3.quality.2 full

7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full

1/14

THE QUALITY OF FANCY YARN: PART II: PRACTICAL EXPERIMENTS AND

APPLICATION

MALEK ALSHUKURSchool of Textiles and Design, Heriot-Watt University, Galashiels, the UK

Department of Textiles & Technology, Faculty of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Damascus University,

Damascus, Syria

ABSTRACT

In Part I of this paper the author presented and detailed the methods he suggested to account for the subject of

quality of fancy yarn. These include all factors and concepts which should be used to account for the structure of various

types of fancy yarn. In addition, the procedures and apparati needed to apply these methods were detailed. In Part II,

however the author applied his method to deal with gimp yarn and boucl yarn which are traditional two types of fancyyarn. A comparison between these methods and the traditional subjective method of quality assessments of fancy yarns

revealed high levels of agreement. The author produced several different gimp yarns and boucle yarns and then used the

Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn (ShF), the Relative Shape of Fancy Yarn (RSI) and Circularity Ratio of Fancy Profile(CR) to

scientifically and objectively judge the quality of several gimp yarns and boucl yarns. In the end, it was possible to

arrange these yarns in ascending or descending order in terms of their quality, e.g. texture, structure, and fancy bulkiness.

KEYWORDS: Overfed Fancy Yarn, Gimp Yarn, Boucl Yarn, The Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn, The Relative Shape

Index of Fancy Yarn, Area of Fancy Profile or Projection, Number of Fancy Projection, The Circularity Ratio of Fancy

Profile

INTRODUCTION

The Application of SHF and RSI to Assess the Quailty of Gimp Yarn and Overfed Fancy Yarn

Gimp yarn is defined in (Gong & Wright, 2002) as: a compound yarn consisting of a twisted core with an effect

yarn wrapped around it so as to produce wavy projections on its surface. The effect component could be one or more

strands (Tortora & Merkel, 2005), but it is usually thicker and coarser from the core component(s) (Denton & Daniels,

2002; Tortora & Merkel, 2005). Gimp yarns, boucl yarns and loop yarns belong to the same group. Whilst the effect on

the surface of gimp yarns are semi-circular corrugations, they are irregular, semi-circular loops in boucl yarns and circular

loops in loop yarns (Denton & Daniels, 2002). Apart from the method of manufacturing, gimp yarn takes the general

structure presented in Figure 1.

The author of this article used the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarns (ShF) to assess the quality of gimp yarn and it is

measured in mm2/m .In order to use the ShF to evaluate the quality of gimp yarn, one needs to follow the following

procedures:

1. The normal structure of any gimp yarn is usually plain sigmodial as provided in Figure 1. This kind of structureneeds no further measurement depending on this method.

2. The value of the ShF=0 mm2/m in the case of gimp yarns of sigmodial configuration. Where ShF = n A; n isnumber of the non-gimp profiles in a unit length of the gimp yarn, (measured usually in m

-1for gimp yarns), and

A is the average area (or size) of the effect profile (usually mm2).

International Journal of Textile and FashionTechnology (IJTFT)ISSN 2250-2378Vol. 3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 25-38 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.


2/14

26 Malek Alshukur

3. Deviations from such a perfect structure will appear on the surface of the gimp yarn as non-gimp projections.These might be fancy projections of various shapes, i.e. few boucl profiles, arches, bunches, knots, etc., and are

described as abnormal projections on the gimp yarn surface.

4. Abnormal projections may only be measured by using the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn.5. The smaller the value of the ShF the better the quality of gimp yarns.6. Depending on the value of the ShF (mm2/m) the quality of gimp yarns might be excellent, very good, good,

acceptable or bad (this last category cannot be sold as a gimp yarn but it can be sold as a general overfed fancy

yarn which does not have a specific commercial name).

7. Finally, to compare the relative fancy bulkiness of the gimp yarns, one may rely on the value of the Relative Shape Index of Fancy Yarn (RSI). It is given by the formula where Ttex is the linear density of the

fancy yarn in tex.

The reader is referred to part I of this paper for more details about such terms.

Materials

Different types of textile material used to make such gimp yarns and their specification are provided in Table I

below. Gimp yarns were made on a hollow-spindle spinning machine Gemmill & Dunsmore 3 (i.e. fancy twister G&D3).

Machine settings were varied from cone to cone in order to change the structural parameters of the gimp yarns. The

changes resulted were tested by using this method of quality testing. It must be noted that some fancy yarns resulted were

overfed fancy yarns and had no any other commercial description. Thus they were tested within the gimp fancy yarn group.

Table 1 makes provision for the settings of the machine used.

Yarns made in the experiments of this research were preconditioned then conditioned in a standard atmosphere,

i.e. temperature 202 Co

and relative humidity RH=654, in accord with ISO 139:2005 (BSI); the linear density were

calculated in accordance with ISO 2060:1995 (BSI). Four Experiments were conducted; the first three ones deal with gimp

yarns and overfed fancy yarns, while the fourth one deals with boucl yarns.

The First Experiment

The results of the First Experimental are presented in Table 1 while Table 2 provides images of these yarns.

Bearing in mind that the ShF was calculated to measure non-gimp profiles and other uneven projections of the effect

component on the surface of gimp yarns; the smaller the value of the ShF the better the quality of gimp yarns.

The subjective assessments of the same yarns (which depended on the viewpoint of an expert in the field of fancy

yarns) are also included in Table 1. Types of the constituent yarns are also provided. It is widely acceptable to have the

viewpoints of a panel of experts when studying the aesthetics of textile materials. However, in the case of this research, it

was difficult to consult such a panel of experts. Thus, a minimum of one expert was available and his viewpoint was

documented against the calculations of the author methods of quality assessment of fancy yarn.

When a comparison was conducted between the traditional subjective method of assessment and the objective

method (which uses the ShF, the RSI and CR), similar results were obtained. The higher the quality of gimp yarns the

lower the value of the ShF, as presented in Table 1. By comparing these two methods in the second and the seventh cones

it was found that the expert, who was consulted, preferred the former over the latter. The expert considered the gimp yarn

of cone 2 as an acceptable-quality gimp yarn while the gimp yarn of cone7 was deemed to have bad-quality. However,


3/14

The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 27

the actual scientific calculations to the distortion of the fancy yarn structure, as presented by the value of the ShF revealed

the opposite. ShF = 322.79 mm2/m for cone 7, while it was greater for cone 2, i.e. 376.72 mm

2/m. The subjective

assessment has failed to give accurate judgement regarding these two cones.

In terms of the relative fancy bulkiness of these yarns, the value of the RSI is helpful. The order of these gimp

yarns in terms of the non-gimp fancy bulkiness is then: cone 1, cone 3, cone 5, cone 4, cone 6, cone 8, cone 7 and finally

cone 2. This ascending order of relative non-gimp fancy bulkiness also referred to the gimp yarns which are highly having

abnormal structure. The order is the same and cone 2 represents the gimp yarn which has the poorest quality. Values of the

RSI of these cones increased from 0 for cone 1, cone 3 and cone 5 up to 2.09 mm2/mtex for cone 2.

The Second Experiment

In the Second Experiment which was conducted modifications were made to the structure of gimp yarns of the

First Experiment in order to change the quality of gimp yarns made. After that, these changes were tested in order to

compare the traditional method of assessment of fancy yarn, which depends on the subjective assessment of experts in

fancy yarns, and the objective method of assessment presented by the author through the ShF and the RSI. The results of

such experiment are given in Table 3, whereas Table 4 demonstrates images of the yarns produced in the Second

Experiment. The same technology was also used on the hollow spindle spinning machine G&D 3

Referring to Table 3 and even though the materials remained unchanged for some yarns, the quality improved. It

was possible to reduce the number of non-gimp profiles to improve quality. A comparison followed between cone1 & cone

2, cone 3 & cone 4, and cone 5 & cone 6 & cone 7 in Table 3. High level of agreement between these two methods of

assessment was observed. For example, cones 1 and 2, the value of ShF of cone 2 is 155.8 mm2/m which is almost half that

of cone 1, i.e. 322.79 mm2/m and the subjective assessment indicates that the quality improved from bad-quality into

good-quality gimp yarn.

In terms of accuracy, the method suggested by the author is more accurate. If cone 5 & cone 6 & cone 7 of Table3 to be compared depending on the objective method, i.e. the value of the ShF, cone 5 had the best quality, then cones 6

and finally 7 because the value of the ShF increased from 0 through 149.12 to 366.23 mm2/m respectively. However, the

assessor ranked the gimp yarn of cone 6 as the best-quality gimp yarn and appraised it to have excellent-quality, while

cone 5 was appreciated to have only good-quality gimp yarns.

Cone 5 (which is included in the sixth column) was the case in which the yarn did not have any non-gimp profileson its surface. However, because the structure was nearly closed and wavy-shaped, the assessor subjectively

considered it to be just a good-quality gimp yarn.

Cone 6 (which is presented in the seventh column) represents a gimp yarn which had on average 32 abnormalprojections per meter on its surface, with an average size equalling 4.66 mm

2

. The yarn structure was more open

than the previous case; hence, the assessor subjectively considered it to be an excellent-quality gimp yarn in

spite of the existence of several abnormal projections (which were in most cases boucl profiles). The value of the

ShF for this yarn was relatively high and therefore it cannot be considered to be an excellent-quality gimp yarn.

A disagreement between the objective and the subjective assessment was clear in the last column of Table 3. Theexternal assessor ranked the yarn as a very good gimp yarn because its structure was open. In the objective

method of assessment there were 68.2 non-gimp profiles per meter on average on the yarn surface with an average

size of almost 5.37 mm2

,thus the ShF was equal to 366.23 mm2/m. The high value of the ShF means there were

366.23 mm2

of distortion which is distributed on each metre of the yarn. Accordingly, the yarn structure was


4/14

28 Malek Alshukur

highly distorted from the normal structure of gimp yarns provide in Figure 1. Even though such a yarn is still

considered to be fancy yarn, its structure was a combination of several profiles; mainly gimp, boucl, loops,

irregular boucl, closed thin projections, closed loops, etc.

Depending on the objective assessment by using the ShF, it was unpractical to calculate the value of the ShF incone 3, cone 4 and cone 5 because there were no abnormal projections on the surface of the yarns. This being so,

the assessor subjectively ranked the quality of such gimp yarns as very good or only good but not excellent

because the structure was so closed; it was thought that they might be closer to simple wavy yarns. However,

the resultant closed structure was due to the thick yarns which were used to produce such gimp yarns. The

structure of the yarn in cone 5 was closed and the assessor considered it to be wavy yarn; however, other

resources confirmed that gimp yarns are wavy yarns (Gong & Wright, 2002; Meadwell, 2004). The author also

considers gimp yarns, wavy yarns, ratin and fris yarns as different names for the same structure. Thus such an

example may be ranked as excellent by the author.

Regarding the relative fancy bulkiness of the gimp yarns of the Second Experiment, the value of RSI was used.

For gimp yarns, the higher the value of RSI the higher the abnormal bulkiness and thus the lower the quality of the gimp

yarn if compared with other gimp yarns apart from material types, machine settings or structural parameters. Thus, it is

read from the last row of Table 3 that the best-quality gimp yarns are for cone 3, cone 4 and cone 5, then cone 2 through

cone 6 and cone 1 while the lowest quality is for cone 7. Values of RSI of these cones increased from 0 for cone 3, cone 4

and cone 5 up to 2.06 mm2/mtex for cone 7.

The Third Experiment

In the Third Experiment the same material types were used to make all gimp yarns but with different yarn

structural parameters, i.e. the overfeed ratio(%) and the number of wraps(W). The same technology was also used on the

hollow spindle spinning machine G&D 3. Different levels of quality therefore resulted from such procedures. To account

for the deviation from the normal structure of gimp yarns, the same quality parameters having the same interpretation

where used to evaluate this last group of gimp yarn and overfed fancy yarns. The results are provided in Table 5which also

includes the subjective assessment. Only one obvious disagreement was raised, regarding the fancy yarn in cone 2,

between the expert with his own personal judgment and the methods suggested in Part I of this article. The structure of this

fancy yarn was closed, and the assessor considered it to be wavy yarn, even though other resources, mentioned

previously, confirm that gimp yarn is a wavy yarn and the author also personally considers that the terms: gimp yarn, wavy

yarn, ratin and fris yarns are all refer to the same yarn structure. So the author would consider this fancy yarn as

excellent-quality gimp yarn.Depending on values of the RSI of these gimp yarns; it was therefore easy to compare the

quality of all these gimp yarns apart from their thicknesses (tex), raw materials, machine settings and structural parameters

(i.e. % and W). Excellent-quality gimp yarns had very low values of the RSI and in most case it was zero, while verygood-quality gimp yarns had slightly higher values of the RSI. The quality of the gimp yarns diminished when the value

of the RSI was high. In the end, the quality decreases from cone 2, through cones 7, 1, 4, 5, to cones 6 & 3 as the value of

the RSI increased respectively in the same order.

THE APPLICATION OF THE ShF AND THE RSI TO EVALUATE BOUCLE YARN (THE FOURTH

EXPERIMENT)


5/14


Boucl profiles take usually the shape provided in Figure 2 in which they are open projections but not circular; while semi-

boucl profiles are usually semi-twisted but not completely closed. Semi-boucl profiles results on the fancy yarn surface

because of two reasons:

When normal boucl projections roll or collapse on themselves because of winding of the boucl fancy yarn. When the effect component is an unbalanced ply yarn. Stresses may affect the ply yarn in random places and

attempt to roll on the sections of the ply yarn (i.e. the effect component of the final fancy yarn) which do not

touch the base component or those sections which are free from the spiral of the binder.

Accordingly, completely closed loops are not recognised but loops which are not circular, i.e. they usually have

longitudinal shape, may be considered as semi-boucl projections. The actual number of boucl projections is considered

instead of the number of boucl projections readily apparent on the fancy yarn surface. The actual number is the real

number of all boucl profiles, whether these are normal, twisted or rolled on or collapsed onto the structure to take

contingent disposition relative to the base yarn or the sigmoid sections of the fancy yarn, if theses profiles do not collapse

back into the structure when they are raised. If the collapsed boucl profiles return back to take the contingent arrangement

they are excluded from counting because such case results from a defect in the effect component rather than the winding

process on packages.

Materials & Properties of the Fourth Experiment

Different types of material, with different forms and performance characteristics, where used to make the boucl

yarns needed for the purpose of the Fourth Experiment. Properties of materials chosen for the different levels of the

experiment are given in Table 7.

Machine Settings and Yarn Structure of the Fourth Experiment

As mentioned above, two similar effect components in the form of ply yarns, in addition to one base yarn and one

binder, were used to make the final boucl fancy yarns for it was unpractical to obtain satisfactory structure for the boucl

yarn by using only one effect component. The machine settings and the corresponding boucl yarn structural parameters,

i.e. the overfeed ratio and the number of wraps, are given in Table 8. It must be mentioned that the yarns used for the

different levels of the effect components are very considerably in terms of their thicknesses, i.e. linear density, and

accordingly it was also difficult to choose one wrap level suitable to all thicknesses. Thus, the level of wraps used was

mostly suitable for the finer and medium thicknesses rather than the thick effect components.

Results of the Fourth Experiment

The results of the Fourth Experiment are included in Table 9 while images of yarn structures are presented in

Table 10. All boucl yarns made for this last experiment which had a circularity ratio exceeding 0.60 was considered to

have good quality, e.g. cone1, cone 4, cone7 and cone 8. The other cones had inferior quality, while cone 6 had the poorest

quality. In terms of the absolute fancy bulkiness the value of the ShF was the correct measure; this quality decreases

starting from cone 7 (the highest value of the ShF), through cone 1, cone 8, cone 4, cone 5, cone 9, cone 2, cone 3 and

finally cone 6. To account for the relative fancy bulkiness of these boucl yarns the value of the Relative Shape Index of

Fancy Yarn (RSI) was used and it confirmed that the best results were obtained for cone 1, then cone 7, cone 4, cone 8,

cone 2, cone 5, cone 3 and finally cone 9 which had the lowest fancy bulkiness considered in relative measures to the linear

density of the same cone.


6/14

30 Malek Alshukur

Depending on these calculations it was permissible to confirm that the values of the structural parameters of the

boucl yarns chosen proved to be suitable in the case of the finer effect components, i.e. the flexible acrylic ply yarns

R72/2 tex, because they had the highest values of ShF, RSI, and circularity ratio. Additionally, the values of these latter

factors were the lowest for the case of the thickest effect yarns, i.e. the acrylic multi-filament yarn of the linear density 140

tex. These findings can be fully exploited to improve the structure of boucl yarns through modifying the value selected for

the structural parameters of the fancy yarn, mainly the overfeed ratio and the number of wraps, which is totally beyond the

scope of this research.

Finally, even though the author did not have equipment to make fancy yarns of elongated fancy profiles to

compare their quality characteristics, the application of the second group of quality concepts for fancy yarn with elongated

fancy profiles, i.e. AL, TLFP and FLI, follows a similar way.

CONCLUSIONS

In Part II of this article the author successfully applied the methods, presented in Part I, which he suggested to

estimate the quality of fancy yarn. The author applied his methods to test, calculate, estimate and compare the quality of

several gimp yarns and several boucl yarns which were considered as relevant examples of fancy yarn. Depending on the

value of the ShF, the RSI and CR it was possible to define the best quality gimp yarns and boucl yarns amongst other

which were all produced for this piece of research. A comparison between the methods suggested in this research and the

viewpoint of an expert in fancy yarn proved high degree of agreement. The method suggested in this research are objective

and depends on scientific concepts and procedures and these issues make it more reliable and accurate than any subjective

assessment of merely experts in fancy yarns who usually depend on their personal conjecture rather than scientific

procedures. In all cases it is possible to say that the scientific method of this research can be readily used to solve disputes

which might arise between buyers and manufactures or sellers of fancy yarns or disputes between different experts in fancy

yarn should they appear. In closing words it must be pointed out that this method accounts for only the aesthetic, texture

and structure of fancy yarns and does not solely cover or give provision for all quality characteristics of fancy yarn such as

handle, colour, etc.

Figure 1: Gimp Yarn Structure, Adapted from (Gong & Wright, 2002)

Figure 2: Structure of Boucl Yarn , Adapted from (Rameshkumar)


7/14


Table 1: The Results of the First Experiment: the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn (Objective Assessment) and the

Subjective Assessment

ConeNumber

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EffectComponent

24s/3

bamboo30s/3 cotton

24s/3

bamboo30s/3 cotton

24s/3

bamboo30s/3 cotton

24s/3

bamboo30s/3 cotton

CoreComponent

20s cotton 20s cotton 20s cotton 20s cotton 30s/2 cotton 30s/2 cotton 30s/2 cotton 30s/2 cotton

Number ofCoreComponents

2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Binderpolyester

167/34

polyester

167/34nylon 145/77 nylon 145/77

polyester

167/34

polyester

167/34nylon 145/77 nylon 145/77

Supplyspeed(m/min)

95 95 85 85 85 85 95 95

Delivery

speed(m/min)

70 60 60 70 70 60 60 70

RotationSpeed (rpm)

21000 16000 21000 16000 16000 21000 16000 21000

Wraps (t)(wpm)

300 266.63 350 228.57 228.57 350 266.63 300

OverfeedRatio %

135 158 141 121 121 141 158 135

Size of non-

gimpProfiles(mm2)

* 5.64 * 4.43 * 2.95 5.14 3.95

Number of

Non-gimpProfiles (m-1)

1.40 66.80 0.00 7.60 0.80 15.80 62.80 28.40

SubjectiveAssessment

excellent acceptable very good very good excellent very good bad good

ShF(mm2/m)

0 376.72 0 33.66 0 46.61 322.79 112.16

Linear

Density(tex)

188.99 179.98 191.27 150.85 154.79 145.60 178.70 138.04

RSI(mm2/m.tex) 0 2.09 0 0.22 0 0.32 1.80 0.81

Table 2: The First Experiment: Images of the Gimp Yarns Produced

TrialCone

Number

Fancy Yarn Images of the First Experiment

1

2

3


8/14

32 Malek Alshukur

Table 2 Contd.,

TrialNumber

Yarns Photos of the First Experiment

4

5

6

7

8

Table 3: The Results of the Second Experiment: the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarns (Objective Assessment) and the


Yarn Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Effect Component 24s/3 bambooSuper soft wool 2/11.3 Nm

( 177 tex)acrylic, Ne=16s/2 (70 tex)

Core Component 30s/2 cottonCombed cotton Ne=14s/3

(126 tex)Cotton Ne=30s/2, (40 tex)

Binder Component nylon 14.5/77 Polyester 16.7/34 Polyester 16.7/34

Overfeed Ratio % 158 158 120 130 125 135 155

Wraps (wpm) 266.63 330 276.6 300 300 300 300

Number of Non-GimpProfiles per Meter (m-1)

62.80 41 0 0 0 32 68.2

Average Size of Non-gimpProfiles (mm2)

5.14 3.80 0 0 0 4.66 5.37

Circularity Ratio 0.44 0.46 *i

* * 0.63 0.56

ShF (mm2/m) 322.79 155.8 0 0 0 149.12 366.23

Subjective Assessment bad good very good very good good excellentvery

good

Linear Density (tex) 178.7 180.51 390.8 413.23 153 162.36 177.18

RSI (mm2/m.tex) 1.80 0.86 0 0 0 0.91 2.06


9/14


Table 4: Gimp Yarns Made in the Second Experiment

ConeNumber

Images of Gimp Yarns

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


10/14

34 Malek Alshukur

Table 5: The Results of the Third Experiment: The Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn (Objective Assessment) and the


Yarn Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Effect Component twisted ring-spun cotton yarn, Ne=16s/2

Core Component two parallel open-end rotor-spun cotton yarns Ne=20s each

Binder Component Textured multi-filament yarn, 167/34

Overfeed Ratio % 130 130 140 140 150 150 150

Wraps (wpm) 225 325 225 280 225 315 350

Number of Non-gimpProfiles per meter (m-1)

14 0 24 24.4 26 36.4 16

Average Size of Non-gimp Profiles (mm2)

5.397 0 6.27 4.18 5.718 4.38 4.04

Circularity Ratio 0.5065 * 0.529 0.59 0.4856 0.53 0.53

Shape Factor of Fancy

Yarn (mm2/m) 75.558 0 150.48 102.41 148.66 159.43 64.64

Subjective Assessmentgood to

very goodbad acceptable very good bad excellent

very good toexcellent

Linear Density (tex) 182 183.65 185 190.65 195 198.19 194.18

RSI (mm2/m.tex) 0.41 0 0.81 0.53 0.76 0.80 0.33

Table 6: Images of Gimp Yarns Made in the Third Experiment

Case

NumberImages of Gimp Yarns

1

2

3

4


11/14


Table 6 Contd.,

Case

NumberPhotos of Gimp Yarns

5

6

7

Table 7: Materials Used in the Manufacture of Boucl Yarn and their Properties

YarnFunction

LevelNumber of

ComponentsMaterial Types Colour

LinearDensity

tex

Effectcomponent

E1 2 flexible acryliccanary,

ceriseR72/2

E2 2purewool,

(glenshear)fawn R120/2

E3 2 stiff acrylic, multi-filament

beige 140

Bindercomponent

* 1polyester multi-

filamentblue 16.7/34

Corecomponent

C1 1 Cotton lt. camel R72/3

C2 1 cotton/lambswool undyed R120/2

C3 1stiff acrylic, multi-

filamentbeige 140

Table 8: Machine Settings and Boucl Yarn Structure of the Fourth Experiment

Delivery Speedm/min

Supply Speedm/min

Rotation Speedrpm

Overfeed Ratio%

Wrapswpm

30 66 8400 220 % 280

Table 9: Results of the Fourth Experiment

ConeNumber

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ConeDescription

C1_E1 C1_E2 C1_E3 C2_E1 C2_E2 C2_E3 C3_E1 C3_E2 C3_E3

CoreComponent

cotton, r72/3 tex cotton/lambswool, R120/2 Tex acrylic multi-filament, 140 Tex

EffectComponent

flexibleacrylic,

r72/2 tex

purewool,R120/2

tex

acrylic

multi-

filament,140 tex

flexibleacrylic,

R72/2 tex

purewool,R120/2

tex

acrylic

multi-

filament,140 tex

flexibleacrylic,

R72/2 tex

purewool,R120/2

tex

acrylic

multi-

filament,140 tex


12/14

36 Malek Alshukur

Binder polyester Multi-Filament, R 16.7/34 texWraps (tW)

(Wpm)280

% 220

Size of bouclprofiles(mm2)

10.29 11.93 14.98 9.83 10.59 14.15 12.03 10.24 13.15

Number ofBouclProfiles

(dm1)

20 12.7 9.6 16.6 15.2 9.9 20 17.8 11.8

Shf(mm2/dm)

205.800 151.511 143.808 163.178 160.968 140.085 240.600 173.056 155.170

CircularityRatio (%)

60 55 56 61 57 49 61 64 55

LinearDensity (Tex)

411.27 636.03 697.46 457.31 687.19 757.67 491.53 713.02 792.03

RSI(mm2/m.Tex)

5.004 2.382 2.061 3.568 2.342 1.848 4.894 2.427 1.959

Table 10: Images of Boucl Yarns of the Fourth Experiment

Cone 1 Cone 2

Cone 3 Cone 4


13/14


Cone 5 Cone 6

Cone 7 Cone 8

Cone 9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author highly appreciates the help and support of Dr. Alex Fotheringham and Andrew McCullough of Heriot-

Watt University, the School of Textile and Design.

REFERENCES

1. BSI. Textiles- Standard atmospheres for conditioning and testingBS EN ISO 139:2005 European Committee forStandardization.

2. BSI. Textiles- Yarn from packages-Determination of linear density (mass per unit length) by the skein methodBSEN ISO 2060:1995 European Committee for Standardization.


14/14

38 Malek Alshukur

3. Denton, M. J., & Daniels, P. N. (Eds.). (2002) (11 ed.). Manchester, The UK: The Textile Institute.4. Gong, R. H., & Wright, R. M. (2002). Fancy yarns: Their manufacture and application. Cambridge, The UK:

Woodhead Publishing Limited.

5. Meadwell, E. S. (2004).An Exploration of Fancy Yarn Creation. Degree of Master of Science, North CarolinaState University, North Carolina.

6. Rameshkumar, C. Fancy Yarns for Fashion. Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, PSG College ofTechnology. Coimbatore.

7. Tortora, P. G., & Merkel, R. S. (Eds.). (2005) (7th ed.). New York, The USA: Fairchild Publication.

i(*) could not be applied for this case because there were no projections to be measured.

3.quality.2 full

Documents