All-3D apparel development: Establishing the rules to enable 3D weaving from 3D digital garments

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) digital models can enable designers to tailor garments to specific measurements and preferences, ensuring a perfect fit and personalized aesthetics. This precision would allow to achieve seamless integration between the digital representation, the customer’s body shape, and the physical woven garment outcome. If the weaving machine can be automated, fast, cost-effective, custom, exact fit garments could be produced in a matter of days due to the elimination of the 2D patternmaking steps in the garment process. Weaving a 3D shape, which was designed in a 3D software program, using a circular weaving machine requires certain grid rules applied to the 3D shape to optimize the weaving process, minimize material wastage, and ensure a successful outcome. In the present study, we proposed rules for weaving 3D surfaces from body scan files to enable future algorithm development. These rules aim to address factors such as weaving efficiency, structural integrity, and the limitations of circular weaving machines.

Introduction

Garment development and production rely on the ability of the design team to make a desired three-dimensional (3D) garment from two-dimensional (2D) patterns for a given 3D body shape. This 3D-to-2D-to-3D transition takes time, education, and a great deal of tacit knowledge to execute the design task efficiently and accurately.^1,2 Yet, at each part of the design to product cycle, some issues impact customer satisfaction with fit and style. These include translating a 2D design image to a 2D pattern accurately, calculating functional ease in a 2D pattern for 3D growth and compression, and making style/fit changes based on 3D body shape.^3–6 Many of these issues originate from the complex use of 1D measurements to make 2D shapes cut into 2D material then bent and folded into a shape placed on a 3D object, the human body. ⁶ As Cottle et al. ⁷ discussed, this process could be termed “the 3D-to-1D-to-2D-to-3D method of apparel fit.” It is in the 2D pattern where the 3D body shape is flattened into 1D measurements, which do not reflect much of the subjective characteristics of the body,^2,6 and leads to fit dissatisfaction as well as a desire for customization from the customers.^3,6 Fit dissatisfaction can lead to a significant percentage of garment returns.^8,9 Design to garment processes and workflows have consistently been burdened by the 2D to 3D transition in the development and production processes. ² Patterns are 2D because fabrics are 2D. Conventional 2D fabrics have a fast rate of production and therefore all other parts of the process are beholden to the 2D textile. This brings the following question to mind: What if the whole process, from design to garment, was entirely 3D?

Technological advances in the garment industry have made great strides in addressing many of the issues around the 2D to 3D processes. 3D body scanning has opened a new way to analyze bodies as well as breakdown size and shape diversity in large portions of populations. It has helped apparel researchers create systems for categorizing body shape, more accurately measure both the body and around the body, accurately calculate the optimum ease amounts for 2D patterns, and give way for new ways to assess garment fit through scanning clothed and unclothed bodies.^1,6,10,11 With the use of 3D scanning in the workflow, the garments produced could be custom to the exact fit desired by the customer. 3D computer-aided design (CAD) programs allow designers to work with more realistic bodies in 3D virtual environments to design with more realism than just using a 2D drawing process. ¹² In such programs, the designer can see what the garment would look like moving on the body and what the 2D patterns would look like while they design.

However, much of this technology still works with the assumption of the 2D to 3D process. The flattening method also requires creating 2D patterns from 3D surfaces first, thus resembling the traditional patternmaking process. Besides, during flattening, 2D patterns can be deformed. ¹³ By following a similar 3D-to-2D-to-3D process, Shi et al. ¹⁴ scanned a body to 3D weave a sports bra. During the process, they flattened 3D geometries into 2D patterns, which were 3D woven into a form by “pulling-pushing-unfolding the woven fabric” (p. 85). Three-dimensional knitting, such as WHOLEGARMENT^® by Shima Seiki ¹⁵ can create 3D garments by entering body measurements. However, 3D weaving and how to create weave structures by using body mapping have not been fully explored yet. Therefore, the present study proposed a workflow using 3D CAD tools as well as the emerging 3D weaving machine technology by coining the term “all-3D.” The main objective of the study was to examine the potential of all-3D manufacturing and propose rules for weaving 3D surfaces from body scan files to enable future algorithm development.

Literature review

Customization

Customization can be defined as enabling consumers to construct their own products. ¹⁶ In apparel product development and production, digital platforms and advanced manufacturing techniques allow consumers to tailor clothing to their unique preferences. ¹⁷ Customization is not only about meeting individual aesthetic preferences but also addressing the diversity in body shapes and sizes. Body scanning technologies can play a pivotal role in this regard. With 3D scanning technology, designers can obtain accurate measurements, allowing for the creation of garments that would better fit their customers’ bodies. ¹⁸

Customization can also play an important role in promoting sustainability by reducing the likelihood of garments ending up in landfills due to poor fit or changing trends imposed by fast fashion. A recent empirical study conducted on mass customization in the fast fashion context found that as the level of customization increased, consumer perceptions regarding the extent of customization, the expected duration until product disposal, and willingness to pay also increased. ¹⁹ Additionally, during garment production, pounds of cutting room scraps are thrown away with every garment. An average of 85% marker efficiency leaves a big impact on the environment because the remaining billions of yards of textile go to landfills. ⁸ The style, size, and details of the garment design can have a great influence on its 2D pattern shapes and sizes. If the whole garment, or pieces of a garment, could be woven into a custom 3D shape, then this process can produce shapes that are not possible with current zero waste flat pattern cutting techniques, regardless of the garment size. Eventually, it could significantly decrease the production of textile waste. Developing techniques and digital tools to create 3D fabric structures represents a significant leap forward in the quest for customization and sustainability.

Approaches to developing 3D fabric structures

3D knitting

While weaving is the focus of the present study, the advances made in the 3D knitting field would be useful to be applied to 3D weaving. Surc et al. ²⁰ developed a workflow that would generate knitted garment pattern pieces that could be minimally cut and sewn to create custom-fitted garments. The workflow starts by taking a person’s body scan extracting the measurements from it and using them to automatically adjust the patterns of a simple t-shirt. For this purpose, a program that would automatically choose the closest block size pattern to the scan measurements was used. The block t-shirt patterns were changed based on the alteration rules in the program that would calculate the differences between the size and body measurements. The patterns were then sent to a program that would take the shapes of the custom pattern and apply a grid to the pattern to program the courses and wales of the knit structure for the jacquard flat knitting machine. This grid would help tell the machine where to start, end, and turn back to continue the next course of knit stitches. The size of the quadrant grid would be based on the gauge of the yarn and loop size. The process would yield knit pieces that would mostly be the same size and shape as cut-and-sew knit pieces, with just a few areas around the top and bottom with an excess knit that could be easily cut off. ²⁰ Despite the suggestion of this workflow, it should be noted that Surc et al.’s ²⁰ study used a less complex, t-shaped design, which neither had any shaping mechanisms such as darts, nor other design details. Additionally, the study did not address the possibility of 3D whole garments or pattern shapes.

Narayanan et al. ²¹ used 3D meshes to create whole 3D knitted objects by using a knitting machine with two sets of facing hooks. The researchers first used a 3D virtual object in a 3D CAD program and created a solid mesh surface. The object was then put through a re-meshing process that applied a quad mesh with specific characteristics that could be programmed for knitting. The knitting machine and process had limitations that required the wrapping of the quad mesh to follow very specific rules. These specific rules maintained the integrity of the knitted textile and allowed for a great deal of shapes with different special problems, such as compound curves, to be knitted without the need for any seams. ²¹ The quad mesh grid applied to the 3D objects had characteristics that showed where stitches would be added or dropped and where extra courses would be added to accomplish the knitting for that curved surface. The tube knitting was achieved by using a knitting machine with two beds of needles facing each other, as the yarn is run through the machine it loops around one bed and then the other. In their study, Narayanan et al. ²¹ also found that creating garments was possible with this technique and they could easily scale their process for other-sized products. Similar 3D knitting has been used to make many popular shoes, ²² but taking on full-sized garments has not been popularized or explored enough in a significant way.

3D weaving

The practice of 3D weaving traces back to prehistoric times when early humans used weaving techniques to craft baskets and various utensils. ²³ Explorations into 3D weaving have been mostly made in the medical, aerospace, and mechanical engineering fields because this process creates woven structures of varied thicknesses for applications that require lightweight and strong yet flexible structures.^23,24 Even though there have been slow strides made in 3D weaving and 3D weaving machine design for apparel, the ongoing efforts in the textile field could yield some possible innovations in the pursuit of 3D woven garments. Bilisik et al. ²⁵ developed a circular loom with three or more sets of radiating warps in a circular formation, wefts are then shuttled in both a circular and cross direction along the warps. Tubular weaving is used for making vascular prostheses and can be tapered to mimic human vascular tubes in the body. ²⁶ Aryes et al. ²⁷ used hexagonal weaving with stiff materials, such as wood bark to create 3D tubular shapes for sculpture.

Piper and Townsend ²⁸ drew parallels between weaving and computer programming, as both use binary systems. While weaving utilizes a visual notation of grids and squares, computer programming uses 0 and 1. Wu et al. ²⁹ developed a software program, Weavecraft, to allow users to design customized 3D shapes rather than conventional fabrics. In this program, the researchers created blocks or tileable modules of 3D weave structures featuring interlaced weft and warp yarn segments that can be composed and edited. Panneerselvam et al. ³⁰ investigated the feasibility of employing commercial 3D CAD software to depict the cross-sectional diagram of weft and warp yarns. Based on this diagram, they generated the perspective projection of the weave. Grid sizes were customized to maintain proportionality with the yarn diameter and the spacing between each yarn. For instance, the grid size for the twill weave was set at 0.5 inches. The yarn diameter was set at 0.4 inches, with a 0.1-inch space between the yarns.

Harvey et al. ²⁴ developed a fully 3D woven shoe using an industrial 3D jacquard loom that has a grid-like warp sheet that allowed for wefts to be shuttled in any direction to create woven areas of different thicknesses and amounts of interlacing to create various parts of a shoe. The 3D jacquard used a creel that held individual spools for each warp yarn allowing each warp to sustain tension using either more or fewer threads as needed across the fabric (Harvey et al. ²⁴ ). Another important feature of this 3D loom was the ability for the weft to be shuttled all the way through or partially through the grid sheet of the warps. To communicate the textile pattern to the loom, Harvey et al. ²⁴ used a black and white card image which consisted of a grid with black and white squares that indicate which yarn set is showing, the warp or the weft. To compute the 2D card image into the 3D matrix of wraps the researchers used Excel. After the shoe was woven in the loom, they would have to take the shoe off the loom, trim off the hanging warp and weft yarns, and finally do a little molding. The computational workflow allowed for alterations to the shoes to be entirely done on the computer. ²⁴ While this process has some beneficial concepts and procedures that could be used for 3D weaving apparel, the use of a grid warp sheet might hinder parts of the desired garment shape or complicate the process unnecessarily.

In 2023, Unspun launched 3D woven pants with a patented 3D weaving machine and a patented process for programming the machine. “Vega” 3D woven pants are made using “a topographical weaving machine to produce the jeans in just 10 min.” ³¹ It is currently unclear what the configuration of the loom is and how the pant shape is programmed into the loom mechanization. There is also little information about the 3D fitting and shaping of the garment, leaving questions about whether it is based on measurements, 3D body scans, or shapes based on 2D patterns.

The examples given above have the potential to inform a novel form of 3D weaving for garments that could change the way we look at garment design, development, and production. However, as Wu et al. ²⁹ indicated, 3D weaving applications are constrained by the challenge of creating weaving patterns using current textile software programs. Due to the absence of suitable design tools, there is still a need to suggest rules to make a 3D digital object with a solid mesh surface to make that mesh weaveable. Therefore, the present study examined the following research question: Which rules can be developed to design a card image to enable 3D digital garments to be woven in a 3D circular weaving loom?

Conceptual framework

Workflow

The present study proposes a set of rules to create a process that would produce a custom and a zero-fallout garment by keeping the whole apparel process from design to production in 3D (Figure 1). The suggested workflow starts with a 3D body scan because accurate modeling of the human body is crucial for a good fit. ²⁰ A 3D body scan can be saved as an OBJ file and opened in 3D design software where it is seen as a triangle mesh. At the end of the design process, the designer and technical designer should have a whole fitted shape of the garment as a fully closed polysurface, or solid. The technical designer then works with the understanding of the limitations of the 3D circular loom, decides what the 3D tubular “pattern” pieces would be, and splits the surfaces according to the silhouette and function of the garment. An example of this would be weaving the right leg, left leg, and waistband pieces separately. Stylistic pieces, such as pockets and belt loops, would also be woven separately. Surfaces should be decided based on the needs for closures such as fly extensions, seam allowances, hems, and extensions needed for the stability of the textile-like areas around the crotch curve.

Figure 1.

All-3D workflow.

Next, the garment would go into textile development and the yarn densities (yarn/inch) should be set, dictating the size of the quadrant grid. It should be noted that, while quadrant meshes in 3D modeling programs are used to achieve the closest 3D shape desired, they currently lack parameters that allow them to be used as black-and-white card images. On traditional Jacquard looms, a card image, that is, a grid-like pattern to specify how warp and weft yarns are relatively positioned, controls which warp yarns will be raised and lowered at a given time. ²⁹ Columns and rows indicate warp and weft yarns respectively, while the colors of the squares indicate if a warp yarn is above (black) or below (white) a weft yarn. ²⁹ A card image can communicate several important things, the yarn per inch count of the textile, that the 3D shape is weavable, that the textile will be stable, and the design of the textile structure; it is a plan for how to weave in a clear and concise visual.

The squares of the grid will be referred to as quadrants henceforth. After the pieces are separated and made solid in the 3D software, each one would be programmed with a quadrant grid that follows a specific set of rules outlined in the following section. Once the grid is applied, a black and white 3D card image (Figure 2) can be generated by adding a checkerboard-like fill for plain weave, or a step-like pattern for twill weave, and so on to indicate the pattern of yarn type, warp, or weft, that is showing on the face of the textile/garment.

Figure 2.

(a) Suggested quadrant grid for 3D woven garment pieces, (b) black and white card image of a basic weave, and (c) card image example for 3D circular woven shapes.

Rules to program the grid

Given all the possibilities of garment shapes and contours the grid necessary to make a shape weavable requires a specific set of rules for any situation of shape. The following rules are recommended as specifications for programming a specific grid to be applied to a 3D shape, in a 3D software program, intended to be woven with a circular weaving machine. General assumptions for 3D tubular weaving would be as follows:

1. The grid must be quadrant because woven structures are developed in a quadrant grid formation.

2. The woven 3D shapes will not bifurcate. For example, in the case of a pair of pants, the two legs of the pants will be woven separately and sewn together later. No 3D shape will have to split from one tube to two tubes.

3. Horizontal grid quadrants = Horizontal yarns; Vertical grid quadrants = Vertical yarns; the lines in between are the two yarns touching and need to act with that assumption (Figure 3(a)).

4. Because this grid represents a woven structure where the vertical yarns (or, vertical quadrants) are placed in the loom first and are subjected to different kinds of tensions or characteristics than the horizontal yarns (or, horizontal quadrants), the rules for the vertical quadrants and lines will be slightly different from the horizontal quadrants and lines.

5. The characteristics of a 3D curve and 3D shape will have a dynamic relationship with the grid. The size of the grid/grid quadrants will influence the smoothness and in some cases the size of a 3D curve, where the shape/characteristics of a 3D curve would dictate where quadrants are added, subtracted, measurements adjusted (rules permitting), and where and how lines are bifurcated.

Quadrant height (Q_h) and width (Q_w) would refer to a single side of a quadrant on a flat surface (Figure 3(b)). Proposed rules for a quadrant weave-able grid when accommodating for application on a 3D shape can be explained by two rules: (1) The grid must have constrained quadrants, which will be limited by the set size of the grid, and (2) Quadrants can be added and subtracted along both the vertical and horizontal directions to accommodate 3D curves.

Figure 3.

(a) Diagram of how the grid acts when the quadrants are assumed to represent yarns and (b) diagram showing the vocabulary definitions in the rule equations.

Rule 1: The grid must have constrained quadrants, which will be limited by the set size of the grid

Rule 1 a

The height of each quadrant (Q_h) must be equal to the grid size (G_s). For example, if Gs is 0.25 inches, then Q_h must be 0.25 inches (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Rule 1a: what Q_h cannot do.

Assumption for Rule 1a

If a 3D tubular shape is taken as an example, and if the length on the front of the shape is longer than the length on the back of the shape, then the number of quadrants on the front will be more than the number on the back. Quadrants must never stretch or shrink in height, therefore they must be added or subtracted to the length. For example, if the grid size is 0.25 inches, and the measurement from top to bottom in the front is 48 inches and the back is 44 inches, then the front vertical column of quadrants will be 192 quadrants (48 × 4) and the back will be 176 quadrants (44 × 4). This would be true for any scenario of vertical measurement differentiation. Maintaining the same grid size (0.25 inches), if the front was 44.35 inches and the back was 58.67 inches then the measurement would round to the nearest grid size, which would change the measurements to 44.25 inches in the front and 58.75 inches in the back. This would make the front quadrant count 177 (44.25 × 4) and the back quadrant count 235 (58.75 × 4), indicating that the size of the grid/quadrants impacts the 3D shape. Where on the 3D shape this rounding adjustment happens would typically be within the curves of the shape that caused the length discrepancy in the first place, possibly changing how concave or convex they are. In other words, this quadrant rounding change cannot happen around the top or bottom ends of the garment.

Exception to Rule 1a

Only when adding a horizontal line of quadrants can be the height of a quadrant, which will be either 0 inches or the size of the grid (Figure 5). For example, if (G_s= 0.25 inches), then (Q_h = 0.25 inches) or (Q_h = 0 inches).

Figure 5.

Diagrams for exception to rule 1a: (a) what the quadrants cannot do if a row of horizontal quadrants is added and (b) what the quadrants can do if a row of horizontal quadrants is added.

Rule 1b

The width of each quadrant (Q_w) will be less than or equal to G_s. For example, if (G_s = 0.25 inches), then Qw must be (0 inches ⩽ Q_w ⩽ 0.25 inches), implicating that Qw ⩽ G_s (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Rule 1b: what Q_w can do.

Assumption 1 for Rule 1b

This assumption affects the quadrant count for different girths (i.e., the circumference measurements of the body) between horizontal yarns or horizontal rows of quadrants. For the 3D tubular shape example, as the girth of the 3D tubular shape increases, the number of quadrants (or yarns) needed to achieve that measurement would increase, and vice versa. Considering that there will be no stretch, for example, if G_s is 0.25 inches and the measurement at the upper part of the 3D tube shape is larger, for example, 25 inches and the lower part is narrower, for example, 12 inches, then the quadrant counts for the upper would be 100 (25 × 4) and the lower would be 48 (12 × 4). If between the upper and lower parts, there was a circumference or girth that was 16.36 inches, then one or more quadrants would be less than 0.25 inches to accommodate for the measurement not fitting exactly into the quadrant size. However, the quadrants in the grid should always strive to be as close to the quadrant size while still being dictated by the 3D shape.

Assumption 2 for Rule 1b

The whole 3D tubular shape or at least a section of the shape would be considered to apply quadrants effectively. For example, if one yarn length (Y₁) is 14.50 inches in circumference calculated to 58 quadrants (14.50 × 4) around and the neighboring yarn (Y₂) length is 15.25 inches in circumference, that should not necessarily mean that the next yarn should be 61 (15.25 × 4) whole quadrants. Given the 3D shape and the measurement of the next neighboring yarn or yarns, and considering the yarns on a weaving machine, Y₂ could need to be 58 whole quadrants (Q_w = 0.25 inches) and 6 quadrants could be more triangular (i.e., bifurcating the vertical yarn) to anticipate that eventually in a preceding yarn (Y_p) the whole quadrants would need to be a total of 64 (58 + 6). However, the bifurcation of vertical yarns or two triangular quadrants with no Q_w equaling 0.25 inches (G_s) should try to avoid being side by side. In this case, it would be better to add another triangular quadrant in the next adjacent horizontal yarn or bifurcate a vertical yarn later in the horizontal Y_p to accommodate the difference in girth measurement between horizontal yarns or horizontal rows of quadrants (Figure 7(a)). Horizontal lines of the grid must be continuous lines that can curve but not corner (Figure 7(b)). Vertical lines should converge or diverge as needed to accommodate 3D curve shape (Figure 7(c)).

Figure 7.

Diagrams for assumption 2 for rule 1b: (a) when adding quadrants to the girth/ circumference, how not to split columns of quadrants (left), and how to add columns of quadrants (right) (b) how the lines between quadrants should not act as the horizontal quadrants move across the 3D shape (left) and should act as the horizontal quadrants move across the 3D shape (right); and (c) How the lines between quadrants should not act as the vertical quadrants move across the 3D shape (left), and should act as the vertical quadrants move across the 3D shape (right).

Rule 2: Quadrants can be added and subtracted along both the vertical and horizontal directions to accommodate 3D curves

Rule 2a

One or more vertical columns of quadrants can be added as long as the line consists of five or more quadrants, and adding quadrants is necessary to accommodate an eventual change in the length of a horizontal yarn if it is equal to or smaller than Gs. For example, if the grid size is 0.25 inches and six consecutive horizontal yarn lengths/circumferences (Y_h1, Y_h2, Y_h3, Y_h4, Y_h5, and Y_h6) are measured on a 3D tubular shape, the difference between circumferences, or girths, would not justify adding a vertical column of quadrants (i.e., a vertical yarn) changing all the length measurements of Y_h1-6 to 20 inches maintaining 80 quadrants (20 × 4) for those six yarns (Table 1a). If, however, the horizontal yarns are measured as seen in Table 1b, then the difference between girths would justify adding a vertical column of quadrants changing the girth measurements of Y_h1–6 to the given values. To allow for the added full yarn, a 7th yarn could be considered in this scenario to make smoother transitions between yarns. Table 1 compares circumferences and equivalent quadrant counts for six consecutive horizontal yarns (Y_h) before and after the application of grid rules.

Table 1.

Example of a condition that does (a) not justify adding a vertical yarn/column of quadrants and (b) justify adding a vertical yarn/column of quadrants.

	Yarn sequence	Before the grid rules are applied		After the grid rules are applied
		Circumference at 6 consecutive horizontal yarns (in.)	Equivalent number of quadrants	Circumference at 6 consecutive horizontal yarns (in.)	Equivalent number of quadrants
a	Yh1	20.00	80	20.00	80
	Yh2	20.075	80.3	20.00	80
	Yh3	20.125	80.5	20.00	80
	Yh4	20.10	80.4	20.00	80
	Yh5	20.05	80.2	20.00	80
	Yh6	20.00	80	20.00	80
b	Yh1	20.00	80	20.00	80
	Yh2	20.05	80.2	20.10	80.4
	Yh3	20.125	80.5	20.175	80.7
	Yh4	20.15	80.6	20.25	81
	Yh5	20.075	80.3	20.125	80.5
	Yh6	20.00	80	20.00	80

Rule 2b

One or more horizontal rows of quadrants can be added if the line consists of five or more quadrants.

Assumption for Rule 2b

Horizontal rows of quadrants can only be added if all other above rules are followed. For example, if the grid size is 0.25 inches and eight consecutive vertical yarns’ (Y_v1, Y_v2, Y_v3, Y_v4, Y_v5, Y_v6, Y_v7, and Y_v8) lengths are measured as in Table 2a, the difference between lengths would not justify adding a horizontal column of quadrants (horizontal yarn). This would change all the length measurements of Y_v1-8 to 48 inches, thus maintaining 192 quadrants (48 × 4) for those eight yarns. If, however, the vertical yarns are measured as in Table 2b, then the difference between girths would justify adding a horizontal row of quadrants, thus changing the length measurements of Y_v1-8 following the rules to allow for a full horizontal yarn. Table 2 presents measurements and equivalent quadrant counts for vertical yarns (Y_v) before and after the application of grid rules.

Table 2.

Example of a condition that does (a) not justify adding a horizontal yarn/row of quadrants and (b) justify adding a horizontal yarn/row of quadrants.

	Yarn sequence	Before the grid rules are applied		After the grid rules are applied
		Vertical measurement at yarn (in)	Equivalent number of quadrants	Vertical measurement at yarn (in)	Equivalent number of quadrants
a	Yv1	48.00	192	48.00	192
	Yv2	48.025	192.1	48.00	192
	Yv3	48.075	192.3	48.00	192
	Yv4	48.125	192.5	48.00	192
	Yv5	48.10	192.4	48.00	192
	Yv6	48.05	192.2	48.00	192
	Yv7	48.025	192.1	48.00	192
	Yv8	48.00	192	48.00	192
b	Yv1	48.00	192	48.00	192
	Yv2	48.025	192.1	48.00	192
	Yv3	48.075	192.3	48.25	193 (added quadrant would be triangular)
	Yv4	48.125	192.5	48.25	193 (full size)
	Yv5	48.15	192.6	48.25	193 (full size)
	Yv6	48.10	192.4	48.25	193 (full size)
	Yv7	48.05	192.2	48.25	193 (added quadrant would be triangular)
	Yv8	48.00	192	48.00	192

Discussion and conclusion

With the advent of new and more complex mechanization, it is possible to build and teach a machine to make textile structures not limited to a 2D pattern. The consistent use of quadrant meshes and grids to communicate textile structures in the previous studies indicates the potential for a quadrant mesh to be used in a garment design process so it can be taken directly to a 3D circular loom.^20,21,24,30 Remeshing a specific grid onto a 3D-designed garment shape can allow a black and white 3D card image to be applied to the shape to program a 3D circular loom. The present study proposed an all-3D workflow, established ground rules, and outlined the assumptions and exceptions to the rules by giving examples to achieve a weavable 3D shape and create a process that would produce customized garments without any cutting waste. The rules followed the assumption that they represent yarn width or yarn count to a woven textile and are therefore governed by the consistency of the yarn’s thickness and flexibility as either warp or weft yarns. This would allow for warp yarns to more easily narrow than weft yarns due to their difference in tension during the weaving process. Therefore, the proposed rules limit the size and shape of a quadrant depending on its function to add measurement or subtract measurements in the vertical or horizontal directions.

With the proposed framework for 3D weaving, designers and technical designers could work with a direct body scan to develop a design, apply the appropriate quadrant mesh, and have it woven to the exact shape with the exact desired ease, and fitted style. People can be scanned in different dynamic poses and measurements from the scans can be used to determine the optimum ease given the exact way the person’s muscles contract and fat is distributed as the person takes a dynamic pose. These scans can be placed inside the 3D modeling program with the garment design to visually measure the needed ease in a given area of the garment. It should also be noted that ease allowances are not only determined by taking body movements into account but also by the design of the garment (i.e., design ease). 3D body scans and modeling would also allow the designer and fit specialist to make judgments about the design to shape certain areas of the body. An all-3D garment design and shaping paradigm could lead to program rules that could apply to anybody entering the design program that could then be automatically calculated and applied to the 3D garment object without too much effort by the designers. A fully 3D garment shape with ease rules could allow for faster design exploration with any given body shape. Nonetheless, the outcome of this process should be evaluated in a fit session with tangible or virtual prototypes before production.

As different bodies are used to develop 3D-designed garments for 3D weaving, trying out different designs and immediately seeing what they would look like on the body would allow for a faster-customized production model. If done in collaboration with a program that could take the base garment’s 3D shape as well as ease rules and use an algorithm to create different variations of pant styles, it could eliminate the need for designers to go through each variation individually. A program like that could lead to a fully online customized garment retail store that would be automatic to production on the 3D circular weaving machine. Creating 3D shapes without seams and darts opens the possibility for ruffles, flairs, domes, cowls, corseting, and fullness all with 3D circular weaving. However, an all-3D garment design would both add to design possibilities and limit them as there may be some designs that only a 2D pattern could make, such as traditional Japanese kimono, pleated skirts, and so forth. This process would be ideal for garments that follow the shape of the body like jeans, or sheath dresses. Moreover, this process would also require designers to have training in computational design programs to be able to solve issues related to product design and development effectively.

The all-3D garment process is just in the hypothetical stage and would require the development of a loom with accompanying programming software for it to be a viable garment-producing paradigm. Designers would need to know fit, garment pattern, technical design, and computational design to produce 3D weavable garment pieces, and producers would need to know 3D loom programming on top of woven fabric design and garment construction to make sewable garment pieces. The integration that spans this much of the product cycle, that is, customer to product, would yield a new category or new ways of looking at the market. It may be considered a branching off from the usual product cycle altogether. The wovens market would have to be willing to change to accommodate these new processes that focus more on customization and zero-waste, than mass production.

The present study was limited to woven fabrics and focused on developing rules. Additionally, the potential use of a circular loom could have limitations in that only one tube can be woven at a time, making it impossible for garments with more than one tube to be effectively woven completely on the loom. Garments for the upper body with sleeves or bifurcated garments such as shorts and pants would require the garment to either be made in pieces or through specialty looms that have yet to be invented. Moreover, a lack of familiarity and the need for extensive training in 3D software programs may create limitations for industry implementation of the all-3D workflow and the use of a 3D circular weaving machine. Other programs such as Clo3D function based on the assumption that the garments designed will be made from 2D fabrics and therefore require 2D patterns. 3D modeling programs with their quadrant mesh re-meshing features should become a necessary tool for the workflow. In the future, such systems may require collaboration between designers and machine operators to refine and optimize these rules.

As Piper and Townsend ²⁸ argued, utilizing digital technologies as a means of investigation, analysis, and reflection, along with their role in design and production, provides opportunities to acquire deeper insights into skills, techniques, and knowledge creation. ²⁸ Considering these needs given in the previous sections, the current study attempted to lay foundations for the all-3D manufacturing and suggested rules to aid algorithm development for weaving 3D garments from body scan files. After establishing the ground rules, the next step would be to program an algorithm for applying this grid to the 3D pattern shape so that a black and white card image could be programmed for a circular weaving machine. An all-3D design to woven garment workflow could produce fitted garments through accurate visual imaging using 3D body scans without needing many iterative fittings with a 2D pattern. It could be a whole new garment design paradigm that would not require designers to employ a great deal of previous garment development tacit knowledge. The 3D virtual nature of the process can allow for all work and adjustment to be based on 3D visual confirmation of efficacy instead of measurements.

The mechanization of an all-3D design to garment process would change multiple fashion markets as, after some development, customized garments could be made just in time or faster than other forms of garment customization. As a great deal of the clothing retail market is now online, this 3D workflow and loom technology could be applied to a multitude of different online customization tools that the customer could drive. As 3D weaving machines become more sophisticated, they offer the capability to weave complex and customizable structures, giving rise to garments that are not only tailored to an individual’s body but also possess adaptive and functional features. Additionally, the environmental impact of mass production in the fashion industry is mitigated by the move toward customization.