DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consumer recognition and mechanical property comparison of wetsuit material for diving

다이빙용 웨트수트(wetsuit) 소재에 대한 소비자 인식조사와 물성 비교

  • Sang, Jeong Seon (Industrial Academic-Cooperation Foundation, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Oh, Kyung Wha (Dept. of Fashion Design, College of Art, Chung-Ang University)
  • 상정선 (중앙대학교 산학협력단) ;
  • 오경화 (중앙대학교 예술대학 디자인학부)
  • Received : 2018.12.11
  • Accepted : 2018.12.23
  • Published : 2018.12.31

Abstract

Consumer and property evaluation of wetsuit materials were conducted to obtain useful data for developing competitive products that meet consumer expectations and improving industrial competitiveness. Data were collected through online surveys of 213 domestic consumers who have experienced wearing wetsuit among marine leisure activities. Five types of commercial wet suit materials by brand and four types of commercial wet suit materials with the same quality by thickness were collected. Then, their physical properties, salt water resistance and thermal insulation rate were evaluated and compared. As a result, the most commonly used wetsuit material is 3 to 5 mm thick, and the basic jersey material is bonded on both sides. As a processing for imparting functionality, processing for improving warmth and reducing surface resistance are most frequently used. Consumers often feel uncomfortable when wearing a wetsuit, such as wearing comfort, weight, ease of movement, stretchability, and clothing pressure, which are different from those of casual wear. Also, mechanical strength and warmth were considered to be the most important criteria for selection of wetsuit material for purchase or rental. The mechanical properties of brand A and B were better than those of brand C, D, and E. Resilience and thermal shrinkage were better in brand C, D, and E. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the physical properties due to the difference in thickness of the material at the same quality. Also, it was found that the thicker the material, the more stable it is in the heat. Brand A and B had superior salt water resistance than brand C, D, and E. In the thermal insulation test, brand A and B showed better insulation characteristics than brand C, D, and E, but the types of bonded fabric and surface finishing of materials were thought to have affected. In comparison of the thickness, the thicker the materials, the better the salt resistance and the thermal insulation.

Keywords

References

  1. 김정미. (2012). 윈드서핑 수트의 시각적 이미지에 관한 연구. 한국의류산업학회지, 14(5), 713-719. doi: 10.5805.KSCI.2012.14.5.713 https://doi.org/10.5805/KSCI.2012.14.5.713
  2. 김혜림, 방윤혁, 이선희. (2016). 시판 습식방수복의 부위별 소재 특성 및 보온성 평가. 한국섬유공학회지, 53(4), 229-240. doi: 10.12772.TSE.2016.53.229 https://doi.org/10.12772/TSE.2016.53.229
  3. 김혜림, 이선희. (2016). 나노웹으로 코팅된 네오프렌 직물의 제조 및 특성분석. 한국섬유공학회지, 53(2), 109-119. doi: 10.12772.TSE.2016.53.109 https://doi.org/10.12772/TSE.2016.53.109
  4. 박정현, 이진숙, 이정란. (2016). 낙상 보호 팬츠개발을 위한 충격흡수 소재특성 평가. 한국의류학회지, 40(3), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2016.40.3.495
  5. 양형모. (2016, July 12). 헬로! 서핑&혼캠족 "장비는 챙겼니?". 동아일보. Retrived October 10, 2018, from http://sports.donga.com/3/all/20160711/79140543/1
  6. 이선희. (2017). 해양용 방수복 제품 동향. 섬유기술과 산업, 21(1), 30-36.
  7. 최진희. (2011). 국내 30대 남성용 웨트수트 패턴 축소율에 관한 연구. 한국의류학회지, 35(9), 1039-1048. https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2011.35.9.1039
  8. 최진희, 정진아. (2009). 국내 남성용 스킨스쿠버복 생산실태 및 소비자 만족도. 한국의류학회지, 33(11), 1683-1695. https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2009.33.11.1683
  9. 허재호, 박정규, 하준수, 김혜인. (2017). 습식잠수복(wetsuit)의 성능 및 기능성 평가. 섬유기술과 산업, 21(1), 37-43.
  10. 허희진, 김시연, 이조은, 주신영, 남윤자. (2015). 웨트수트 착용실태 및 제품개발을 위한 사이즈 체계 조사 -국내 브래드와 수입 브랜드의 비교를 중심으로-. 한국의류학회지, 39(3), 408-418. https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2015.39.3.408
  11. Aboshio, A., Green, S., & Ye, J. (2014). Experimental investigation of the mechanical properties of neoprene coated nylon woven reinforced composites. Compos. Struct., 120(2015), 386-393. doi: 10.1016.j.compstruct.2014.10.015
  12. American Society for Testing Materials. ASTM D2240-05(2010), Standard test method for rubber property durometer hardness. West Conshohocken, PA:ASTM International; 2010.
  13. American Society for Testing Materials. ASTM D395-18(2018), Standard test method for rubber property-Compression set. West Conshohocken, PA:ASTM International; 2018.
  14. BS EN 142251:2005, Diving suits-Part 1: Wet suits-Requirements and test methods. British Standard Institution; 2018.
  15. ISO 1629. (2013, June 15). Rubber and lattices-Nomenclature. International Standard(4th ed.).
  16. Kim, C., & Kwon, Y. (2000). Thermal resistance values of skinscuba clothing materials. Journal of the Design Research Institute of Kyunghee University, 3, 119-125.
  17. Korean Standard. KS M ISO 34-18:2014, Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic-Determination of tear strength-part 1: Trouser, angle and crescent test pieces. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2012.
  18. Korean Standard. KS M ISO 1798:2012, Flexible cellular polymeric materials-Determination of tensile strength and elongation at break. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2012.
  19. Korean Standard. KS M 6518:2016, Physical testing methods for vulcanized rubber. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2016.
  20. Korean Standard. KS M 6660:2016, Physical testing method of expanded rubber. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2016.
  21. Korean Standard. KS M ISO 8307:2008, Flexible cellular polymeric materials-Determination of resilience by ball rebound. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2008.
  22. Material Improvements. (2016, Nov 18). Patagonia environmental & social initiatives 2016, 50-51.
  23. Naebe, M., Rohins, N., Wang, X., & Collins, P. (2013). Assessment of performance properties of wetsuit. Proceeding. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P, 227(4), 255-264.

Cited by

  1. Bio-EPDM/tungsten oxide nanocomposite foam with improved thermal storage and sea water resistance vol.7, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-020-00219-4
  2. 테크니컬 다이빙 슈트 개발을 위한 잠수복 동향 분석 - 습식 잠수복과 반건식 잠수복을 중심으로 - vol.22, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.30751/kfcda.2020.22.3.33