainfall

found. WR_T showed a significant difference between the four body regions (P < 0.05),
and the difference was more notable during walking period. For Control, a body regional
difference was found only in the difference between the forearm and upper back.
Clothing microclimate temperature was significantly different for the three uniforms
during walking and recovery in the thigh region only (Fig. 7, P < 0.05). The microclimate
temperature in the thigh region was the highest for WR_T and the lowest for Control
(Fig. 7; 27.9 ± 1.1, 28.6 ± 0.9 and 30.2 ± 1.3 °C for Control, WR_M, and WR_T, respec-
tively). However, the upper back showed 26.4 ± 1.3, 26.0 ± 2.3, and 26.3 ± 2.7 °C during
walking without any differences between the three combat uniforms. When comparing
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 9 of 16

Fig. 5 Changes in clothing weight after the rainfall test. A 60-min trial consisted of 10-min rest followed by
30-min rainfall and 20 min recovery

Fig. 6 Time courses of clothing microclimate humidity on the four body regions during rest, walking under
150 mm rainfall and recovery

the four body regions, the upper back microclimate temperature was lower than
the chest microclimate temperature (P < 0.05) and a significant difference was found
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 10 of 16

Fig. 7 Time courses of clothing microclimate temperature on the four body regions during rest, walking
under 150 mm rainfall and recovery.

between the three combat uniform conditions. It is worth mentioning that microclimate
temperature was ~ 6 °C lower by on average while walking than at rest.
A round rectangle shows that WR_T is significantly different from Control and WR_M
(P < 0.05); Arrows indicate significant correlations between subjective evaluation and
drop in clothing microclimate temperature; Different thicknesses of the arrows indicate
the same as in the legend; a, b, and c indicate the significant correlation between temper-
ature drop and thermal sensation, humidity sensation, or thermal comfort, respectively.
We found that there were significant relationships between subjective evaluation (such
as thermal sensation, humidity sensation or thermal comfort) and drop in microcli-
mate temperature (Fig. 7). In the case of chest, thermal sensation of WR_M (ρ = 0.826,
P < 0.05) and thermal comfort of Control (ρ = 0.726, P < 0.05) and WR_T (ρ = 0.774–
0.898, P < 0.05) were correlated with the clothing microclimate temperature. In the
case of the upper back, thermal sensation of Control (ρ = − 0.769 to − 0.913, P < 0.05),
thermal sensation (ρ = − 0.840, P < 0.01) and humidity sensation (ρ = 0.840, P < 0.01) of
WR_M showed correlations with the drop in the clothing microclimate temperature. In
the case of forearm (ρ = 0.756, P < 0.05) and thigh (ρ = − 0.840 to − 0.924 for thermal
sensation of Control, ρ = − 0.746 to − 0.869 for thermal sensation of WR_T, ρ = 0.825
for humid sensation of WR_M, ρ = − 0.750 to − 0.805 for humid sensation of WR_T,
ρ = − 0.794 to − 0.895 for thermal comfort of WR_T, P < 0.05), similar relationships as
those in the chest or upper back were found.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 11 of 16

Subjective evaluation
There were significant differences between the seven subjective evaluations for the
three combat uniforms. Subjects experienced better tactile sensation, softer sensa-
tion, less feeling of wetness, less cold sensation, less heavier sensation, less humid sen-
sation, less uncomfortable feeling for WR_T than Control or WR_M (P < 0.05), while
WR_M was better only for tactile sensation and heaviness than Control (P < 0.05,
Table 3). Of the upper body, the chest was the wettest for all the three combat uni-
forms conditions.

Discussion
This research is original in terms of evaluating the performance of the water-repellent-
finished combat uniforms using both a static manikin and dynamic human subjects
under a rainfall tower system. Various variables, such as wetting time, clothing mass
change, clothing microclimate and subjective evaluation, have been used to verify the
level of water-repellency of a clothing ensemble from various perspectives. Although the
level of water repellency of the new fabric itself (both WR_M and WR_T) was evalu-
ated as the identical level 5, through the various variables of the rainfall test, these

Table 3 Subjective evaluation of the three combat uniforms just after walking in rain
Control WR_M WR_T P value
a b c
Tactile sensation (1 very poor, 2 poor, 3 2.3 (1.2) 4.4 (0.9) 5.5 (0.9) <0.001
slightly poor, 4 neutral, 5 slightly good, 6
good, 7 very good)
Softness (1 very poor, 2 poor, 3 slightly 3.0 (1.1)a 3.8 (1.4)a 5.6 (0.9)b <0.05
poor, 4 neutral, 5 slightly good, 6 good,
7 very good)
Time of wetting (1 very quick, 2 quick, 3 2.3 (1.8)a 3.3 (1.2)a 6.0 (0.5)b <0.05
slightly quick, 4 neutral, 5 slightly slow, 6
slow, 7 very slow)
Thermal sensation (1 hot, 2 warm, 3 6.4 (0.7)a 5.8 (1.0)a 4.1 (0.8)b <0.05
slightly warm, 4 neutral, 5 slightly cool, 6
cool, 7 cold)
Heaviness (1 very heavy, 2heavy, 3 slightly 2.1 (1.1)a 3.8 (0.9)b 5.3 (0.9)c <0.05
heavy, 4 neutral, 5 slightly light, 6 light, 7
very light)
Humid sensation (1 very humid, 2 humid, 1.9 (1.0)a 2.8 (1.0)a,b 4.0 (1.2)b <0.05
3 slightly humid, 4 neutral, 5 slightly dry,
6 dry, 7 very dry)
Thermal comfort (1 very uncomfortable, 2.1 (1.4)a 3.0 (0.8)a 5.1 (1.1)b <0.05
2 uncomfortable, 3 a little uncomfort‑
able, 4 neutral, 5 a little comfortable, 6
comfortable, 7 very comfortable)
The most wetted part _ shirts (number of Back (6) and Shoulder (6) Chest (7)
response, frequency) Chest (6)
The most wetted part _ trousers (number Thigh (8) Thigh (8) Thigh (8)
of response, frequency)
Other opinions Uniforms were Water came Water came into the
heavy, wet, into the uniforms, but the
cold, and uniforms and uniforms didn’t
unpleasant flowed from get wet and light
the body
a, b
and c mean significant differences among the three groups by Tukey’s post hoc test
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 12 of 16

water-repellent uniforms were classified into sub-levels of water repellency (e.g., excel-
lent or fair class). Of course, such classification should be carefully announced with fur-
ther experiments and one can take the current discussion as a proposal stage for new
criterion. The experimental factors that we tested are as follows: (1) level of rainfall (150
and 300 mm·h−1), (2) no wash versus 10-time washed, and (3) standing versus walking
position. The three factors are more discussed along with the various variables.

Experimental factor 1: Normal or heavy rain

BS EN 14360 (2004) specified the level of rainfall as 450 mm·h−1, and Cha et al. (2015)
tested garments under the rainfall of 450 mm·h−1 as well as 100 mm·h−1. However, we
lowered the value of 450 mm·h−1 to 300 mm·h−1 (heavy rain) along with 150 mm·h−1
(normal rain) because the 450 mm·h−1 is very rare in Korea. The two levels of rainfall
were applied to the static manikin test. For the human wear trial, we chose to apply only
the 150 mm·h−1 (normal rain) to avoid any possible health risks. Overall, the time of
wetting was shorter for the heavy rain condition than for the normal rain condition, but
the difference between the normal and heavy rain conditions was not significant and
exceptional cases are found. Also, WR_M and WR_T were classified into two levels in
terms of the wetting time during the normal rain condition. These results indicate that
the normal rain condition is sufficient to test water-repellent combat uniforms.

Experimental factor 2: No wash versus 10‑time washed

According to our textile tests, WR_M and WR_T were both evaluated as having level
5 of water repellency, but these combat textiles after 30-washes have been evaluated as
level 3 (WR_M) and level 4 (WR_T)(Table 1). The level means that the higher the num-
bers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the better the performance of water repellency. We compared the
uniform ensembles which were new and had been washed 10 times. Ten-washes was
determined to be equivalent to 3 months of military use, based on facts that two pairs
of summer combat uniforms are provided to each soldier and they do the laundry their
combat uniforms once in 3–5 days (interviewed but unpublished). Even though the
30-time washed textiles showed a difference between WR_M and WR_T, the 10-time
washed uniform ensembles did not show any significant differences in the time of wet-
ting between WR_T and WR_M, and neither had diminished water repellent proper-
ties. Truong et al. (2013) reported that after 20 washes, the wetting contact angle of
water repellent textiles, was over ­150o which is superhydrophobic. Therefore, we rec-
ommend testing water-repellent combat uniforms which have not yet been washed for
rainfall tests in the rainfall tower system. And if the effect of aging on combat uniforms
is to be tested, over 30-time washed uniforms should be compared with new, unwashed
uniforms.

Experimental factor 3: Standing and walking position

There was a significant difference between the standing and walking positions in terms
of wetted body regions and the wetting time. For the standing position, no area of the
lower body became wet for WR_T even after 60-min rainfall, whereas the thighs for
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 13 of 16

WR_T was wet in 30 min during walking even though the WR_T became wet slower
than those in the other two uniform conditions. These results indicate that both static
and dynamic positions should be tested to estimate the wetting time and wetted body
regions. Havenith and Heus (2004) suggested that water protective clothing should be
tested while doing various tasks such as climbing over objects, crawling under objects,
moving crates, as well as walking, so as to further test the design of the clothing (no
gaps when bending over), the materials, its seams, etc., Such clothing should be tested
under normal conditions and under conditions of pressure and stretch. Further studies
on combat mobility protocols are required.

Variable 1: Wetting time

Wetting time may be a valid variable to evaluate the level of water repellency of cloth-
ing ensembles because we found significant differences among the three uniform condi-
tions. For the standing upper body, under the 150 mm·h−1of rainfall condition, wetting
in under 10 min can be regarded as a fail case, while over 20 min is an excellent level and
between 10 and 20 min is a fair level. As stated, these criteria are potential, not defini-
tive. With these potential criteria, WR_T can be classified as having excellent water
repellency (level 1 or class (1) while WR_M had a fair level (level 2 or class 2) of water
repellency. During walking or other activities, the standard time limits for fail, fair and
excellent levels should be reconsidered in light of further studies that measure more
body regions.

Variable 2: Body region of wetting

Because we measured a total of 11 body regions in the static manikin test and only four
body regions for the human wear trials, we are not able to conclude what body region
was became wet the fastest under rainfall. In the present protocol, however, it is pos-
sible to conclude whether the upper or lower body region became wetter quicker. For
both static and dynamic positions, the upper body was wet quicker than the lower body.
In addition, there was no cases of the lower body in WR_T when standing becoming
wet from the normal rain condition. From our results, no area of the lower body can
be classified as being excellent for 60-min rainfall. For further studies, our suggestions
are as follows: (1) an upper body and a lower body values should be averaged from the
right and left body regions, (2) an upper body and a lower body wetted value should be
averaged from values that include major seam lined regions and openings, as well as the
chest, abdomen, upper back, lower back, upper arm, and forearm (or buttocks, thighs,
and calves) (Cha et al. (2015) reported that rain leakage around the major seams were
found), and (3) in the present study, we did not use a water-absorptive underwear to
map wetted regions for either the manikin or human subject trials, but water-absorptive
underwear can be used under water-repellent combat uniforms to examine the wet-
ted regions of the entire body surface. Furthermore, the Military of National Defense
can develop a combat jacket with stronger water-repellency and combat pants with less
water repellency based on the present finding.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 14 of 16

Variable 3: Clothing mass changes after rainfall test

As expected, WR_M and WR_T showed increases in clothing weight after rainfall tests.
Through textile tests, moisture absorption and quick drying rates of WR_M and WR_T
were all evaluated as class 1 (not wetted), while Control textile was evaluated as class 3
(Table 1). In the human wear trials, however, total weight of clothing ensemble increased
729 g, 256 g and 137 g for Control, WR_M, and WR_T, respectively. These results indi-
cate that water-repellency can be classified into sub-levels using changes in clothing
mass, even though the textile test could not distinguish the level of water-repellency
because WR_M and WR_T textiles did not get wet. Galbraith et al. (1962) compared
the changes in weight of cotton suits with those of water-repellent cotton suits in a hot
and humid environment without rain, and found that the water-repellent cotton suit had
a lower weight gain than the untreated cotton suit. They interpreted that this as being
due to more liquid moisture left on the skin when wearing water-repellent cotton suit,
which could be a source of discomfort. Therefore, further studies are needed to evaluate
the thermo-physiological influences of WR_T in hot and humid environments with no
rainfall.

Variable 4: Clothing microclimate humidity and temperature

In general, clothing microclimate humidity during human physical activity is related to
thermal comfort, and higher humidity can be regarded as being thermally uncomfort-
able. However, in the rainfall tower test, clothing microclimate humidity can be used
as a variable to evaluate rain repellency. Based on Cha et al. (2015) and our discussion,
90%RH within the clothing microclimate was determined as the point at which a uni-
form becomes wet inside. In this regard, continuously monitoring microclimate humid-
ity is very critical to determine the time of wetting and wetted body regions.
An unexpected finding of the present study was that clothing microclimate tempera-
ture went down over time while walking under rainfall. In general, when walking, cloth-
ing microclimate temperature may be initially lowered due to forced convection, but
over time it goes up because of body heat from the muscle. Usually, we evaluate that
wearers are thermally comfortable when the clothing microclimate temperature around
the chest or the upper back is maintained at 31–34 °C (Kim 2005; Kwon & Choi 2013).
As described in Fig. 7, however, microclimate temperatures dropped below 30 °C which
is interpreted as being wet inside the clothing and was maintained close to the comfort-
able range for WR_T. That is, originally, we predicted that wearing water-repellent com-
bat uniforms might cause a thermally uncomfortable microclimate inside the clothing
because of the water-repellent finish. Gibson (2008) reported that the addition of a non-
wicking finish to clothing fabric impaired thermal comfort in hot and humid environ-
ments. In the present study, however, the clothing microclimate of WR_T while walking
for 30-min in rain was closer a thermally comfortable temperature and humidity than
wearing an untreated combat uniform. Therefore, clothing microclimate can be a vari-
able to evaluate both water repellency of uniforms and thermal comfort of wearer while
walking in rain.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 15 of 16

Variable 5: Subjective evaluation

Each human wear trial was conducted as a single blind trial, which means that subjects
did not notice which uniform condition they were wearing. Even though this was a blind
study, subjective evaluations of WR_T were significantly different for from the other two
uniform conditions, and WR_M was also distinguished from the Control in a couple of
questions. Subjects felt that WR_T had better tactile sensation, was softer, became wet
less quickly, was less cold, less heavy, less humid, and less uncomfortable than Control or
WR_M. In addition, WR_M was evaluated better in terms of tactile and heaviness sen-
sation than Control. These results indicate that subjective evaluations can be applied to
classify the water-repellency of clothing ensemble into two levels. As described in Fig. 7,
thermal sensation, humidity sensation, and thermal comfort were significantly related to
clothing microclimate temperature, which suggests that subjective perceptions could be
an alternative measure of clothing microclimate.

Limitation and suggestions

We suggested various parameters to evaluate the performance of water-repellent fin-
ished clothing under rain fall conditions. A limitation of the present study is that wet-
ted area using water-absorptive underwear, which was already reported in BS EN 14360
(2004) and Cha et al. (2015), was not evaluated. The wetted area is a qualitative variable
to identify the whole distribution of saturation as the first step of inspection, while wet-
ting time, microclimate, or change in clothing mass can be applied to classify the level
of water-repellency in more quantitative manner. As addressed, however, the classifica-
tion of three levels (e.g., fail, fair, and excellent) that was proposed in the present study
should not be considered as a definite criterion. The present study proposed such classi-
fication based on the limited results and the further experiments are required to validate
the criteria. Lastly, in order to more elaborate the experimental protocol, we suggest to
attach microclimate sensors under major seams and opening sites as well as the 11 body
regions.

Conclusions
Even though the levels of water repellency of both finished textiles were evaluated as
level 5, the water-repellency of the clothing ensemble made of these textiles can be clas-
sified into sub-levels with a rainfall test under a rainfall tower system. In order to verify
the validity of our results, we suggest testing a clothing ensemble which has not been
washed using both a static manikin and human subjects under 150 mm·h−1 of rainfall.
At the above setting, taking over 20-min for wetting and no wetted areas from the lower
body in a standing position and a less than 200 g increase in clothing mass while walk-
ing can be classified as excellent water repellency (WR_T), which are distinguished from
the fair level of water repellency (WR_M). When compared to an untreated combat
uniform, subjective questions with seven categories can be effectively applied to distin-
guish the excellent level from the fair level of water repellency. For further studies on
the wetting dynamics of more body regions with water-absorptive underwear should be
conducted.
Kwon et al. Fash Text (2021) 8:30 Page 16 of 16

Acknowledgements
We express our thanks to human subjects for their participation. Also, we thank Yoon-Jeong Hur and Andrew Gorski for
their technical supports and English proofreading.

Authors’ contributions
JK performed the experiment with human subjects, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. KK conceptualized
the manikin test, performed the manikin tests and data collection. JJ conceptualized the manikin test, performed the
manikin tests and corrected the manuscript. JY conceptualized the entire research and design, performed the data
analyses and the critical revision of the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding
This study is funded by Defense Agency for Technology and Quality (20190907EA7-00)

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details
1
Research Professor, Research Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 2 Research Assistant,
FITI Testing & Research Institute, Seoul, Korea. 3 Ph.D Researcher, FITI Testing & Research Institute, Seoul, Korea. 4 Profes‑
sor, Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak‑ro, Gwanak‑gu,
Seoul 151‑742, Korea.

Received: 27 August 2020 Accepted: 30 December 2020

References
BS EN 14360 (2004) Protective clothing against rain. Test method for ready made garments. Impact from above with high
energy droplets. British Standards Institute.
Cha, H. C., Park, J. H., Lim, J. Y., & Shim, H. S. (2015). Garments waterproofness test using rainfall tower system. Fashion &
Textiles Research Journal, 17(6), 1013–1019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5805/​SFTI.​2015.​17.6.​1013
Choi, B., Han, S., & Lee, M. (2008). Water and oil repellency of wool fabric treated with nano-type finishing agent. Textile
Coloration and Finishing, 20(6), 26–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5764/​TCF.​2008.​20.6.​026
Galbraith, R. L., Werden, J. E., Fahnestock, M. K., & Price, B. (1962). Comfort of subjects clothed in cotton, water repellent
cotton, and Orlon1 suits. Textile Research Journal, 32(3), 236–242. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00405​17562​03200​309
Gibson, P. (2005). Water Repellent Treatments on Battle Dress Uniform Fabric (No. Natick/TR-05/023). U.S. Army Natick
Research, Development, and Engineering Center. http://​handle.​dtic.​mil/​100.2/​ADA43​9385
Gibson, P. (2008). Water-repellent treatment on military uniform fabrics: physiological and comfort implications. Journal of
Industrial Textiles, 38(1), 43–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15280​83707​087833
Havenith, G., & Heus, R. (2004). A test battery related to ergonomics of protective clothing. Applied Ergonomics, 35(1),
3–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apergo.​2003.​11.​001
KDS 8305-3012 (2018), Cloth, Camouflage Pattern, Korean Defense Specifications
Kim, S. Y. (2005) Relationship between clothing microclimate and cold/heat tolerance [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Seoul National University.
Kwon, J., & Choi, J. (2013). Clothing insulation and temperature, layer and mass of clothing under comfortable environ‑
mental conditions, Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 32(1), 11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​1880-​6805-​32-​11
Truong, Q. T., Koene, B., & Domino, J. (2013). Omniphobic coatings for self-cleaning and enhanced chemical/biological
(CB) agent protective clothing. NSTI Nanotechnol, 1, 663–666.
Truong, Q. T., & Pomerantz, N. (2018). Military applications: development of superomniphobic coatings, textiles and
surfaces. In J. Williams (Ed.), Waterproof and water repellent textiles and clothing (pp. 473–531). Woodhead Publishing:
Elsevier.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.