Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Design and Validation of Compression Base Layers with Functional Fabric Panels for Female Soldiers in High-load Tasks Cover

Design and Validation of Compression Base Layers with Functional Fabric Panels for Female Soldiers in High-load Tasks

Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe
Volume 34 (2026): Issue 1 (February 2026)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Apr 2026
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Functional inner panel configuration of the compression base layer for both top and bottom garments. Single-layer zones (green) provide physical comfort and flexibility, whereas dual-layer zones (yellow) provide joint protection and localized support, and breathable zones (pink) enhance thermal comfort. Fabric types are indicated by color coding: dark green = Fabric A (base zone), green = Fabric B (support zone), and pink = Fabric C (thermal and moisture zone).

Figure 2

Experimental protocol and subjective evaluation procedure. All trials were conducted under controlled environmental conditions (25 ± 1°C, 50 ± 1% RH, 0.2 m/s air velocity). The protocol comprised a preparation phase (instruction, interface pressure measurement at nine anatomical sites, and rest) followed by a subjective evaluation phase including static fit assessment, combat-relevant maneuvers (high jumps and push-ups), and a treadmill walk at 4 km/h with a 10-kg backpack. Participants completed both conditions in a randomized crossover design with a 1-h washout period (Control: T-shirt ensemble; Base: compression base-layer ensemble).

Figure 3

Compression base-layer pattern and material placement. Fabric A (outer shell; pattern reduction: 80%) provided the baseline elasticity of the garment. Fabric B (inner reinforcement; pattern reduction 70–80%) was applied at the wrist (70%), ankle (77%), knee (80%), and abdomen/lower back (78%) to provide localized support. Fabric C (inner thermal and moisture reinforcement; pattern reduction: 80%) was positioned at the lateral scapular region, underbust, and below the posterior thigh to facilitate thermal regulation and moisture management.

Figure 4

Percentage distribution of subjective physical comfort ratings. Ratings were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very uncomfortable, 5 = very comfortable). Stacked bars represent the percentage distribution of responses across participants (n = 10) for the compression base-layer and control conditions.

Virtual and actual fitting of the women-specific compression base layer_

3D Virtual fittingActual fitting
Outer sideInner side
FrontBackFrontBackFrontBack

Physical and functional properties of selected fabrics for the compression base layer system_

CharacteristicsFabric A (base zone)Fabric B (support zone)Fabric C (ventilation zone)
Fiber compositionPolyester 90%, Polyurethane 10%Polyester 94%, Polyurethane 6%Nylon 85%, Polyurethane 15%
Thickness (mm)0.650.610.28
Density (stitches/cm2)499.5442.81304.6
Tensile strength (N)Wale: 390, Course: 350Wale: 550, Course: 430Wale: 240, Course: 180
Elongation (%)Wale 18.0, Course 20.0Wale 11.7, Course 14.2Wale 14.4, Course 43.0
Water vapor permeability (g/m2 24 h)8,4478,5129,530
Absorption rate (s)106030
Drying rate (min)22319397

Target and measured base-layer pressures by body region (mean ± SD; n = 10)_

RegionMeasured (kPa)Target range (kPa)
P1: Upper arm0.5 ± 0.20.5–1.5
P2: Abdomen0.6 ± 0.31.0–2.4
P3: Forearm0.8 ± 0.40.5–1.5
P4: Wrist2.1 ± 0.51.0–2.4
P5: Thigh0.9 ± 0.30.5–1.5
P6: Knee1.8 ± 0.61.0–2.4
P7: Ankle2.4 ± 0.51.0–2.4
P8: Lower back1.1 ± 0.41.0–2.4
P9: Calf0.6 ± 0.20.5–1.5

Subjective evaluation of compression base layer (mean ± SD, n = 10)_

VariableRegionsControl setUnderlayer set p-value
Compression appropriatenessWrist1.30 ± 0.683.90 ± 0.780.006**
Knee1.70 ± 0.813.50 ± 0.910.008**
Ankle1.20 ± 0.774.00 ± 0.790.005**
Abdomen2.00 ± 0.903.50 ± 1.100.025*
Lower back1.70 ± 0.823.60 ± 0.650.007**
Arm2.00 ± 1.103.50 ± 1.010.013*
Thigh2.10 ± 1.003.80 ± 1.000.007**
Calf2.00 ± 0.963.70 ± 1.100.008**
Physical comfortChest3.00 ± 0.824.00 ± 1.050.084
Arm3.60 ± 0.884.60 ± 1.000.086
Thigh3.00 ± 0.824.30 ± 0.950.035*
Calf3.10 ± 0.884.40 ± 0.840.037*
Overall3.00 ± 0.824.40 ± 0.840.029*
Joint pain (↓ better)Wrist3.80 ± 0.632.00 ± 0.820.004**
Ankle3.20 ± 0.791.90 ± 0.740.006**
Knee3.30 ± 0.821.80 ± 0.920.006**
Thermal comfort (↓ better)Underbust4.00 ± 0.943.30 ± 1.160.008**
Nape3.70 ± 0.482.70 ± 0.680.015*
Spine4.10 ± 0.883.80 ± 0.630.317
Hip3.70 ± 1.063.30 ± 0.820.102
Muscle supportAbdomen1.50 ± 0.714.70 ± 0.480.004**
Lower back1.60 ± 0.704.80 ± 0.420.004**
Spine1.50 ± 0.714.70 ± 0.680.004**
Overall1.60 ± 0.704.70 ± 0.480.005**
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ftee-2026-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2300-7354 | Journal ISSN: 1230-3666
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 39 - 48
Submitted on: Nov 26, 2025
Accepted on: Mar 16, 2026
Published on: Apr 29, 2026
Published by: Łukasiewicz Research Network, Institute of Biopolymers and Chemical Fibres
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open
Keywords:
compression base layers,
functional panel integration,
female soldiers,
thermal comfort,
joint support.
Related subjects:
Business and economics,
Business management,
Business informatics,
Process management,
Industrial chemistry,
Cellulose, paper and textiles,
Polymer science and technology,
Materials sciences,
Biomaterials and natural materials

© 2026 Okkyung Lee, Yejin Lee, published by Łukasiewicz Research Network, Institute of Biopolymers and Chemical Fibres
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 34 (2026): Issue 1 (February 2026)
Previous article