JUNE 2005 485

Stress Relaxation of Tufted Carpets and Carpet Components:

Analysis of the Tufted Carpet Structure
KRISTIE J. PHILLIPS AND TUSHAR K. GHOSH,1
College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, U.S.A.

DAVID A. DICKEY
Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
Dimensional stability of tufted carpets has been a continuing problem in the carpet
industry for years. When a tufted carpet is installed by the stretch-in method, it experi-
ences stress relaxation over time which can cause the carpet to buckle, wrinkle and
become loose with the only option being a costly re-stretching of the carpet. Analysis of
the various components of the tufted carpet composite structure was performed to identify
the role each component plays in the phenomenon of stress relaxation. A biaxial loading
system was used to test various samples of the primary backing alone, primary backing
after tufting (with tufts), secondary backing alone, and the finished carpet after attaching
the backings with various binder weights per area. The four variables under consideration
included primary and secondary backing constructions, tufting density, and latex weight.
A rheological model that includes representations of each component in the carpet
structure was developed and will be presented in a following paper.

Introduction tional parameters that contribute to carpet buckling or

Since the late 1960s, when tufted carpets grew in popu-
larity, the carpet industry has experienced problems with
increases of carpet dimensions after installation, otherwise
referred to as carpet buckling, wrinkling, rucking, or carpet
growth. Carpets that are installed by the stretch-in method,
the most popular method for installing residential carpets,
experience stress relaxation over time where the tension in
the carpet slowly dissipates. Then, when the carpet becomes
looser, it is more susceptible to forces imposed by walking,
which may result in buckling or wrinkling, making the
carpet unsightly, creating trip hazards, accelerating carpet
wear, and possibly causing the carpet to delaminate [12].
The only option for correcting a buckled carpet is re-
stretching/re-installing, which is costly for retailers, install-
ers, and consumers. Other factors that may aggravate carpet
“growth” include changes in temperature and moisture con-
ditions and incorrect or poor installation especially over
large areas [3].
Since woven and knitted carpets seldom require re-
stretching [9], the buckling problem seems to be linked
primarily to the tufted construction. Carpet construc-
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed: e-mail:
tghosh@tx.ncsu.edu
growth were studied in the late 1960s and 1970s [1, 2,
11] with occasional studies performed since then [5, 7].
However, the majority of the published work has focused
on various types of primary and secondary backings on a
macroscopic scale, for example, comparing jute versus
polypropylene primary and secondary backings, woven
versus tufted carpets, and woven, nonwoven, foam or
other types of secondary backings. However, no pub-
lished work has been found that examines differences in
backings on a smaller constructional scale such as in-
creases in stitch densities.
This research was designed to analyze the various
components of the tufted carpet composite structure,
identify the role each component plays in the phenome-
non of stress relaxation, and thereby to identify the cause
of carpet “growth” and buckling as far as it depends on
carpet component properties.
Experimental
After installation, a carpet is held stretched along both
of its principal directions (lengthwise and widthwise)
simultaneously over its lifetime. Therefore in this re-
search, a specially designed biaxial testing apparatus,
shown in Figure 1, was used to stretch a (45 cm ⫻ 45

Textile Res. J. 75(6), 485– 491 (2005) DOI: 10.1177/0040517505053844 © 2005 Sage Publications www.sagepublications.com
486 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

Four factors were chosen to represent the tufted carpet

FIGURE 1. Experimental set-up.
cm) square sample in both directions and hold the sample
stretched for a period of time. Two load cells measured
the load values in the warp (A) and filling (B) directions
and two precision dial displacement gauges measured the
elongation of the sample in each direction. Deformation
of the sample was performed manually. A computer-
based data acquisition system, with LabVIEW® soft-
ware [13], was used to enable continuous monitoring of
stress levels and generate stress relaxation data.
Test samples were stretched in both warp and fill
directions to exactly 1% strain and the load values were
recorded continuously for 20 hours. A value of 1% was
taken to be the typical strain value that a properly in-
stalled carpet experiences, in accordance with the Carpet
and Rug Institute’s [4] recommendation of 1-1.5%
stretch for carpet installation and considering that, in
practice, most installers do not exceed 1% [6].
structure: primary backing construction, secondary back-
ing construction, tufting density, and coating weight per
unit area. Details of sample constructions are presented
in Table I (components) and Table II (finished carpets).
Each component of the carpet as well as the finished
carpet samples were tested with three repetitions includ-
ing the primary backing (alone, before tufting), primary
backing after tufting (with tufts), secondary backing
alone, and the finished carpet after attaching the second-
ary with various weights of latex.
Carpet samples in this study were produced by a
carpet manufacturer with commercial tufting equipment.
Choice of test samples was therefore limited by what
could be produced by the carpet manufacturer without
causing unacceptable disruptions in production. For this
reason, warp density in primary and secondary backings
as well as latex composition were held constant. The
primary backings were made with polypropylene tape
yarns in both warp and filling directions while the sec-
ondary backings consisted of a leno weave using tape
yarns in the warp, similar to the primaries, but with
open-end spun polypropylene yarns in the filling.
Finished carpet samples, shown in Table II, consisted of
samples A-, B-, and C-Lo and -Hi, which focused on the
effects of secondary backing construction and coating
weight while holding tufting pattern and primary backing
construction constant, and samples D, E, and F, which
varied the primary backing and tufting density while coat-
ing weight and secondary backing construction were held
constant. Due to difficulties in controlling the latex weight
applied to the samples during production, the actual latex
weights were not as precise as desired.

TABLE I. Carpet components evaluated.

Warp Fill

Yarn mass Yarn mass

Sample Name Ends (cm) linear densitya Tape width Picks (cm) linear densitya Tape width

Primary backings:
11 picks/inch (ppi) 9.4 492 den. 1.25 mm 4.3 1077 den. 2.5 mm
18 picks/inch (ppi) 9.4 492 den. 1.25 mm 7.1 1062 den. 2.5 mm
Secondary backings:
16 ends/inch (epi) ⫻ 5 ppi 6.3 492 den. 1.25 mm 2.0 1749 den. spun yarn
18 ends/inch (epi) ⫻ 11 ppi 7.1 471 den. 1.25 mm 4.3 1668 den. spun yarn

Tufted primaries: (Pr ⫽

primary backing ppi; spi ⫽ Primary backing used (ends/
tuft density stitches/inch) cm ⫻ picks/cm) Tuft density (stitches/cm)

11 Pr, 8 spi 9.4 ⫻ 4.3 (24 epi ⫻ 11 ppi) 3.1 (8 spi)

11 Pr, 12 spi 9.4 ⫻ 4.3 (24 epi ⫻ 11 ppi) 4.7 (12 spi)
18 Pr, 8 spi 9.4 ⫻ 7.1 (24 epi ⫻ 18 ppi) 3.1 (8 spi)
18 Pr, 12 spi 9.4 ⫻ 7.1 (24 epi ⫻ 18 ppi) 4.7 (12 spi)
a
As measured by unraveling the fabric.
JUNE 2005 487

TABLE II. Finished carpets evaluated. “Lo”and “Hi”designations refer to latex content.

Primary backing Secondary backing

constructiona constructiona Tufting density Actual latex
@ 5/32 gauge contentb Carpet weightc
Name ends/cm picks/cm ends/cm picks/cm (stitches/cm) (g/m2) (g/m2)

A-Lo 9.4 4.3 6.3 2.0 3.1 746 1702

B-Lo 9.4 4.3 6.3 3.1 3.1 610 1611
C-Lo 9.4 4.3 7.1 4.3 3.1 712 1733
A-Hi 9.4 4.3 6.3 2.0 3.1 882 1838
B-Hi 9.4 4.3 6.3 3.1 3.1 848 1831
C-Hi 9.4 4.3 7.1 4.3 3.1 848 1865
D 9.4 7.1 6.3 2.0 3.1 814 1824
E 9.4 7.1 6.3 2.0 4.7 814 2119
F 9.4 4.3 6.3 2.0 4.7 882 2140
a b
For the primary and secondary backings, yarn mass linear densities can be found in Table 1. Actual latex amount (in g/m2) was calculated
c
by subtracting the weights of the tufted primary and secondary backing from the average total carpet weight. Average weight for the three
carpet samples tested (three repetitions).

Results and Discussion
Typical stress-relaxation curves obtained in warp and
fill directions for one of the carpets and its components
are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Each data point in the plot
represents an average load value of three tests at that time
interval. As shown in the figures, the load sustained by
the finished carpet is significantly higher than for the
individual components. This indicates that the layer of
latex used to adhere the carpet components together
plays a significant role in the amount of load the carpet
can support.
(1) initial load: the highest or peak load experienced by
the sample immediately after it was stretched to 1%;
(2) residual load: the residual load on the carpet sample
after being stretched to 1% in both directions for 20
hours;
(3) percentage retained load: the residual load after 20
hours expressed as a percentage of the initial or peak
load; and,
(4) residual rate of load decay: an estimate of the rate of
load decay after 20 hours by taking the slope of the
last part of the stress-relaxation curves using a local
linear regression.

ANALYSIS OF THE STRESS RELAXATION BEHAVIOR
The data from the biaxial tester were initially obtained
as load versus time curves, containing more than 800
data points, for the 20-h testing period. Four character-
istic parameter values were extracted from the data in
order to represent each sample, including:
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for
each of six dependent variables, including the residual
load, percentage retained load, and residual rate of load
decay in both the warp and fill directions, on each of four
data sets, including primary backings alone, secondary
backings alone, tufted primaries, and finished carpets.
For the finished carpets, linear regression analysis was

FIGURE 2. Stress relaxation curve (warp

direction) of finished carpet sample D, plot-
ted with its components, tufted primary (18
ppi primary, 8 spi tuft density) and second-
ary backing (16 epi ⫻ 5 ppi) (see Table I for
sample details).
488 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

FIGURE 3. Stress relaxation curve (fill di-

rection) of finished carpet sample D, plotted
with its components, tufted primary (18 ppi
primary, 8 spi tuft density) and secondary
backing (16 epi ⫻ 5 ppi) (see Table I for
sample details).

used to isolate the carpet components that had significant For the secondary backings tested alone, most of the
effects on the dependent variables. stress relaxation data did not show any statistically sig-
nificant differences. This is probably due to the very low
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BACKINGS load values experienced by the secondary backings ini-
tially and after 20 hours. The secondary backings were
A summary of the results for the primary backing
difficult to test because of their thin, net-like structure
fabrics is presented in Table III. As shown in the table,
which allowed the yarns to move more freely, dissipating
the 18 ppi (7.1 picks/cm) primary retained 9 –10% more
the stress quickly. The biaxial tests performed at 1%
stress and maintained nearly twice the actual load as the
strain apparently were not deforming the yarns them-
11 ppi (4.3 picks/cm) in both warp and fill directions
selves but were simply moving the yarns within the
after 20 hours. However, the only dependent variable to
fabric structure. There was a significantly higher residual
show a statistically significant difference between the 11
load in the warp direction than in the fill, which is
and 18 ppi primaries was the residual load in the fill
undoubtedly due to the spun yarn structure of the filling
direction, although some other p-values were close to
yarns.
0.05. Apparently, more fill yarns in the 18 ppi fabric
resulted in higher residual loads and retained load values
in the fill direction. No statistically significant difference TUFTED PRIMARIES: THE EFFECT OF TUFT DENSITY
was found in the warp direction (at 95% confidence), The four tufted primaries tested were combinations of
which is understandable since the warp thread density in the 11 and 18 ppi primary backings and the 3.1 and 4.7
the two primary backings was the same (9.4 ends/cm or stitches per cm (8 and 12 spi) tufting densities. Experi-
24 ends/inch). mental data is summarized in Table IV.
As shown in Table IV, in general, the residual load
and retained load (%) values for the tufted primaries in
TABLE III. Results of the statistical analysis of the biaxial test data for
the 11 ppi and 18 ppi primary backings when tested alone. (p- values the fill direction are two to three times higher than the
⬍ 0.05 indicate statistical significance at 95% confidence. Four (4) untufted primary backings. This was verified statistically
error degrees of freedom.) using two linear contrasts to compare the primaries alone
Sample means: to the corresponding tufted primaries: (1) 11 ppi primary
primaries p-value versus 11Pr8spi and 11Pr12spi tufted primaries and (2)
(for 18 ppi primary versus 18Pr8spi and 18Pr12spi. For the
Dependent variable 11 ppi 18 ppi difference)
residual load in the fill direction, equality was rejected
Residual load1, warp 1.90 kg 3.51 kg 0.0607 with p-values of 0.0006 and ⬍0.0001 for linear contrasts
Residual load1, fill 3.13 kg 6.09 kg 0.0195
Retained stress, warp 17.93% 26.33% 0.0917 (1) and (2), respectively (with 12 error degrees of free-
Retained stress, fill 16.60% 26.83% 0.0534 dom (df)). For the retained load (%) in the fill, equality
Rate of load decay, warp ⫺0.6986 ⫺0.7850 0.5050 was rejected with p-values of ⬍0.0001 for both linear
Rate of load decay, fill ⫺0.9203 ⫺1.4795 0.0888
contrasts (with 12 error df). At first, this result does not
1
Per 45 cm sample. make sense, since previous studies have shown that the
JUNE 2005 489

TABLE IV. Sample means (average of three repetitions) for the primaries and tufted primaries tested.

Residual load1 Retained stress

Initial load1 (kg) (kg) (%) Residual rate of load decay

Sample Warp Fill Warp Fill Warp Fill Warp Fill

11 ppi primary 10.6 18.7 1.9 3.1 17.9 16.6 ⫺0.6986 ⫺0.9203
11Pr 8 spi (tufted) 6.6 17.6 2.4 7.4 36.1 42.4 ⫺0.7861 ⫺1.9696
11Pr 12 spi (tufted) 8.8 16.9 3.4 7.4 39.2 43.9 ⫺0.9589 ⫺2.1407
18 ppi primary 13.2 22.9 3.5 6.1 26.3 26.8 ⫺0.7850 ⫺1.4795
18Pr 8 spi (tufted) 10.5 34.8 4.2 15.0 40.0 43.0 ⫺1.0394 ⫺3.5921
18Pr 12 spi (tufted) 9.3 29.8 3.6 12.5 38.5 41.8 ⫺1.0733 ⫺3.4468
1
Per 45 cm sample.

primary backing loses 30 – 60% of its strength and other
properties suffer after tufting [2], and it was expected
that the tufted primaries would show faster rates of stress
decay and lower amounts of retained load. However, the
process of tufting forces yarns (tufts) through the pri-
mary backing, including through the interstices between
the warp and fill yarns as well as penetrating the yarns
themselves. Consequently, in the tufted primary, yarns in
the backing have less freedom of movement within the
structure and cannot dissipate stress as quickly.
A third linear contrast was used to compare tufted
primaries with the 11 ppi primary backing to those with
the 18 ppi primary (11Pr8spi and 11Pr12spi versus
18Pr8spi and 18Pr12spi). A significant difference was
found for the residual load in both warp and fill direc-
tions with p-values of 0.0030 and ⬍0.0001, respectively
(with 8 error df).
Another observation, which was not verified statisti-
cally, is that the residual load in the fill direction is
consistently higher than in the warp across all of the
backing/tufting combinations. This is most likely due to
the difference in crimp levels between the warp and fill
yarns. The fill yarns have less crimp, about 0.5%, com-
pared with the warp yarns, at about 2% [6]. Therefore,
when stretched 1% during testing, the fill yarns are
un-crimped and stretched to a greater degree than the
warp, resulting in higher levels of load.
The tufting density was found to have no clear effect
on the residual load or retained load (%). This was again
verified with a linear contrast comparing tufted primaries
with 8 spi versus 12 spi. None of the p-values obtained
were lower than 0.1174 (with 12 error df).
BEHAVIOR OF FINISHED CARPET
Analysis of the finished carpet data is presented in
Table V. Interestingly, the results for the finished carpets
with 11 and 18 ppi primary backings followed the results
reported for primary backings earlier. In the fill direction,
the residual loads were significantly higher for finished
carpets with the 18 ppi primary, indicating that the effect
of additional fill yarns in the primary is not obscured
when the carpet is finished.
Analysis of the finished carpet data was more compli-
cated than analysis of the components alone since there
were four factors that came into play simultaneously: the
primary and secondary backing, the tufting density, and
the latex content. Linear regressions were used to exam-
ine all four factors/components (using actual magnitudes
of the variables) as well as two possible interaction
effects between the factors (primary ⫻ tuft density and
secondary ⫻ latex). Dependent variables included the
residual load and retained load (%) in the warp and fill
directions. The initial linear regression models were re-

TABLE V. Summary of the residual load and retained stress values for the finished carpet samples tested (average of three repetitions).

Residual load1 Percent (%) retained stress Residual rate of load decay

Sample Warp (kg) Fill (kg) Warp (%) Fill (%) Warp Fill

A-Lo (11 Pr, 8 spi, 16 ⫻ 5) 19.0 25.5 29.6 33.8 ⫺4.3938 ⫺5.3557
B-Lo (11 Pr, 8 spi, 16 ⫻ 8) 18.3 21.8 30.0 31.9 ⫺4.1819 ⫺4.9190
C-Lo (11 Pr, 8 spi, 18 ⫻ 11) 21.4 24.2 30.7 33.0 ⫺5.8640 ⫺6.6902
A-Hi (11 Pr, 8 spi, 16 ⫻ 5) 13.7 22.9 25.2 30.0 ⫺3.2337 ⫺5.1316
B-Hi (11 Pr, 8 spi, 16 ⫻ 8) 16.5 20.5 27.4 30.0 ⫺3.4572 ⫺4.1501
C-Hi (11 Pr, 8 spi, 18 ⫻ 11) 20.5 21.9 30.4 32.0 ⫺4.5234 ⫺4.1355
D (18 Pr, 8 spi, 16 ⫻ 5) 19.7 29.8 27.0 31.8 ⫺5.2639 ⫺7.4781
E (18 Pr, 12 spi, 16 ⫻ 5) 17.7 29.9 28.1 32.5 ⫺3.4660 ⫺5.2077
F (11 Pr, 12 spi, 16 ⫻ 5) 18.9 21.7 27.8 29.0 ⫺4.4182 ⫺4.6001
1
Per 45 cm sample.
490
duced by removing the insignificant factors one by one,
starting with insignificant interaction effects, until only
the significant factors were left in the model.
For the residual load of the finished carpets in the fill
direction, the primary backing construction was the sin-
gle most significant contributing factor in the reduced
model, overpowering the effects of the other factors
(with p-value ⬍ 0.0001, R2 value 0.5981, and 28 error df
in the reduced model). For the residual load in the warp
direction, most of the factors tested were found to sig-
nificantly contribute to the model, indicating that no one
factor was the most critical (95% confidence, R2 0.4899,
23 error df). The latex content was found to be significant
in three out of four dependent variables, including resid-
ual load in the warp and retained load (%) in the warp
and fill (p-values 0.0071, 0.0020, and 0.0066, respec-
tively). The effect of latex content on carpet performance
is discussed further in the following section.
COMMENTS ON LATEX CONTENT
Two levels of latex content were examined in this
study, “Lo” (712–746 g/m2 or 21–22 oz/yd2) and “Hi”
(848 – 882 g/m2 or 25–26 oz/yd2). While the latex con-
tent was expected to be a significant factor, after exam-
ination of the data in Table V, it appeared that the high
latex levels had lower residual and retained load (%)
values than the low latex levels in both warp and fill
directions. This result seems, at first, counterintuitive. It
would generally be expected that higher latex levels
would bond the carpet backings more securely together,
restricting their movement and their ability to dissipate
stress, and therefore having higher residual load values.
However, the latex used in carpets generally contains
large amounts of filler [8, 10], so increasing the amount
of latex and filler may result in unexpected effects.
Furthermore, the “Lo” latex level is the typical level used
for this type of carpet, so in attempting to obtain the
TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
higher latex level, the thicker, heavier coating may have
been under-cured.
LONG TERM STRESS RELAXATION TESTS
A limited number of samples were tested for longer
periods of time than the initial 20-hour period. Figure 4
shows the long-term residual load data as a function of
time for one of the samples. After the initial 20 hours
were up, these samples were left on the biaxial tester and
load measurements were taken manually after additional
time had elapsed. After 600 hours, the four samples had
retained load (%) values ranging from 18.7 to 20.7% in
the warp and 17.5 to 24.8% in the fill. The two samples
that were tested for longer than 600 hours continued to
dissipate stress slowly over extended time periods.
Conclusions
From the results presented here, it is clear that primary
backing construction plays a very important role in de-
termining the stress relaxation behavior of carpets. It is
also apparent from the data that latex as a binder provides
significant synergy to the carpet system; as a result the
force required for stretching a finished carpet to 1%
extension is much higher than the sum of the forces
required to stretch the individual components by the
same amount. At the same time, higher latex content
showed inferior stress relaxation performance. However,
before concluding that lower latex levels perform better,
other factors affecting buckling need to be considered,
including various kinds of loading such as the forces
imposed by walking. In addition, other performance
properties were not tested in this study, such as tuftbind.
Obviously the role of latex needs to be investigated
further. For the primary and secondary backings tested
alone at 1% strain, the residual loads have generally
leveled off to their limiting values after the 20-hour
FIGURE 4. Long-term stress relaxation
curve of finished carpet sample E (kg per
45-cm sample) in both warp and fill direc-
tions.
JUNE 2005
testing period; however, finished carpet samples did not
reach their limiting residual load values during the 20-
hour testing period, but took significantly longer.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to
Hugh Gardner, Carroll Yawn, and Tom Baker from
BP-Amoco for their help in obtaining test samples and
for making the biaxial tester available to us for an ex-
tended length of time.
Literature Cited
1. British Standards Institution. “Methods of Test for the
Dimensional Stability of Textile Floor Coverings. Part I.
Determination of Extension under Mechanical Action.” BS
4682: Part 1: 1971. British Standards Institution, London,
1971.
2. Gentry, D. R., The Dimensional Stability of Carpets in
Installations. Part I: Stability to Mechanical Actions, Tex-
tile Res. J. 47(7), 459 – 463, (1977).
3. Goodman, P. J., Down to Basics, Carpets & Floorcover-
ings Review -Supplement 10 –30, (1986).
491
4. “Guidance for Restretching to Remove Buckles, Wrinkles,
and Bubbles.” Technical Bulletin. The Carpet and Rug
Institute. Dalton, Georgia, 1998.
5. Monson, J. A., A Study of the Relationship Between Car-
pet Mechanical Properties and Increases in Carpet Dimen-
sions Following Installation. Ph.D. Thesis, Clemson Uni-
versity, 1982.
6. Private communications with H. Gardner, C. Yawn, and T.
Baker, BP-Amoco.
7. Schaff, A. J., and Ogale, A. A., Tensile Viscoelastic Prop-
erties of Spunbonded Nonwoven Polypropylene Backing.
Textile Res. J. 61(7), 386 –392 (1991).
8. Scott, R. L., Carpet Laminating. J. Coated Fabrics 19,
35–52 (1989).
9. Smith, G. W., Backings are the Foundation, Not Second-
ary. Carpet & Rug Industry, 24(9), 28 –29 (1996).
10. Stamper, K., An Overview of Carpet Laminates. Carpet
Manufacturing Conference. Northwest Georgia Trade &
Convention Center, Dalton, Georgia, Aug. 15–16, 2000.
11. Sudnik, Z. M., Dimensional Stability of Carpets: Rucking
of Carpets in Use. Textile Institute and Industry. 7, 278 –
281 (1969).
12. www.carpet-rug.com (The Carpet and Rug Institute).
13. www.ni.com (National Instruments).