Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

The size of the swimsuit pattern (unit: cm).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Five major female body types: (a) hourglass, (b) apple, (c) rectangle, (d) triangle, and (e) inverted triangle shapes.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 2.

Avatar sizes for five body types (unit: cm).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

The five swimming poses examined in this study.

(a) Overhead arm rise, (b) Forward bend, (c) T-pose, (d) Flutter kick position, and (e) Cobra pose.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Schematic of the research process.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Digital clothing pressure measurement by virtual try-on.

(a) Measuring points, (b) Virtual try-on, and (c) Measuring cloth pressure.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Garment Fit Maps for five swimming poses and two types of fabrics (A: Nylon 80% + Spandex 20%, Polyester 80% + Spandex 20%).

Note. In each image, blue indicates lower garment pressure at the corresponding body part, green–yellow represents medium clothing pressure, and red reflects high compressive force.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Enlarged front and back views with labeled pressure zones (Apple body type, overhead arm raise posture).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

Digital clothing pressures data collected by virtual try-on.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 7.

Numerical comparison of mean clothing pressure by body part according to body type (unit: kPa).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Numerical comparison of mean clothing pressure by body part according to swimming pose (unit: kPa).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 4.

Three-way ANOVA results for effects of fabric, body type, and posture on clothing pressure.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison of clothing pressure across different sportswear types.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Mannequin wear trial pressure data.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Repeated-measures ANOVA results comparing CLO 3D Mannequin (hourglass body type).

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 9.

Comparison of clothing pressure values by body region between CLO 3D simulation and Mannequin (hourglass body type).

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Current CLO 3D (2024.2.214 version) and proposed option 1: Setting the underwater environment.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Current CLO 3D (2024.2.214 version) and proposed option 2: Providing a database of swimsuit fabric properties in a wet state.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Current CLO 3D (2024.2.214 version) and proposed option 3: Adding movements.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Proposed option 4: Automatically correcting differences between measured clothing pressure data and CLO 3D data.

More »

Fig 13 Expand