Date post: | 03-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | tjprc-publications |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 14
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.
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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,
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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)
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
5/14
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 29
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.
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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)
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
7/14
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 31
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
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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
Subjective Assessment
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
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
9/14
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 33
Table 4: Gimp Yarns Made in the Second Experiment
ConeNumber
Images of Gimp Yarns
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
10/14
34 Malek Alshukur
Table 5: The Results of the Third Experiment: The Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn (Objective Assessment) and the
Subjective Assessment
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
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
11/14
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 35
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
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
13/14
The Quality of Fancy Yarn: Part 2: Practical Experiments and Application 37
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.
7/29/2019 3.Quality.2 Full
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.