Purpose In textiles, dual-core yarn emerges as a remarkable innovation, made of two different core materials. This study aims to examine the characteristics of dual-core yarn manufactured from different sheath components, such as cotton (CO)/micro acrylic (MAC) blend (40/60% CO/MAC), CO/micro modal (CMD) blend (40/60% CO/CMD) and 100% CO fiber. Design/methodology/approach The core materials for all yarns were elastane and T400® filament, incorporated using a modified ring frame. The influence of sheath components on yarn characteristics was evaluated. Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine significant differences in strength, elongation, unevenness, hairiness and yarn quality index among the produced yarns from the three sheath materials. Additionally, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method was employed to rank the yarn samples based on overall performance. Findings The use of different sheath components significantly influenced the yarn characteristics. Yarn produced with the 40/60% CO/CMD blend emerged as the most suitable, while yarn produced from 100% CO ranked as the least favorable. The ranking of yarn samples was performed using the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making method based on key yarn performance parameters. These findings reflect the critical impact of sheath fiber selection and yarn count on performance outcomes. Originality/value This study presents a novel investigation of dual-core yarns incorporating CMD and MAC fibers as sheath blends with CO while using elastane and T400® filaments as dual-core components. Unlike previous studies that mainly used conventional CO or CO–polyester sheath materials, this work systematically explores the influence of micro fiber-based sheath blends on yarn performance. The proposed approach provides a structured method for optimizing dual-core yarn design for advanced textile applications.
Habib et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: