Next Article in Journal
Determination of Mechanical Properties of Single and Double-Layer Intraply Hybrid Composites Manufactured by Hand Lay-Up Method
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Deep Eutectic Solvents and Polyphenolic Extracts on the Structure and Functional Properties of Sodium Alginate Films
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Enhancing Drafter Performance in Spunbonding of Polymeric Fibers via Airflow Simulation

Microcellular Plastics Manufacturing Laboratory (MPML), Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2026, 18(2), 187; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020187
Submission received: 14 November 2025 / Revised: 15 December 2025 / Accepted: 7 January 2026 / Published: 9 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Polymer Fibers)

Abstract

Spunbonding drafters play a decisive role in determining fiber attenuation, morphology, and final nonwoven quality; however, their internal airflow behavior remains poorly characterized due to limited physical accessibility and historically empirical design practices. This work employs high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to systematically resolve the airflow field inside a laboratory-scale drafter and to quantify the impact of geometry on fiber drawing conditions. The simulations reveal a previously unreported “braking effect,” where adverse flow structures reduce effective shear drag, limit drawability, and increase the likelihood of fiber breakage. Parametric virtual experimentation across seven geometric variables demonstrates that the drafter configuration strongly governs shear distribution, flow uniformity, and energy consumption. Using a performance-oriented optimization framework, three key processing objectives were targeted: (i) maximizing shear drag to promote stable fiber attenuation, (ii) improving axial drawing uniformity, and (iii) minimizing pressurized-air demand. CFD-guided design modifications—including controlled widening, tailored wall divergence and convergence, and an extensible lower section—were implemented and subsequently validated using a newly constructed prototype. Experimental measurements on polypropylene (PP) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) fibers confirm substantial reductions in fiber breakage and improvements in drawing stability, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of simulation-driven process optimization in spunbonding equipment design.
Keywords: spunbonding; polymer fibers; fiber drawing; drafter design; nonwovens; computational fluid dynamics (CFD); process optimization; airflow simulation spunbonding; polymer fibers; fiber drawing; drafter design; nonwovens; computational fluid dynamics (CFD); process optimization; airflow simulation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohajer, B.; Kheradmandkeysomi, M.; Park, C.B.; Bussmann, M. Enhancing Drafter Performance in Spunbonding of Polymeric Fibers via Airflow Simulation. Polymers 2026, 18, 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020187

AMA Style

Mohajer B, Kheradmandkeysomi M, Park CB, Bussmann M. Enhancing Drafter Performance in Spunbonding of Polymeric Fibers via Airflow Simulation. Polymers. 2026; 18(2):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohajer, Behrang, Mohamad Kheradmandkeysomi, Chul B. Park, and Markus Bussmann. 2026. "Enhancing Drafter Performance in Spunbonding of Polymeric Fibers via Airflow Simulation" Polymers 18, no. 2: 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020187

APA Style

Mohajer, B., Kheradmandkeysomi, M., Park, C. B., & Bussmann, M. (2026). Enhancing Drafter Performance in Spunbonding of Polymeric Fibers via Airflow Simulation. Polymers, 18(2), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18020187

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop