International Journal of Textile and Fashion Technology (IJTFT) ISSN 2250-2378 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 25-38 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

THE QUALITY OF FANCY YARN: PART II: PRACTICAL EXPERIMENTS AND APPLICATION
MALEK ALSHUKUR School 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 fancy yarn. 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 structure needs 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 is number of the non-gimp profiles in a unit length of the gimp yarn, (measured usually in m-1 for gimp yarns), and A is the average area (or size) of the effect profile (usually mm2).

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. 5. 6.

Abnormal projections may only be measured by using the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn. The smaller the value of the ShF the better the quality of gimp yarns. 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,

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 mm2/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 Table 3 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 profiles on 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 abnormal projections per meter on its surface, with an average size equalling 4.66 mm2. 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. The external 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

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 in cone 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 very good-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)

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 semiboucl 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.

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)

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
Cone Number Effect Component Core Component Number of Core Components Binder Supply speed (m/min) Delivery speed (m/min) Rotation Speed (rpm) Wraps (t) (wpm) Overfeed Ratio % Size of nongimp Profiles (mm2) Number of Non-gimp Profiles (m1 ) Subjective Assessment ShF (mm2/m) Linear Density (tex) RSI (mm2/m.tex) 1 24s/3 bamboo 20s cotton 2 polyester 167/34 95 2 30s/3 cotton 20s cotton 2 polyester 167/34 95 3 24s/3 bamboo 20s cotton 2 nylon 145/77 85 4 30s/3 cotton 20s cotton 2 nylon 145/77 85 5 24s/3 bamboo 30s/2 cotton 1 polyester 167/34 85 6 30s/3 cotton 30s/2 cotton 1 polyester 167/34 85 7 24s/3 bamboo 30s/2 cotton 1 nylon 145/77 95 8 30s/3 cotton 30s/2 cotton 1 nylon 145/77 95

70 21000 300 135

60 16000 266.63 158

60 21000 350 141

70 16000 228.57 121

70 16000 228.57 121

60 21000 350 141

60 16000 266.63 158

70 21000 300 135

5.64

4.43

2.95

5.14

3.95

1.40

66.80

0.00

7.60

0.80

15.80

62.80

28.40

excellent 0

acceptable 376.72 179.98 2.09

very good 0 191.27 0

very good 33.66 150.85 0.22

excellent 0 154.79 0

very good 46.61 145.60 0.32

bad 322.79 178.70 1.80

good 112.16 138.04 0.81

188.99
0

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

Fancy Yarn Images of the First Experiment

32

Malek Alshukur

Table 2 Contd., Trial Number Yarns Photos of the First Experiment

Table 3: The Results of the Second Experiment: the Shape Factor of Fancy Yarns (Objective Assessment) and the Subjective Assessment
Yarn Number Effect Component Core Component Binder Component Overfeed Ratio % Wraps (wpm) Number of Non-Gimp Profiles per Meter (m-1) Average Size of Non-gimp Profiles (mm2) Circularity Ratio ShF (mm2/m) Subjective Assessment
Linear Density (tex) RSI (mm2/m.tex)

24s/3 bamboo 30s/2 cotton nylon 14.5/77 158

266.63

Super soft wool 2/11.3 Nm ( 177 tex) Combed cotton Ne=14s/3 (126 tex) Polyester 16.7/34 120 276.6 0 0 130 300 0 0

acrylic, Ne=16s/2 (70 tex) Cotton Ne=30s/2, (40 tex) Polyester 16.7/34 125 300 0 0 135 300 32 4.66 0.63 149.12 excellent
162.36 0.91

158 330 41 3.80 0.46 155.8 good

180.51 0.86

155 300 68.2 5.37 0.56 366.23 very good

177.18 2.06

62.80 5.14 0.44 322.79 bad

178.7 1.80

*i 0
very good
390.8 0

* 0
very good
413.23 0

* 0
good
153 0

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

33

Table 4: Gimp Yarns Made in the Second Experiment Cone Number Images of Gimp Yarns

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 Effect Component Core Component Binder Component Overfeed Ratio % Wraps (wpm) Number of Non-gimp Profiles per meter (m-1) Average Size of Nongimp Profiles (mm2) Circularity Ratio Shape Factor of Fancy Yarn (mm2/m) Subjective Assessment
Linear Density (tex) RSI (mm2/m.tex)

twisted ring-spun cotton yarn, Ne=16s/2 two parallel open-end rotor-spun cotton yarns Ne=20s each Textured multi-filament yarn, 167/34 130 225 14 5.397 0.5065 75.558 good to very good
182 0.41

130 325 0 0

140 225 24 6.27 0.529 150.48 acceptable

185 0.81

140 280 24.4 4.18 0.59 102.41 very good

190.65 0.53

150 225 26 5.718 0.4856 148.66 bad

195 0.76

150 315 36.4 4.38 0.53 159.43 excellent

198.19 0.80

150 350 16 4.04 0.53 64.64 very good to excellent

194.18 0.33

* 0
bad
183.65 0

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

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

35

Table 6 Contd., Case Number Photos of Gimp Yarns

Table 7: Materials Used in the Manufacture of Boucl Yarn and their Properties
Yarn Function Number of Components 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Linear Density tex R72/2 R120/2 140 16.7/34 R72/3 R120/2 140

Level E1

Material Types flexible acrylic purewool, (glenshear) stiff acrylic, multifilament polyester multifilament Cotton cotton/lambswool stiff acrylic, multifilament

Colour canary, cerise fawn beige blue lt. camel undyed beige

Effect component

E2 E3

Binder component Core component

* C1 C2 C3

Table 8: Machine Settings and Boucl Yarn Structure of the Fourth Experiment
Delivery Speed m/min 30 Supply Speed m/min 66 Rotation Speed rpm 8400 Overfeed Ratio % 220 % Wraps wpm 280

Table 9: Results of the Fourth Experiment

Cone Number Cone Description Core Component Effect Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

C1_E1

C1_E2 cotton, r72/3 tex

C1_E3

C2_E1

C2_E2

C2_E3

C3_E1

C3_E2

C3_E3

cotton/lambswool, R120/2 Tex acrylic multifilament, 140 tex flexible acrylic, R72/2 tex purewool, R120/2 tex acrylic multifilament, 140 tex

acrylic multi-filament, 140 Tex flexible acrylic, R72/2 tex purewool, R120/2 tex acrylic multifilament, 140 tex

flexible acrylic, r72/2 tex

purewool, R120/2 tex

36
Binder Wraps (tW) (Wpm) % Size of boucl profiles (mm2) Number of Boucl Profiles (dm1) Shf (mm2/dm) Circularity Ratio (%) Linear Density (Tex) RSI (mm2/m.Tex)

Malek Alshukur

polyester Multi-Filament, R 16.7/34 tex

280 220 10.29 11.93 14.98 9.83 10.59 14.15 12.03 10.24 13.15

20
205.800 60 411.27 5.004

12.7
151.511 55 636.03 2.382

9.6
143.808 56 697.46 2.061

16.6
163.178 61 457.31 3.568

15.2
160.968 57 687.19 2.342

9.9
140.085 49 757.67 1.848

20
240.600 61 491.53 4.894

17.8
173.056 64 713.02 2.427

11.8
155.170 55 792.03 1.959

Table 10: Images of Boucl Yarns of the Fourth Experiment

Cone 1

Cone 2

Cone 3

Cone 4

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 HeriotWatt University, the School of Textile and Design.

REFERENCES
1. BSI. Textiles- Standard atmospheres for conditioning and testing BS EN ISO 139:2005 European Committee for Standardization. 2. BSI. Textiles- Yarn from packages-Determination of linear density (mass per unit length) by the skein method BS EN ISO 2060:1995 European Committee for Standardization.

38

Malek Alshukur

3. 4.

Denton, M. J., & Daniels, P. N. (Eds.). (2002) (11 ed.). Manchester, The UK: The Textile Institute. 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 Carolina State University, North Carolina.

6.

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

7.

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

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