ALTERATIONS OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF LONG STAPLE
COTTON BY COMBING, DRAWING, AND ROVING
A THESIS
Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate Division
by
Larry B. Whitworth
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Textiles
Georgia Institute of Technology
September, 1967 In presenting the dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology, I agree that the Library of the Institute shall make it available for inspection and circulation in accordance with its regulations governing materials of this type. I agree that permission to copy from, or to publish from, this dissertation may be granted by the professor under -whose direction it was written, or, in his absence, by the Dean of the Graduate Division when such copying or publication is solely for scholarly purposes and does not involve potential financial gain. It is under stood that any copying from, or publication of, this dis sertation which involves potential financial gain will not be allowed without written permission.
3/IT/65 b ALTERATIONS OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF LONG STAPLE
COTTON BY COMBING, DRAWING, AND ROVING
Approved: ^' 4 : ; Chaii
Date appr oved by Cha irman:^J^7/ /; /y^ . DEDICATED
To my wonderful and loving Mother
Mrs. Myrtice Littleton Whitworth Ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At the conclusion of this academic year of graduate study, the author would like to express sincere appreciation and gratitude to the
following persons or organizations:
Mr. Winston Boteler, thesis advisor.
Mr. Richard B. Belser, for providing invaluable aid, advice and
inspiration throughout the year.
Dr. James L. Taylor, for providing a graduate assistantship to pursue graduate study.
Dr. H. A. Peacock, Research Agronomist, United States Department of Agriculture, for providing assistance in data collection and personal consultation.
Mr. Paul E. Hilley and Mr. J. Morgan Davis for allowing the col lection of specimens and valuable technical assistance.
Mr. Conrad Meaders for assistance in frictional measurements.
Mr. J. W. McCarty for use of instruments required for measurement.
Mr. Ralph C. Lathem for his aid as a member of the reading committee.
Mr. Jack R. Kilgore for valuable technical consultation.
My fiancee, Carol Ann Dumas, for understanding and encouragement during the graduate study.
My grandmother, Mrs. Corine W. Littleton for her faith and encouragement during my college career. IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES x
SUMMARY xiii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem Purpose of Research Review of Literature
II. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT 11
Raw Materials Processing Equipment Textile Processes Investigated Fiber Measurement Apparatus
III. MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE 23
Sample Selection Length Distribution Measurement Strength Determinations Fiber Fineness Measurement Fiber Frictional Analysis Data Comparison Methods
IV. EXPERIMENTAL WORK 37
General Fiber Strength Length Distribution Fiber Fineness
V. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 64
Introduction Fiber Length Distribution TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Chapter
Fiber Strength Measurements \ Fiber Fineness Fiber Friction Discussion
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71
Conclusions Recommendations
APPENDIX 74
BIBLIOGRAPHY 172 VI
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Summary of Average Values of Strength, Elongation, Fineness, and Friction of Processes Investigated 38
2. Summary of Coefficients of Static Friction for Processes Investigated 60
3. Summary of Coefficients of Kinetic Friction for Processes Investigated 62
4. Operating Data for Opening, Cleaning, and Picking 75 5. Operating Data for Piatt Revolving Flat Card 76
6. Operating Data for Ideal Drawing 77
7. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Lap Winder 78
8. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Model 140 Comber 79
9. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Drawing 80
10. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Rovematic Roving Frame 81
11. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Spinning 82
12. Comber Lap Cotton Array Data 83
13. Comber Noil Cotton Array Data 84
14. Combed Sliver Cotton Array Data 85
15. Breaker Drawing Cotton Array Data 86
16. Finisher Drawing Cotton Array Data 87
17. Roving Cotton Fiber Array Data 88
18. Roving No Twist Cotton Array Data 89
19. Comber Noil Fibrograph Data 90 Vll
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
20. Comber Lap Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data 91
21. Comber Noil Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data 92
22. Combed Sliver Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data 93
23. Breaker Drawing Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data 94
24. Finisher Drawing Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data 95
25. Roving Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data 96
26. Comber Lap Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley 97
27. Comber Noil Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley 98
28. Combed Sliver Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley 99
29. Breaker Drawing Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley .... 100
30. Finisher Drawing Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley .... 101
31. Roving Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley 102
32. Comber Lap Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley .... 103
33. Combed Sliver Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley 104
34. Breaker Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley 105
35. Finisher Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley 106
36. Roving Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley 107
37. Comber Lap Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* .... 108 Vlll
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
38. Combed Sliver Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* 109
39. Breaker Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* 110
40. Finisher Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Press ley* Ill
41. Roving Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* 112
42. Comber Lap Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Steloraeter 113
43. Combed Sliver Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer 115
44. Breaker Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer 117
45. Finisher Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer 119
46. Roving Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer 121
47. Comber Lap Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* 123
48. Combed Sliver Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* 124
49. Breaker Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* 125
50. Finisher Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* 126
51. Roving Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* 127
52. Comber Lap Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data 128
53. Comber Noil Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data 130 ix
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
54. Combed Sliver Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data 132
55. Breaker Drawing Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data 134
56. Finisher Drawing Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data 136
57. Roving Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data .... 138
58. Comber Lap Single Fiber Energy Measurements 140
59. Comber Noil Single Fiber Energy Measurements 142
60. Combed Sliver Single Fiber Energy Measurements 144
61. Breaker Drawing Single Fiber Energy Measurements .... 146
62. Finisher Drawing Single Fiber Energy Measurements " 148
63. Roving Single Fiber Energy Measurements 150
64. Comber Lap, Combed Sliver, and Comber Noil Fiber Fineness Data 152
65. Breaker Drawing, Finisher Drawing, and Roving Fiber Fineness Data 153
66. Friction Measurements for Comber Lap Fibers 154
67. Friction Measurements for Comber Noil Fibers 155
68. Friction Measurements for Combed Sliver Fibers 156
69. Friction Measurements for Breaker Drawing Fibers 157
70. Friction Measurements for Finisher Drawing Fibers 158
71. Friction Measurements for Roving Fibers 159
72. Friction Measurements for Yarn Fibers 160 X
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Cottons Producing Yams of Different Strengths But the Same Elongation for a 30/1 Yam 5
2, Cottons Producing Yarns of Approximately the Same Strength But Different Elongation for a 30/1 Yarn • •. 3. Relation of Fiber Average Stiffness to Yarn Average Stiffness at Twists for Maximum Single Strand Strength for a 30/1 Yarn 7
4. Sequence of Operations ...... 12
5. General Operation of Comber 14
6. General Operation of Drawing Frame 16
7. General Operation of Roving Frame 18
8A. Instron Tensile Testing Machine 21
SB. Enlarged View of Jaws . , 22
9. Fibrogram of Comber Noil Sample 40
10. Weight-Length Distribution of Comber Lap, Comber Noil, and Combed Sliver Specimens 41
11. Weight-Length Distribution of Breaker Drawing a:nd Finisher Drawing Specimens 42
12. Weight-Length Distribution of Finisher Drawing and Roving Specimens 43
13. Plot of Zero Gauge Pressley Tenacity Measurements Versus Selected Processes 46
14. Plot of One-Eighth Gauge Pressley Tenacity Measurements Versus Selected Processes 48
15. Plot of One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer Tenacity Measurements Versus Selected Processes , • . . . 50 XI
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
16. Plot of One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer Elongation Measurements Versus Selected Processes 51
17. Instron Single Fiber Strength Measurements Versus Selected Processes 53
18. Instron Single Fiber Elongation Measurements Versus Selected Processes 54
19. Average Fiber Energy Break Measurements Versus Selected Processes 56
20. Plot of Micronaire Readings Versus Selected Processes 57
21. Plot of Average Coefficient of Kinetic Friction Versus Selected Processes 61
22. Plot of Average Coefficient of Static Friction Versus Selected Processes 63
23. Typical Friction Plot Exhibiting Damaged Fiber 161
24. Typical Frictional Plots for Selected Processes, Series I 162
25. Typical Frictional Plots for Selected Processes, Series II 163
26. Egyptian Menoufi Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 164
27. Pima S-2 Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 165
28. Comber Lap Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 166
29. Comber Noil Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 167
30. Combed Sliver Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 168
31. Breaker Drawing Optical and Electron Micrographs * (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 169 xii
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Figure Page
32. Finisher Drawing Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 170
33. Roving Fiber Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface 171 Xlll
SUMMARY
In order to determine the effect of several processing steps on cotton fiber physical properties, a blend of Menoufi and Pima S-2 were processed through combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing,
and roving. Specimens were selected before and after each process.
The physical properties of length distribution, strength, elongation, fineness, and fiber friction were determined and the magnitude of the effect of processing examined. It was noted that changes in these cotton fiber properties were small when the effect of the entire pro cess was assessed. This result was accounted for by the selective nature of the successive processes in retaining the longer and more desirable fibers and excluding the shorter and damaged fibers. It is evident that two processes are at work: first, the effect of the selection process with a positive result; and second, a fiber damage effect with a negative result. These combine algebraicly to give the small alterations reported. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
In the production of a yarn the fiber is subjected to many forces and deformations. With the increased machine speeds and package sizes, greater d3mamic forces during processing are being imposed upon various textile materials.
In the present research the effects of processing on cotton fibers is of particular interest. Yarn properties have been shown to be related to fiber properties (1), and the control of fiber damage during process ing is becoming increasingly important to the production of a high quality yarn.
In order to understand the effect of mechanical processing on the physical properties of fibers, it is necessary to evaluate these proper ties before and after each process and to compare the data obtained for any observable alterations or trends,
A number of investigations have been made by others indicating that the physical properties of certain cottons could be correlated with yarn properties. However, these studies did not trace the changes occur ring in the fibers as a result of each individual preparation stage.
Effects through some of the earlier stages have been reported (2).
Goldfarb (3) examined the cotton fiber as affected by ginning. The fibers of this investigation were medium staple cottons. Levy (4) examined the effect of opening, cleaning, picking, and carding. He limited his study to Empire W R Cotton grown in Georgia.
With results of Levy and Goldfarb in mind, it was planned to exam ine the physical properties of long staple cotton fibers as they were processed through combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving.
Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research is to investigate the fiber proper ties of strength, elongation, fineness, length distribution, and friction for a blend of Pima S-2 grade 3 and Egyptian Menoufi grade 3 cottons before and after the selected preparation processes.
The specimens to be investigated were taken from a special run of a normal mix of a commercial facility. The various parameters were meas ured in the fiber evaluation laboratory of the A. French Textile School,
Georgia Institute of Technology. After analysis and statistical evalua tion of the data it was expected that the effect of the principal mechani cal processes on the physical properties of the selected fibers would be delineated.
Review of Literature
Until the introduction of synthetic and man-made fibers, cotton processors enjoyed a profitable monopoly in the production of economical textile yarns and fabrics. Today, on the other hand, the situation has become highly competitive. In order to cope with competitors, the tex tile yarn manufacturer is being forced to increase the quality, production rate, and yield of his product.
The trend toward higher production rates, accompanied by higher processing speeds, is placing added stresses on the fibers and yarns dur ing processing (5).
The majority of the research in the past has been concerned with the cotton fiber before processing and its relation to the quality of the finished yarn. In these studies, the parameters of fiber length, fineness and strength have been utilized as the major criterion for the selection of the optimum fiber for particular end-product production (6).
Virgin and Wakeham related yarn strength to five properties, fineness, uncrimping energy, elastic modulus, breaking stress and mean length (7).
They noted that strong yarns result from fine fibers with small crimp and high values of modulus, strength and length.
In another study of the effect of processing on cotton fiber pro perties, Rebenfeld investigated samples from several processes including the original bale, the yarn, the scoured fabrics, and the bleached and mercerized fabrics as well as resin-finished fabrics. He noted that cotton fiber properties of breaking stress, elongation, elastic modulus, and uncrimping energy were altered by mechanical processing (8). Fiber elongation decreased from 8.8 to 8.4 percent as the fibers were processed from the bale to spinning. Fiber uncrimping energy decreased from 1.04 to 0.79 g/cxiT. There was a marked increase in the fiber elastic modulus
(from 64 to 82 mg/cm X 10"-^). These alterations were attributed to the tensions exerted on the fibers during the carding, roving, and spinning operations.
Fiber length, fineness, strength, maturity, and grade contribute in different degrees of importance to yarn quality according to Balls (9).
In a study of the effect of fiber bundle strength and elongation on the properties of combed single yarns, Louis e_t suL. indicated that tenacity and elongation properties of single yarns are related directly to fiber elongation of the cottons from which they are spun. Using the tenacity
divided by the percent elongation, a toughness index was calculated and
this figure compared to the yarn impact properties of three selected
counts. Here, there was shown a linear increase in the impact properties of the yarns as the toughness of the fibers increased (10).
A study was conducted by Fiori e_t a/l, investigating the effect of cotton fiber bundle break elongation and other fiber properties on the properties of a course and medium singles yarn (11). Forty-three cottons, varying in fiber properties were used to show the relation of fiber bundle
break strength and elongation to properties of a coarse medium yarn. It was found that yarns produced from these cottons varied considerably in
strength and elongation. Yarn strength and elongation were found to be directly related to the properties of the cottons used. As shown in
Figure 1, it is possible to produce, by varying twist, yarns of different
strengths but of the same elongation from different cottons. Figure 2 shows data for cotton yarns of the same strength but of different elonga
tion produced from three different cottons at varying twist multipliers.
From the slope of the elongation curves, it can be seen that the elonga
tion of the yarn is of marked importance and may be controlled by twist whereas the breaking strength is a function of the cotton selected. For
these and other reasons, Fiori ranked fiber break elongation first and
strength second in importance as contributors of yarn elongation for a
selected count (12). This was varified by Virgin and Wakeham (13).
The maintenance of efficiency in operation of the spinning and 3800 C
3600
3400 I— CD
3200
CJD 3000 6 8
< 2800 C UJ
2600 < <: >- >-
2400 < I ' I I I I I I ^ 3.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 4.0 .2 .4 .6 3.6 .8 4.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 5.0 NOMINAL TWIST MULTIPLIER
Figure 1. Cottons Producing Yarns of Different Strengths But the Same Elongation for a 30/l Yarn.
T—I—I—r T I I I I I I r 10
CD 2100
2000 QQ
CO 1900 <
1800 - J I ' ' I J I I I I I <>- 3.4 .6 .8 4.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 4.2 .4 .6 .8 5.0 .2 ,4 .6 i NOMINAL TWIST MULTIPLIER
Figure 2. Cottons Producing Yarns of Approximately the Same Strength But Different Elongation for a 30/l Yarn. subsequent textile processes is dependent to a certain extent on the
ability of the textile material to absorb dynamic stresses. For this reason, Fiori e_t ajL. suggested a quality index of stiffness, defining
the resistance to deformation of fibers, and a toughness index, the
ability of the textile material to absorb work. These were used as a means of relating fiber and yarn properties to processing efficiency, or
the number of ends down at various processing stages (14). The relation
of fiber stiffness to yarn stiffness is exhibited in Figure 3. From this
it can be seen that as the fiber stiffness index increases, so does the
average yarn stiffness.
The fact that the fineness of cotton fiber can be related to fab
ric and yarn properties has been known since the time the spinning wheel was the only method of yarn production. Using a selection of Seaberry,
Sea Island, Mesa, Acala, Tanguis, and Rowden, Fiori and Brown investigated
the effect of fineness on the physical properties of single yarns. The
fineness of the fibers ranged from 2.9 to 5.6M'g per inch, with the other
fiber properties approximately equal. From this study, it was found yarns made from coarse fibers required more twist to attain maximum strength
than the yarns made from the fine fibers. It was indicated that finer
fibers tend to break more readily with high turns per inch, possibly
creating unruly yarn. If fine fibers are used in yarns with high twist multipliers, the fibers will tend to buckle because of an over twisting
effect, whereas coarse cottons of equal staple lengths will have less
tendency to do so (15).
Considering the effect of fiber length distribution on the propor
tion of fiber-strength utilized in cotton yarns, Kohler investigated 1 I I I I I I I r T—r I r 40.0 o
35.0 X en S- cni— 30.0 to UJ 25.0
00 LU 20.0 CD
15.0 cm >- 10,0 - J 1 I I I J I L_J UJ- 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 48.0
FIBER AVERAGE STIFFNESS (//elong ) ^^^^
Figure 3. Relation of Fiber Average Stiffness to Yarn Average Stiffness at Twists for Maximum Single Strand Strength for a 30/1 Yarn. the theoretical probably use of fiber strength and its dependence on fiber length. He studied the influence of the fiber length on the num ber of fibers that rupture when the yarn is broken. It was shown that not all fibers are strongly fastened by the insertion of twist, and some fibers at the rupture point of the yarn slid apart. These fibers which slipped apart had their ends close to the yarn rupture point. The actual number of fibers which break are dependent on the strength of the fiber and the friction between them (16). From experiments by Gulati and
Turner, it was pointed out that the length slippage was about 8 ram in a yarn of 27-30 turns per inch (17). From curves presented by Kohler, it appeared that it was impossible to use more than 80 percent of the fiber strength for fibers of an average length of 20 ram (18).
Investigations of the effect of fiber properties on the prepara tion processes have been primarily directed towards the effect of the fiber property and its influence on the yarn irregularity and yarn strength. Loveless investigated the effect of raultiple drawing process
(19). By passing a selected sliver through a Whitin drawing frarae three to thirty tiraes, he was able to show that the strength of the subsequent yarn increased and possessed a higher degree of evenness. However, as the drawing processes exceeded three, the sliver became difficult to handle and ultimately the efficiency of the following processes was reduced (20).
Morton studied the arrangement of the fiber in the card sliver
(21). His studies lead to the conclusion that approximately half of the fibers of card sliver could be classified as trailing hooks. It was pointed out that these hooked fibers were possibly created as the fibers were transferred from the cylinder to the card doffer (22). In a later study (23) by Morton, it was shown that the comber efficiency could be increased by the inclusion of an even number of processes between card ing and combing. This presented the major portion of the hooks as lead ing hooks. An investigation by Mullikin and Newton (24) concerned with the effect of fiber length distribution on noil removal indicated that a
50 percent reduction of fibers shorter than one-half inch is achieved by combing and that noils increase as the length variation of the fibers presented increases.
Wakeham et al. (25) studied the effect of mechanical blending on the cotton fiber properties. They observed small changes in the mechan ical behaviors of the cotton fibers as a result of blending. The elastic modulus decreased from 0.407 to 0.0385 for three passes and the breaking 2 stress was reduced from 4.16 to 4.01 g/cm . There was also noted a slight reduction in the fiber crimping energy (from 0.95 to 0.85 g.cm./cm. X 10 )
By reducing the normal setting of the blender by one sixteenth of an inch, the mean and upper half mean lengths of the longer fibers increased by
0.01 to 0.03 inch
In contrast, Grant e_t aj^. (27) reported that length distribution, fineness, breaking load, and tenacity do not change as a result of mechan ical processing. However, these fiber properties, on a collective basis and under ideal conditions exist, still leave approximately 20 percent of the variance of spinning quality unaccounted for (28).
In experiments conducted by Pillay (29 and 30) it was shown that torsional rigidity, fiber length, and fineness of cottons are signifi cantly related to hairiness of the final yarn. Here, an indication of 10
fiber alignment and the migration of the fibers as they were processed was correlated with the protruding fiber ends of the yarn.
Although a major portion of the damage as previously reported and as related to yarn quality has been attributed to the early prepa ration processes, there still remains a great deal of controversy as to the extent and type of fiber damage occurring and as to the stages of the processing in which it occurs. No clear cut measurements of the effects resulting from each processing stage have been made in sufficient quantity; nor have the measurements at each stage been correlated with the properties of the yarn produced.
This research will furnish details now lacking concerning the effects on the properties of cotton fibers of selected processing stages of a selected cotton fiber blend and the relative magnitude of these effects. 11
CHAPTER II
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
Raw Materials
The raw materials used in this study were obtained from a com mercial facility. The fiber specimens consisted of a blend of Egyptian
Menoufi, Grade three, and American Pima S - 2, Grade three, the latter being a hybrid of the Egyptian variety. Specimens for investigation were selected from the stock as it was being processed through the
stages of combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving.
Processing Equipment
The sequence of operations for the production processes is dis played in Figure 4. The blending of the two cottons is accomplished at the opening stage. Here, the bales are opened and allowed to pre condition. The fiber mass is allowed to expand and gain moisture. The moisture absorption is necessary in order to prevent the breaking of the brittle dry fibers in the opening and picking machinery (31).
The preparation processes to which the fibers were subjected prior to the operations investigated are as follows:
1. Saco-Lowell Bale Breaker with Automatic Weight Pan.
2. Saco-Lowell Cleaning and Blending Feeder.
3. Aldrich Super-Jet Cleaner (two cleaners in tandem).
4. Saco-Lowell One Process Picker.
5. Piatt Revolving Flat Card, 1896. 12
Opening Blending
Cleaning
Picking
Carding
Pre-Drawing
Lap Winding
Combing
Breaker Drawing
Processes Investigated
Finisher Drawing
Roving
Spinning
Figure k. Sequence of Operations 13
6. Ideal Feathertouch Drawing, Model 750.
7. Saco-Lowell 10%" Lap Winder.
The operational data for these and succeeding processes are
shown in Tables 4-11 of Appendix.
Textile Processes Investigated
The first preparation process investigated was combing. Here,
the Saco-Lowell Model 140 comber was used. The drafting element employed
by this comber was a 4-over-5 system. The percent comber noil removed was 14. The sliver delivered was 52.0 grains per yard.
The comber was fed with laps from the Saco-Lowell Lap Winder.
These laps consisted of 20 slivers made into a 10% inch lap. The average
weight of these laps was 850 grains per yard. This comber is a double
sided comber having six heads per side. Each head of the comber is fed
by a lap; a total of twelve laps are required for a complete creel.
The general operation of the comber (32) can be seen in Figure 5.
The lap is positioned in the creel by means of a set of lap rolls. The
fibers are fed into the combing mechanism by a feed roller. The feed
roller moves forward a certain distance for each nip. This movement of
the feed roller delivers a small amount of stock to the nipper knife and
cushion plate (Figure 5A). Here, the fringe of cotton is gripped by the
nipper knife and cushion plate and the fringe is acted upon by the half
lap. As can be seen, the half lap is a cylinder having a portion of its
circumference covered with needles. As these needles pass through the
fringe they remove short fibers, impurities, and entanglements. This
waste is taken from the needles by a revolving brush and removed from --:.^^^^,
COMB
LENDER ROLLS
HALF-LAP ROLL Figure 5. General Operation of ComlDer. (Reference 32) H -pr- 15
the comber as noil (33).
During this operation the fringe of cotton being combed is entirely separated from the fringe of cotton which has been previously combed (Figure 5B). In the next step, the combed fringe is detached from the fibers which have not been combed and the previously combed fibers are brought back and pieced-up with the fibers which have just been combed (Figure 5C). After piecing-up, the fibers just combed are brought forward and the rear ends of the fibers now receive a combing action (Figure 5D).
The combed web is condensed slightly and then delivered on a table. Along the length of this table, the webs from five other combing positions are fed into the draw box and a sliver formed.
The second stage of preparation investigated was breaker drawing.
Here the Saco-Lowell Versamatic drawing frame was used to reduce ten combed slivers to a 60 grain sliver. The drafting unit was a 4-over-5 system with synthetic covered top rolls.
Figure 6 exhibits the general operation of a drawing frame (34).
Briefly, drawing is the extension of a fiber mass by progressive sliding of the fibers along one another in order to extend the length of the mass.
Drawing is often considered as the most important process in the manu facture of a yarn. It is the last process in which irregularities from the preceding processes can be corrected. Successive passages through the draw frame aid in paralleling the fibers and aligning them with the central axis (35).
Doubling, which is the combining of several slivers into one, aids in the blending of the fibers. This doubling is responsible for averaging FRONT DRAFT ROLLERS ROLLS CALENDER ROLLS
Figure 6. General Operation of Dra¥ing Frame. (Reference 3^)
H ON 17
of weight variations existing in several slivers fed into the draw frame.
A pre-determined number of slivers from the preceding processes are fed into the back of the drafting element, where attenuation takes place (Figure 6). The drafting element consists of a combination of top and bottom rolls. Using progressively increasing surface speeds, each pair of rollers grips the fiber mass and pass it on to the next succeed ing pair. Defining draft as the ratio of the surface speed of the deliv ery roll to the surface speed of the feed roll, an attenuation of the sliver is obtained.
The speeds and settings of the drawing rolls are established to give the necessary drawing action to reduce the weight per yard of the slivers fed to the back of the frame and straighten the fibers as they are drawn past one another. The drawing rolls are so arranged that each pair, set at a definite distance from the next pair, grips the sliver being fed to it (36). The action of these rolls, when their settings are not properly maintained, is responsible for a great deal of the damage imposed on the single fiber (37).
Finisher drawing, the third process investigated, used an Ideal
Feathertouch 750, operating at 500 feet per minute. The doublings were
8 and a 60 grain per yard sliver was delivered. Operational data for this process is presented in Table 6 (Appendix).
Roving, the fourth process investigated, used a Saco-Lowell
14 X 7 roving frame. The average size of the stock delivered was a 1.60
Hank Roving with a 1.20 twist multiplier.
As illustrated in Figure 7, in the roving process two changes are 18
FLYER
BOBBIN BOBBIN BOBBIN GEAR SHAFT L \
kK
SPINDLE SHAFT ?:
k/
Figure J. General Operation of Roving Frame, (Reference 38) 19
made in the form of the sliver delivered from the drawing frame (38).
The sliver is reduced in diameter and weight per yard by drawing. Second, twist is inserted to hold the fibers of the reduced sliver together (39).
The twist is inserted by the rotary motion of a device called a flyer.
In addition to reducing the sliver to the required diameter and weight per yard, the roving process offers an opportunity to further increase the evenness through doubling. The purpose of the drawing frame is then fourfold: 1) to reduce the thickness of the sliver; 2) to make the product more uniform; 3) to insert twist in the roving (by use of flyer); and 4) to wind the roving on a bobbin (40).
Fiber Measurement Apparatus
The instruments used in the evaluation of the physical properties of the fibers were selected from available commercial equipment. The instruments used were as follows:
1. The Pressley Fiber Strength Tester.
2. The Stelometer Fiber Strength Tester.
3. The Suter Webb Cotton Sorter.
4. The Digital Fibrograph (and Fibrosampler).
5. The Sheffield Micronaire.
The Pressley and Stelometer strength testers made use of the bun dle method for the determination of fiber strength. The Stelometer also made it possible to measure fiber elongation.
The Suter Webb Sorter was used to measure length distribution of the fibers by weight percent. The Digital Fibrograph was used to obtain an estimation of the mean and upper half mean lengths of the specimens investigated. The Sheffield Micronaire was used to measure fineness as 20
the fibers were processed.
To determine the properties of single fiber strength, elongation and friction, it was necessary to use two instruments not common to the normal textile laboratory.
Single Fiber Strength and Elongation
To measure single fiber strength and elongation, an Instron Ten sile Tester was used. It.is a versatile, constant rate of extension, instrument using an electronic strain gauge for measuring the load required to rupture a specimen. The strain gauges are contained in a load cell which is located in the top of the instrument. It is possible to vary the capacity of the instrument by selection of the required load cell. The tensile range capability of the instrument was 10 grams to
10,000 pounds. The range of crosshead speeds was from 0.02 to 20.0 inches per minute. The speed of the recorder chart could be varied from
0.2 to 50.0 inches per minute. See Figure 8A.
For single fiber evaluation the "A" cell was used; its capacity is 10 to 50 grams. For evaluation of the specimens under investigation, a full scale setting of 10 grams was used. A set of small jaws. Figure
8B,capable of holding a single fiber were obtained from the Instron
Company.
The area under the stress-strain curve was determined by use of a
Leeds and Northrup Integrator attached to the recorder section of the instrument,
Fiber-to-Fiber Friction
A Servo-Controlled Friction Apparatus developed by Mr. B. R.
Livesay and T. E, McBride (41) was used to evaluate the fiber-to-fiber 21
Figure 8A. Instron Tensile Testing Machine. 22
Figure 8B, Enlarged View of Jaws, 23
friction before and after each process. Design and operation of the friction apparatus, including its variables, was thoroughly explained by J. P. Bryant (42) in his investigation of factors which influence the frictional properties of textile fibers.
The instrument as developed made use of a D'Arsonval Galvanometer, a mechanical balance, a fiber driving mechanism, a servo system, and a
X-Y plotter to collect data on fiber-to-fiber friction.
A fiber was mounted across a U-shaped holder which was then fas tened to the galvanometer pointer with jeweler's wax. A second fiber was placed in a holder which was fastened to the end of a slender tube approx imately ten inches long. This tube was supported at its balance point by sapphire bearings and a vertical shaft. The latter was driven by a syn chronous motor and a reduction gear at 1/75 revolution per minute (43).
Adjustments of the normal force between the fibers was made with a moving weight controlled by a micrometer screw. With the fibers in contact at a known normal force, movement of the upper fiber across the lower one
(attached to the Servo Controlled Galvanometer) produced an electrical signal proportional to the frictional force. This was fed to the X-Y plotter producing an analog of the friction forces with respect to time and hence fiber position plot.
Area under a length of curve determined by a Planimeter allowed calculation of the Kinetic coefficient of function for the fiber, and peak heights gave data for the static coefficient of friction. 24
CHAPTER III
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE
Sample Selection
The samples under investigation were taken from a commercial production facility. Random samples weighing approximately two pounds were taken from the end-product of each processing stage. These samples were placed in polyethylene bags and taken to the fiber evaluation labor atory at Georgia Institute of Technology. The samples were removed from the sample bags in the laboratory and allowed to come to standard condi tions (65 percent relative humidity at 70 degrees fahrenheit).
The fibers under investigation were collected as a sample run was processed through the stages of combing, breaker drawing, finisher draw ing, and roving.
The sample run was begun by selecting twelve laps from the sliver lapper at random. From each of these laps, specimens weighing approxi mately one-third pound were taken from each lap and the total sample blended for testing. The average size of the laps sampled was 847.67 grains/yard.
Next, the comber was doffed and all trash and fiber from preceding production thoroughly removed. The twelve sample laps were placed in the creel and the comber allowed to run for five minutes (to insure all foreign material was removed). The comber was stopped after the five minute interval and the noil and waste from the processed fibers were 25
removed. Ten half cans were processed at the comber. Random samples were taken from each can. The average size of the combed sliver was
53.8 grains/yard.
Samples were also taken from the noil produced. Small specimens were selected as the ten cans of stock were being processed. These
specimens were selected from beneath each of the six heads of the comber.
The total sample of noil was blended and set aside for future evaluation.
One head of the breaker drawing frame was cleared and the ten cans of combed sliver creeled-in. Eight cans of breaker drawing stock were accumulated. As the stock passed into the cans, random samples were
selected from each of the eight cans. The average size of the breaker drawing sliver was 62.4 grains/yard.
The eight cans of sliver from the breaker drawing process were creeled-in at one head of the finisher drawing frame. After allowing the foreign stock to pass through, two cans of sliver were collected. Speci mens were taken at random from these two cans. These samples were blended and set aside for future testing. The average size of the sliver at the finisher drawing process was 60.5 grains/yard.
The two cans of finisher drawing sliver were creeled into two positions of the Rovematic roving frame. The frame was allowed to run for one and one-half hours and the bobbins produced in this time interval removed for evaluation. (A sample was also taken of the roving before
the twist was inserted.)
Strength Determinations
For measurement of fiber strength both the bundle and single fiber 26
methods were employed. Before each series of bundle strength determina tions (for both the Stelometer and Pressley instruments) a check sample was made on a calibration cotton furnished by the USDA. From the values obtained with these calibration checks a correction factor was determined,
The methods employed and the procedures used are outlined in the following paragraphs.
The Pressley Tester
To insure that accurate results were being obtained, the instru ment was checked to be sure it was level and the beam in proper opera ting order as discussed by the operating manual (44). The clamp leathers were checked for damage.
Small tufts of fibers were selected from various locations in the sample. These fibers were paralleled by hand and then combed, using the fine comb on the torque vise. The short fibers removed by this combing were discarded. The remaining ribbon of parallel fibers was placed across the opened clamps and arranged so that the ends were positioned an equal distance on each side of the clamps. The approximate width of the fiber bundle was one-fourth inch. The fibers were held across the clamps and the top clamps were locked in place. Using the torque wrench, the clamps were tightened on the fiber sample. Each clamp was tightened to eight inch-pounds pressure.
The clamps were removed from the vise. The protruding ends of the fiber bundles were sheared from the sides of the clamps and the clamps inserted in the instrument. The beam was released by lifting the locking lever, and the weight moved down the beam. When the sample broke and the weight stopped, the breaking strength was read to the nearest 0.1 pounds. 27
Samples which exhibited a break strength of 10 to 20 pounds ( j;_ five percent) were considered acceptable. Readings outside this range were disregarded.
On completion of the measurement, the clamps were removed from the tester and placed in the vise. The tufts of fibers were removed from the clamps and weighed on a torsion balance to the nearest 0.1 mg.
Using the observed break strength in pounds and the bundle weight in milligrams, the tenacity of the samples was calculated using the fol lowing formulas:
1) Pressley Index = Breaking load in pounds x Check Level Bundle weight in milligrams
2) Tenacity (gm/tex) = Pressley Index X 0.54 (Zero Gauge)
To evaluate the strength at one-eighth inch gauge, it was neces sary to use the one-eighth spacer supplied with the clamps used for the test. The procedure was the same and the formulas used were as follows:
1) Pressley Index = Breaking load in pounds x Check Level Bundle weight in milligrams
2) Tenacity (gm/tex) = Pressley Index X 0.68
The Stelometer Strength Tester
Test specimens were taken from a fibrograph comb. These combs were prepared as outlined in ASTM test procedure D 1447-54T (45). Using the sample clip, the fibers were grasped at a point so as to allow the fibers to span the jaw and one-eighth inch spacer. Short fibers were removed by combing. 28
The clamps were placed in the vise and the fiber bundle mounted in them as recommended by the manufacturer. The top clamps were snapped in place and tightened. The clamps were removed from the vise and the protruding fibers sheared away flush to the outside of the clamps.
After checking the instrument to be sure it was in proper opera ting order, the clamps were placed in the instrument and the release trigger depressed. When the fiber bundle broke, the break strength and percent elongation were recorded to the nearest 0.01 kilogram and 0.1 percent respectively.
The pendulum was then reset and the clamps removed. A check was made for proper fiber breakage and if a satisfactory break was observed the fibers were removed from the clamps and the fiber bundle weighed on a torsion balance. The bundle weight was recorded to the nearest 0.01 milligram. Specimens were discarfed if an irregular break appeared or the break strength was less than three kilograms.
From the values obtained, the following calculations were made:
1) Tenacity = Breaking load (k^) X 1.5 X 10 ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ Bundle weight m milligrams
2) Percent Elongation r Elongation X 0.8 X Check Level
The Instron Tensile Tester
For single fiber strength and elongation determinations the "A" cell was used. The gauge length was set at 0.25 inches. The crosshead speed used was 0.2 inches per minute. The recorder chart speed was two inches per minute.
Jaws capable of holding a single fiber were obtained from the 29
Instron Company. These jaws, Figure 8, were so designed that a single fiber could be mounted directly without the use of a mounting apparatus as employed by Levy (46).
For each specimen population a fibrograph comb was used to pre pare a beard. Using the top fiber jaw, a single fiber was removed from this beard. A wide field magnifying desk lamp was used to be sure only one fiber was being selected and that the fiber was mounted in the center of the jaw. The knurled lock nut on the jaw was tightened to prevent slippage during fiber breakage.* The opposite end of the fiber was secured to a 300 milligram weight using jeweler's wax. The average weight of the wax was 60 milligrams.
With the weight attached to the loose end of the fiber, the top jaw was suspended from the load cell. The free end of the fiber placed in the bottom jaw, and the knurled lock nut of the bottom jaw tightened to prevent slippage.*
Having mounted the fiber, the down button was depressed and the fiber stressed. The reading for loading as indicated by the integrator was recorded on the stress-strain graph after each fiber break. Only those fibers which broke at a point approximately equidistant from the upper and lower jaws were used as test specimens. Fibers which pre sented jaw breaks were discarded and the reading ignored.
With respective readings of the integrator, the following for mulas were used to obtain the energy expended in rupturing the fibers:
*An average of five turns of the lock nut was required to pre vent slippage. 30
1) E s X X L X 5,000
Where:
E • Energy in inch-grams
L a Full Scale load in grams (full scale = 10 grams)
X a Integrator Reading
2) 1 inch-gram = 2489.20 dyne-cm
3) E (dyne-cm = 2489.20 X E (inch-gram)
To calculate the elongation of the individual specimen, the
number of divisions traveled on the chart were counted and the following
formula was then used:
A = C X R X I X 100 D X Z
Where:
A = Percent Elongation
^ = Crosshead Speed (inches per minute) D = Chart Speed (inches per minute)
R s Inches per Division (0.1)
I B Number of Divisions Traveled by Pen
Z a Specimen Gauge Length (0.25 inches)
Length Distribution
To evaluate the length distribution of the specimens the Digital
Fibrograph Model 230-A and the Suter Webb Sorter were used. 31
Digital Fibrograph
Although this instrument is primarily designed to measure the span length of the short and medium staple cottons, it was used here to obtain an estimation of the mean and upper half mean of the specimens.
After calibration of the instrument according to the method recom mended by the manufacturers operation manual (47), fibrograph combs were prepared using the fibrosampler. Two such combs were prepared and placed in the comb carriers of the instrument. These fiber beards were brushed removing loose fibers and trash. The lighthouse was then lowered and the
100 percent button depressed. The range for acceptance of the sample was
1400 to 1800 on the amount counter. The 50 percent button was then depressed and the length recorded. This represented the approximate mean. The 2.5 percent button was then depressed and an approximation of the upper half mean was obtained. From these two readings a uniformity ratio was calculated as:
Uniformity Ratio = 50 Percent Reading X 100 2.5 Percent Reading
From observation, the length of the fibers of the comber noil sample was believed suitable for the preparation of a fibrogram. To obtain the necessary points of length and amount, readings were taken by adjusting the set percent button in increments of five percent from 99 to five percent.
Suter Webb Array Method
To obtain a length-weight distribution, the Suter Webb fiber array method was used. Assistance in this portion of the study was 32
provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, Knoxville,
Tennessee. The fibers were tested according to ASTM method D-144-55
(48).
Briefly, the Suter Webb method consists of separating a 75 milli gram sample into carefully segregated groups of fibers of known length.
The groups are formed by using a double bank of parallel combs spaced at 1/8 inch increments (49). The fibers are paralleled in the series of combs in such a manner that all fiber lengths are grouped from the base comb. The different length groups are separated by dropping the combs consecutively and arranging the fibers according to length (1/16 inch increments) on velvet covered boards. The fibers of each length group are collected and weighed. From these weight-length data the upper quartile length, mean length, and coefficient of variation were calcu lated.
Fiber Fineness
The Sheffield Micronaire was used to assess the fineness proper ties of the fibers under investigation. The Micronaire operates on the principle of resistance to air flow (50). The rate of flow through a given weight of fibers is dependent on the surface resistance, of the fibers. This resistance to flow is greater for fine fibers than for coarse ones.
The instrument was calibrated according to the manufacturer's recommendations. A 50 grain sample was weighed on a Shadowgraph balance and placed in the compression chamber. The compression plunger was inserted and locked in place (this compresses the cotton fiber 33
sample into a cylinder one inch in diameter and one inch long). The
foot pedal was depressed causing an air pressure of six pounds per
square inch to be passed through the fibers in the compression chamber.
A reading of micrograms per inch was taken directly from scale located
on the instrument. After taking the reading, the compression plunger
was removed and the specimen blown from the chamber. The air was turned
off by depressing the foot pedal and a new sample prepared for testing.
Fiber Frictional Analysis
This test was performed in the Engineering Experiment Station,
Georgia Institute of Technology. The instrument used has been described
in Chapter II.
To obtain data from the friction apparatus, a fiber was mounted
on the galvanometer needle and a second on the lever arm. The two were
placed in contact with their axes horizontal and at 90 degrees to each
other. The normal force between the fibers was established by a micro meter driven weight on the end of the lever arm opposite the fiber. This weight was normally preestablished by means of a very sensitive chaino- matic balance previous to contact. The fibers were then brought into contact by elevating the galvanometer element to the proper height by means of a screw driven jack table.
Once the proper contact was established and the electronic equip ment was turned on and properly warmed up, the fiber-drive motor and
recorder drive were switched on simultaneously (or in rapid succession).
As the driving motor displaced the upper fiber, the galvanometer needle was displaced by frictional contact between the fibers. This motion was 34
detected by an optical sensing method. Simultaneously, the servo acti vated a restoring force by means of a current through the galvanometer coil and its associated magnetic field. The servo currents thus produced were proportional to the frictional forces between the fibers at any given instant. Since a potential equivalent to the current at any
instant could readily be supplied to the X-Y plotter, an analog plot of the frictional forces between the fibers was obtained.
Using a Keuffel and Esser planimeter, the area under the analog plot was obtained. The following formulas were used to derive the static and kinetic frictional values for the fibers under investigation.
1) - _ (A + A) X 6.45 2 X Base Line Length
2) Hj^ _ 1.85 X H Average Normal Force
3) H Ten High Peaks "^^ = 10
4) M- L85 X H S : :;;— max Average Normal Force 5) ^/M-]^ " Ratio of Static to Kinetic Coefficient of Friction
Where:
H = Average Height of Curve k = Average Height of Curve H max r Maximum Height of Peaks
8 = Static Coefficient of Friction
'"^s/jj, = Ratio of Static to Kinetic Coefficients of Friction 35
Comparison Methods
In order to interpret the data obtained from each series, it was decided to compare the mean and variance of the data sets for statisti cal significance.
Comparison of Variances
To compare the variance of samples, it was assumed that no pre vious experience was available for analysis. Therefore, the variance of two sets of data from the same type test was determined. For example, the variance of data before and after the combing process, as measured by the Pressley zero gauge test, was determined.
The following formula was employed to compare the variances obtained (51): 2 F.- °1
Where:
F = F ratio 2 s s Larger Variance 2 s = Smaller Variance
The F ratio obtained was located in the probability table using n-1 degrees of freedom. Since the samples being compared had the same number of specimens, the position of the F comparison was the same for a series of tests.
Comparison of the Means
The significance between the means of two sets of data from the 36
same series of data was compared using the Student's-t distribution
(52).
t = 1 "2 SJ~1/NT + 1/N, 1 ^"'2
/ N s, N^s With s=^l-LJ: + 2 2 N, ^ N^ - 2
Where
X^ = Average of Sample 1
Xp = Average of Sample 2
N 1 = Size of Sample 1
N^ = Size of Sample 2
s? = Variance of Sample 1
s2 = Variance of Sample 2
^ = Degree of Freedom 37
CHAPTER IV
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
General
In conjunction with a commercial production facility, random samples were taken before and after the processes of combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving. The fibers investigated were a blend of
Pima S-2 grade 3 and Egyptian Menoufi grade 3. To limit the size of the population from which the samples were taken, a special test run was made. The samples selected, as noted in Chapter III, were placed in the fiber evaluation laboratory of the A. French Textile School, Georgia
Institute of Technology.
The samples were allowed to condition (at standard conditions of
65 percent relative humidity and 70 degrees fahrenheit) for seventy-two hours. The equipment and procedures discussed in Chapters II and III were employed to evaluate the physical properties of strength, elongation, fineness, and length distribution. Assessment of the frictional proper ties of the fibers was performed at the Engineering Experiment Station,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
The results of the effects of the selected processes will be dis cussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
Fiber Length Distribution
The Digital Fibrograph Model 230 -A was used to obtain an esti mation of the mean and upper half mean lengths of the fibers before Table 1. Summary of Average Values for Strength, Elongation Fineness and Friction of Processes Investigated
PROPERTIES PROCESSES INVESTIGATED EVALUATED Comber Combed Drawing Sliver Comber Lap Sliver Breaker Finisher Roving Noil
A. Strength (Pressley and Stelometer results re]porte d in g/tex) 1. Pressley 45.2 45.1 43.7 46.0 44.5 46.3 (gm/Tex) a. 0" Gauge 45.2 45.1 43.7 46.0 44.5 46.3 b. 1/8" Gauge 32.4 32.2 32.2 32.3 32.1 2. Stelometer (1/8" Gauge) 31.5 31.0 30.2 28.0 32.1 3. Single Fiber 5.4 5.5 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.3
B. Elongation 1. Stelometer 8.3 7.3 8.1 7.1 7.8 2. Single Fiber C. Fineness 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.2 D. Friction a. |j,s .453 .417 .413 .433 .383 .386 b. |ik .225 .209 .213 .224 .197 .173 c. |j,s/(ik 2.03 1.99 1.94 1.94 1.93 2.34
00 39
and after the processes under evaluation. Twenty specimens were pro
cured before and after each process for a total of 120 specimens. The measurements exhibited in Tables 20-25 were made.
The mean length and upper half mean length for the fibers at the
stages under evaluation are summarized below:
Mean Length Upp er Half Mean (Inches) (Inches)
1) Comber Lap .747 1.40 2) Comber Noil .337 0.97 3) Combed Sliver .845 1.45 4) Breaker Drawing .833 1.42 5) Finisher Drawing .850 1.44 6) Roving .850 1.45
Uniformity ratios for the processing stages of normal production sequence
(1, 3 -6) exhibited values in the range of 53 to 60. Because such values are above the theoretical limit of the instrument, the results for the
investigation were taken as estimations only.
On the other hand, the uniformity ratio for the comber noil sample averaged 35. It was then decided to use the procedure presented in
Chapter III to prepare a fibrogram.
The fibrogram prepared for the comber noil sample is displayed in
Figure 9. The length data obtained by measuring the length and amount at
five percent intervals is shown in Table 19.
Fiber length distributions as determined by the Suter Webb Array method, presented in Chapter III, are displayed in Tables 12-18. Figures
10-12 exhibit fiber length by percent weight.
As expected from the estimations obtained by the Digital Fibro- graph, the most marked difference in length distribution was noted for specimens measured before and after the combing operation. Average mean 1|0
MEAN LENGTH = 0.52 ± 0 UPPER HALF MEAN = 0.79 ± 0
o
LU CO
5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 SPAN LENGTH IN INCHES
Figure 9. Fibrogram of Comber Noil Sample. 1+1
1 3 5 7 9 n 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 LENGTH IN INCHES (1/16's)
>-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 LENGTH IN INCHES (1/16's)
Figure 10. Weight-Length Distrihution of Comber Lap, Comber Noil, and Combed Sliver Specimens. Il2
_J 13
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
LENGTH IN INCHES (1/16's)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 LENGTH IN INCHES (1/16's)
Figure 11. Weight-Length Distribution of Breaker Drawing and Finisher Drawing Specimens.
r k3
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 LENGTH IN INCHES (1/16's)
9 11 13 15 17 19 23 25 27 LENGTH IN INCHES (1/16's)
Figure 12. Weight-Length Distribution of Finisher Drawing and Roving Specimens. 44
lengths of 1.04 inches, 0.57 inches, and 1.15 inches were obtained for the comber lap, comber noil, and combed sliver samples. Subsequent processes of breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving presented average mean lengths of 1.13 inches, 1.15 inches, and 1.13 inches respectively.
Comparison of the Upper Quartile length, indicated the effect of increased values of length after combing were relatively small. The average Upper Quartile Length before combing was 1.29 inches. After combing, this length increased to 1.36 inches with the noil producing an average reading of 0.82 inches. Results of the processes following combing were: breaker drawing, 1.35 inches; finisher drawing, 1.37 inches; roving, 1.35 inches.
In a combing operation, it can be seen that the comber noil posses ses a significant amount of short fibers. From results obtained, the percent of fibers in the comber noil specimen which were less than one- half inch was 47.90. The percentage of fibers from the comber lap specimen which were less than one-half inch averaged 9.70. This figure was reduced to 3.79 for the combed sliver. Considering measurement variance, the percentage of fibers under one-half inch in length for processes following combing remained approximately the same. Breaker drawing exhibited 4.04%, finisher drawing 3.83%, and roving 4.29%.
Fiber Strength
Fiber strength specimens were taken at random from the samples collected. For bundle strength determinations, it was necessary to determine a correction factor by using a calibration cotton obtained from 45
the United States Department of Agriculture. In testing the single fiber, no such correction was obtained.
Pressley Fiber Strength Tester
Both zero and one-eighth gauge strength determinations were made using the Pressley Tester. The procedure for each series of tests has been outlined in Chapter III.
Using zero gauge, 25 tests were performed at each processing stage under investigation, for a total of 150 measurements. The mean, standard deviation, variance, and coefficient of variation were com puted for each series of data. The results of these tests are reported in Tables 26-31 of the Appendix. For comparison with measurements of other properties discussed subsequently, a summary of the Pressley measurements are given in Table 1.
The F test indicated no significant difference in the variance for 98 and 90 percent levels. However, there was a significant differ ence indicated for variance of the lap (3.36 gm/tex) as compared to the variance of the roving fibers (1.57 gm/tex) at the 90 percent level.
Using the Student's-t distribution, there was a significant dif ference in the means of the combed sliver versus breaker drawing, finisher drawing versus breaker drawing, and roving versus comber lap.
Figure 13 displays a graphical representation of tenacity subse quent to the various processing stages. Careful observation of Figure 13 indicated a small decrease in the average tenacity of the fibers. This is not readily observable when each process is studied separately, but when viewed collectively it can be noted that the tenacity of the fibers from the roving sample is 1.67o lower than the fibers from the comber lap. 50
O
40
>-
<:
30
Q. CD CD
i. > d) CO s- s- o Q Q E -a Cxi E O (U S- s- O c_>
Figure 13- Plot of Zero Gauge Pressley Tenacity Measurements Versus Selected Processes. 47
The average tenacities for zero gauge Pressley are displayed in row one, columns one through six of Table.1.
One hundred and fifty Pressley one-eighth gauge measurements were made; 30 for each position excluding comber noil. The results for each set of measurements are shown in Tables 32-36 of the Appendix (includ ing the average tenacity, standard deviation, variance, and coefficient of variation). They are also reported in Table 1 previously cited.
The comber noil fibers were found to be too short to span the gauge of the jaws properly. The break strength in pounds indicated on the beam failed to fall within the range noted in Chapter III for a satisfactory test and the results were thus discarded.
A series of parallel measurements of Pressley bundle strength were performed on the specimens through the aid of the United States
Department of Agriculture Cotton Testing Laboratory of the Georgi
Experiment Station, Griffin, Georgia. These results are shown in Tables
37-41 of the Appendix and are displayed in Figure 14 (where 0 represents these results).
Using the F test of variance significance, a significant differ ence was found between the variances of breaker and finisher drawing processes. However, there was no difference found for the remaining process variances using the F test. The Student's-t distribution indi cated no difference in the means of the comber lap, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving.
Using the same calculation methods, there was no difference in the variance and means of the data furnished by the Georgia Experiment
Station. TENACITY (gm/Tex) 4^ CAi O ^>f r
Comber Lap O \> Clt»
9n 50 A Measurements from Georgia Institute of Technology 40 O Measurements from Georgia Experiment Station 30 >- 20 10 Q. s- O^ O^ C71 fO 0) c c E _l > •r- •^ •r- •r- 5 ^ > S- p— n3 (O o 0) oo s- Od jQ Q%. -o a o (U S- s- o .Q Figure 15- Plot of One-Eight Gauge Stelometer Tenacity Measurements Versus Selected Processes. 51 — ^ A 7 - ^ O 0 **" ^"^^^O--^ ^ A O < — A ^ A Measurements from Georgia Institute of Technology O Measurements from Georgia Experiment Station 5 - Vw k 1 1 1 i 1 o. i. Figure l6. Plot of One-Eight Gauge Stelometer Elongation Measurements Versus Selected Processes. 52 elongation are shown in row five of this table. Instron Tensile Strength Measurements of Single Fibers Using a chart speed of two inches per minute and a crosshead speed of two tenths of an inch per minute, three hundred single fiber tests were performed. For comparative purposes, the mean, standard deviation, variance, and coefficient of variation were calculated for each series of fifty measurements. The initial full scale deflection selected was 20 grams. However, since the majority of the fibers tested gave a maximum break strength of about 8 grams, a full scale deflection of 10 grams was selected for the test series. It was noted that the recorder pen did not always leave the zero position simultaneously with the activation of the crosshead. With the ratio of speeds employed, this deviation represented a factor of one to six percent of the gauge length used. This recorder deviation could also be explained by fiber crimp removal and these values were thus disregarded, Results of tests performed on the single fibers are shown in Tables 52-57. Row four of Table 1 gives the average break strengths of the single fibers subsequent to the respective processes investigated. Row six of Table 1 exhibits the mean elongations of these fibers. From Figure 17 it can be seen that there seems to be a minor increase in the fiber strength when the first process investigated and the last are compared. At the same time, Figure 18 shows a minor decrease in elongation of these fibers. Using the F test, there was found to be no significant difference in the variances of the strength or elongation. The Student's-t test 53 Q. ,— s>. O) rtJ •p— (U c c -J o > •r- •p- z •r- > s. r— o 0) s^ CO J3 (U Q o x> s- s- o cu 0) o JC ro CO u CO SELECTED PROCESSES Figure IT. Instron Single Fiber Strength Measurements Versus Selected Processes. 5i^ 19 o — o 18 — o o o 17 — i 16 o <1—: ^ 15 — -J ^ 14 — 13 — 12 r 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 O) o. sz •p- 2 o> (O s- a: o E o o s- o Xi s- o ro o (U •p- s- c OQ SELECTED PROCESSES Figure l8. Instron Single Fiber Elongation Measurements Versus Selected Processes. 55 also showed that there was no significant difference in the means of these populations. This implied that the observed differences observed could be attributed purely to chance. Fiber Energy Measurements The integrator readings obtained during the single fiber strength determinations were reduced to the equivalent energy measurements using the equations presented in Chapter III. The results obtained are reported in Tables 58-63. Figure 19 depicts graphically the variation of the average energy reading obtained for the processes investigated. It can be seen that there is a general trend of reduction in energy to break as the fibers are passed through the successive processes. The major reduction occurs after the comber noil fibers have been removed. The average value of energy required to break the fibers of the lap is 296.38 dyne-cm. The values for comber noil and combed fibers are 307.37 and 257.28 dyne-cm respectively. This reduction can be understood when it is considered that the combing operation is removing an average of 14 percent by weight of the short and damaged fibers. The energy measures after the combing operation fluctuate within measurement error, but remained approximately the same. Fiber Fineness Using the procedure outlined in Chapter III, the fineness of 120 specimens was measured, 20 before and after each preparation process under evaluation. The results of these tests are recorded in Tables 64 and 65 and are displayed in Figure 20. \ 400 - 300 o "OT"——-O— ^^^xr e •o 200 >- on LJJ 100 Q. ,— s- CD cn CD 03 •I— O) c c C _J o > •1— "r- •r— z: •r— :5 S > S- 1— rtj fO o cu s- oo s- s- Q; .n O) Q Q E XJ -a O E cu S_ S- C_) o xa O) OJ o E jcr O .r^O CJ •r(/—) SELECTED PROCESSES Figure 19. Average Fiber Energy Break Measurements Versus Selected Processes. o^ CD —b' Od ^I—I 3 <: o o 2 ^ ot s- I— T3 S- s- cn cn CD •I— E E -r- .f^O S t/1 S > o O O I— SELECTED PROCESSES Figure 20. Plot of Micronaire Readings Versus Selected Processes 58 The sample mean, variance, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation, expressed as a percentage, was calculated for each set of data. Application of the F test and the Student's-t test indicated no significant difference in the fineness of the cotton fibers as a result of the processing stages under investigation. Careful observation of the data of Figure 20 will reveal a trend of decreasing fineness as the fibers are processed. The average micro- naire reading for comber lap, comber noil, combed sliver, breaker draw ing sliver, finisher drawing sliver, and roving are 3.7, 2.8, 4.0, 4.1, 4.0, and 4.2 respectively. From the trend of increased micronaire reading, there is an indi cation of the finer fibers being removed. An example of the removal of the finer fibers can be noted from the results obtained by investigation of the comber lap, comber noil, and combed sliver. Here the noil, which is shorter and finer is purposely removed by the combing operation. Fiber Friction Using the apparatus developed by Mr. B. R. Livesay and T. E. McBride and the procedure presented in Chapter III, fiber-to-fiber friction was measured before and after each textile process, including spinning, under investigation. Twenty-eight sets of fibers were evaluated, four from each process under investigation. Three separate analog plots of frictional data were obtained for each pair of fibers for a total of 84 friction plots. Coefficients of static and kinetic friction were determined from the plots. For each series the sample mean, standard deviation, variance 59 and coefficient of variation, expressed as a percentage, was calculated. The values obtained are exhibited in Tables 66-72 and are summarized in Table 1 preceding. Application of the F and Student's-t tests indicated no signifi cant difference in the values obtained for the static coefficients of friction. This is also true for the kinetic coefficient of friction. Figures 21 and 22 exhibit processes versus static and kinetic coefficients of friction respectively. From these it can be seen that there is a trend for the reduction in the frictional properties as the fibers are being passed from the bale to the final process. By evaluating the character of the curves produced from the various processes it was possible to assess the alteration in the shape characteristics of the fibers under investigation. From Figures 23 and 24 it can be seen that the height and distribution of the peaks became generally more uniform as the fibers advanced through the preparation stages. From previous investigations, the peaks of the frictional plots have been related to the surface irregularities of the fiber (53). Figure 25 exhibits such a surface irregularity which caused the needle of the galvanometer to be displaced a distance which was beyond the maximum amplitude of the X-Y plotter. Such a curve was found for fibers from the combed sliver, comber noil, and finisher drawing. These peaks generally indicate some fiber damage due to mechanical abrasion or par tial rupture. 60 Table 2. Summary of Coefficients of Static Friction for Processes Investigated Specimen Comber Comber Combed Breaker Finisher Number Lap Noil Sliver Drawing Drawing Roving Sp inning 1 .485 .295 .490 .391 .451 .332 .302 2 .538 .306 .510 .434 .370 .263 .381 3 .525 .256 .471 .419 .405 .307 .372 4 .432 .411 .498 .428 .424 .335 .445 5 .440 .413 .477 .406 .443 .353 .418 6 .436 .463 .487 .401 .443 .317 .407 7 .407 .386 .387 .415 .402 .484 .419 8 .421 .310 .355 .433 .364 .492 .467 9 .401 .382 .373 .381 .350 .453 .422 10 .429 .493 .317 .446 .502 .406 .389 11 .474 .458 .319 .390 .541 .436 .362 12 .444 .464 .326 .410 .479 .423 .401 S 5.432 4.637 5.000 4.954 5.192 4 .601 4 .785 X .453 .386 .417 .413 .433 0 .383 0 .399 9 .002 .005 .440 0.0004 .003 0 .005 0 .002 s's- .014 .02 .210 .02 .02 .07 0,.0 1 AVERAGE COEFFICIENT OF KINETIC FRICTION o o o __i__i__i_jr\3rororo cr>"^00U3O—'roco oooooooo r-TT / / Comber Lap / r\:) H / Comber Noil •i H - o / H- O o c+ C+- o 0 ^ > CO Combed Sliver < < m fD 0) CO PO o p: (TO -H M fD O m CO O o fD -o Breaker Drawing (-' Hj fD H3 o H- o c+ O m Spinning 19 62 Table 3. Summary of Coefficients of Kinetic Friction for Processes Investigated Specimen Comber Comber Combed Breaker Finisher Number Lap Noil Sliver Drawing Drawing Roving Spinning i .233 .149 .220 .223 .211 .167 .144 2 .251 .150 .247 .220 .191 .140 .194 3 .244 .122 .231 .215 .225 .177 .178 4 .249 .219 .230 .231 .203 .182 .252 5 .255 .253 .222 .204 .219 .196 .246 6 .249 .207 .274 .214 .211 .188 .204 7 .194 .203 .217 .199 .217 .233 .211 8 .172 .180 .180 .207 .196 .244 .235 9 .208 .201 .193 .212 .193 .224 .214 10 .216 .136 .176 .233 .270 .203 .208 11 .221 .125 .170 .212 .290 .217 .207 12 .206 .135 .153 .189 .259 .204 .223 S 2.698 2.080 2.513 2.559 2.685 2.368 2.516 X .225 .173 .209 .213 .224 .197 .210 s2 .006 .076 .101 .093 .001 .001 .001 s .024 .28 .10 .31 .01 .03 .03 AVERAGE COEFFICIENT OF STATIC FRICTION o o COOJOJC04i»-P='-P»-P5>-p!>-f5»-pi ooooooooooo i i I I i i Comber Lap / r\3 / / ^ i-d / 4 H Comber Noil H- o / o c+ c+ o / O / '^ > ^ Combed Sliver < < / 0) a> o —I / p; cfQ m ftC)O O o on5 o Ig Breaker Drawing /o c+ o fD o m / oo •-d hi CO O / o oo (D Finisher Drawing W M (D CO Roving Spinning t £9 64 CHAPTER V DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Introduction The data presented in the previous chapter have been analyzed by graphical and statistical methods. The graphs have been displayed. The data obtained are summarized and compared in Table 1. Data Analysis Fiber Length Distribution An increase in fiber length was noted as the fibers passed through the preparation processes investigated. Approximation of the mean and upper half mean lengths as measured by the Digital Fibrograph indicated an overall increase of fiber length. The most marked increase occurred at the combing operation. The lengths measured for the breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving processes remained essentially the same. Since the uniformity ratios of the values obtained for the Fibrograph were greater than the theoretical capabilities of the instrument, these values were considered not completely valid. A more accurate measure of the fiber length distribution was obtained by use of the Suter Webb cotton array method. From the measure ments obtained, there was an indication of increased length distribution as the fibers proceeded through the preparation processes investigated. As approximated by the Digital Fibrograph, the greatest increase in per cent length by weight occurred after the combing operation. There was an 65 9.67o increase in the mean length of the fibers when the results of the combed sliver were compared to the mean length of the comber lap. Obser vation of Figure 24 quickly indicates the effect of the combing operation on the length distribution processing stock. By having the comber set to remove 14%, the effect is to remove the majority of the short fibers in the comber lap and allow the greater percentage of fibers in the combed sliver to approach the desired lengths. This removal of irregular length fibers produces a fiber mass with greater uniformity. The removal of the short fiber by the comber is reflected by the percent fiber less than one- half inch. The comber noil possessed a total of 47.90 percent fiber less than one-half inch in length. Observation of the data and length by percent weight curves gives a good picture of the effect of the overall process as it affected length distribution. After the combing operation it can be seen that the general length distribution remains approximately the same. The fluctuations in the mean and upper quartile lengths for the breaker drawing, finisher drawing and roving processes can be attributed to measurement error. Strength Measurements Comparison of the data revealed a very slight trend of increasing tenacity as the fibers progressed through the preparation processes investigated. Combining the results obtained at the Georgia Experiment Station and those obtained at Georgia Institute of Technology, an increase of 1.9 percent was noted for Pressley one-eighth gauge tenacity. These trends are represented graphically in Figures 13 and 14 of Chapter IV. On the other hand, Pressley zero gauge exhibited a slight 66 decrease in tenacity. This decrease is reflected in the actual length of the fibers being tested. Here, there is represented an infinitely small length of fibers to which stress is applied and there is less chance for support by surrounding fibers of the bundle. The results of the Instron Tensile Tester indicated an increase of 1.8 percent in the breaking strength of the single fiber. Although the F and Student's-t tests indicated no significant difference in the results, the trend of increase in strength is believed to be a true one. Fiber Elongation The average percent elongation of the cotton fibers investigated presented a decreasing trend as the fibers were passed through the pre paration processes of combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving. An average elongation of 8.1 percent was found for fibers from the comber lap and the average from roving was found to be 7.6 percent for a decrease of 6.2 percent. This decrease in elongation is depicted in Figure 16. As may be seen from Table 1, the single fiber elongation remained approximately the same. The average single fiber elongation for a fiber selected from the comber lap was 17.6 percent with the fibers from roving showing an average elongation of 18.0 percent. Both F and Student's-t tests revealed that the difference in the readings obtained could be attributed to chance selection of specimen. Fiber Energy Measurements As with other fiber properties, the energy required to rupture a single fiber exhibited a slight change of value as the fibers were passed through the preparation processes. The greatest reduction in energy occurred between the fibers measured from the comber lap and those of the 67 combed sliver. Fibers from the comber lap possessed an average energy at rupture of 296.38 dyne-cm. The average energy required to break the fibers from the combed sliver was 257.28 dyne-cm. Comber noil fibers, which exhibited the greatest energy to break, averaged 307.37 dyne-cm at break. As was seen with the strength and elongation measurements, the average energy required to break the single fiber remained approximately the same for the processes following combing. Finer Fineness After combing, an increase in Micronaire reading was noted. This increase can be accounted for by the removal of the noil. The overall affect of the processing was an 11.9 percent increase in the Micronaire reading, from 3.7 before combing to 4.2 after combing. The combing operation indicated an increase of 4.8 percent when the comber lap and combed sliver results were compared. Fiber Friction There was observed a decrease in the values of static and kinetic friction. The average value for the kinetic coefficient of friction before combing was 0.225. The average value for the static coefficient of friction after combing was 0.209. With the comber noil fibers showing an average value of 0.173. Breaker and finisher drawing exhibited aver age values for the coefficient of kinetic friction of 0.213 and 0.224, respectively. The average value of kinetic friction measured for roving fibers was 0.197. The final processes investigated, spinning, exhibited an average value of 0.210. This represented an overall decrease of 6.7 percent based on the value for the fibers before combing. 68 The values for the coefficient of static coefficient of friction also exhibited a decrease through the processes of combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving. The values were 0.453, 0.417, 0.413, 0.433, 0.383, and 0.399 respectively. With the comber noil showing an average value of the static coefficient of friction of 0.386, These values, when examined for validity, showed no statistically significant variation. This indicated that the differences in the values obtained could be attributed to chance, although it appears unlikely that the variations in static coefficient observed are due to chance alone. Examination of the character of the curves presented at each processing stage indicated a reduction in the irregularity of the curve as the fibers were processed. These indicate changes in the fiber shape and that measurements of frictional parameters have value in assessing the fiber alterations occurring as a result of processing. Discussion As indicated by the literature survey, the cotton fibers are exposed to considerable tension and abrasion as they are processed into a yarn. Although these forces may be of varying magnitude, the relative energy absorbed by the fiber is enough to help straighten some of the convolutions and at the same time impose a certain degree of mechanical conditioning. Such mechanical conditioning is exhibited by the reduction in the breaking extension and decrease in the energy required to rupture the fiber. In a study conducted by James F. Simmons (54), it was indicated that the fibers of a typical commercial operation for the spinning of 69 polyacrylonitrile are damaged to a certain extent. The same effect is believed to hold true for the cotton fiber, with a major portion of the damage occurring at the stages of picking (as reported by Levy), and carding. Here the fiber is exposed to the forces exerted by rapidly rotating beaters and cylinders. In a production sequence for combed yarn, the comber is responsible for the correction and removal of the short and hooked fibers created in the early processes (55). This function of the comber has been exhibited in this study. By observation of the length distribution of the fibers before combing, of the noil, and of the fibers of the subsequent processes, it can be seen that there is a marked increase in the percentage-length maximum of the fibers following the combing operation. Since the short fibers do not aid in the strength or the appear ance of the end product, only the longer fibers are desired for the pro cesses after combing. The presence of these longer fibers is reflected by the trend towards an average increase in tenacity of the fibers as measured by the bundle method. But the effect of straightening the fiber is reflected in the reduction of elongation. The effect of mechanical conditioning is also reflected by the reduction in the average values of energy required to rupture the fiber. This effect accompanies the reduction in elongation as noted by sample measurement. The action of the mechanical processing equipment in imposing stresses on the fibers is reflected by the reduction in the average values of static and kinetic friction. Tensions and friction between the fibers as they are processed tend to straighten and smooth the convolutions and *v.i^.' 70 irregularities of the fibers. However, some fibers are also damaged, resulting in an opposite tendency of the measured quantities. The alge braic sum of these effects is the ones determined in the measurements reported. The fluctuation in properties of the fibers as they are passed from sta e to stage can be partially explained as the effect of reversal of the fiber direction as the fiber is processed. Fibers which survive the combing operation with the hooked effect still present as a fiber defect are then crushed at the subsequent processes. These irregulari ties are generally but not always removed as waste. Inclusion of some damaged fibers in measurements results in deviation of the data from the normal mean. Where only small numbers of fibers are examined, erratic behavior can be ascribed to the inclusion of abnormal or damaged fibers in the specimen measured. Damage measurements by Levy (56) and by Clegg (57) indicated that after the carding stage some 32-35 percent of the fibers had received some damage. Beyond this stage, from examination of frictional data, it appears that damage must be relatively small. However, large peaks observed in a number of measurements did indicate the presence of a con siderable number of damaged fibers, many of which were excluded from the data. Inclusion of these would have indicated larger frictional changes than those reported. 71 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The preparation processes of combing, breaker drawing, finisher drawing, and roving affect the constitution of the specimen and some physical properties of the long staple cotton fibers. The length distribution increases in percent by weight of longer fibers as a result of combing and subsequent operations with accompany ing reduction in the number of short and damaged fibers. The average bundle strength exhibits an increase as the fibers progress from the initial to the final operation investigated. The single fiber strength indicates little or no increase. The increases observed by the bundle method appear to be principally due to the quality fiber selection resulting from each stage. The fiber elongation as measured by the Stelometer indicates a small reduction. This reduction in fiber elongation is also noted by signle fiber determinations. This reduction may be attributed to the forces imposed during processing which result in some inelastic defor mation of the fiber. The reduction in elongation is confirmed by a subsequent reduction in the energy to rupture. Micronaire measurements indicate a small increase in fiber coarse ness. This may indicate fiber damage or it can be explained by the extraction of waste at the various stages. 72 The frictional values of static and kinetic coefficients of friction for undamaged fiber exhibit a decrease as the fibers are pro cessed into the yarn. This may be accounted for by the straightening of fiber crimp and convolutions. Hence, the physical properties of the cotton stock undergo in the operations examined only small changes at the sacrifice by removal of a percentage of the cotton at the various stages. Recommendations It is recommended that a careful investigation be made of the physics of single cotton fiber breaks. In the majority of the litera ture there seems to be a great deal of controversy concerning the rate of loading and the type of instruments to be used. The rate used in this research was 0.2 inches per minute but the stress application rates observed in the operation of textile machinery are very rapid. It is recommended that measurements similar to the ones reported be conducted at rapid loading rates. The actual mill conditions of temperature and humidity are dif ferent from those used in the evaluation of the friction properties of the cotton fibers. At present, the fibers are processed in a conditioned room at approximately 75 degrees fahrenheit. However as the fibers pass through the processing equipment, the temperature is in excess of 90 degrees. It is, therefore, recommended that a study be made of the fric tional properties of the fibers at these elevated temperatures and the results be compared to the results obtained under the present temperature. As noted in the discussion chapter, the analog plots which 73 exhibited maximum deflections of the pen of the X-Y plotter were excluded from the data in the past. An investigation including such curves should prove valuable in assessing the effect of the processes on the fiber damage characteristics. Such a study should remove a great deal of bias previously injected by exclusion of such plots. In conjunction with the study of the effect fiber damage on the frictional data, a careful study of the actual damage of the fibers investigated should be conducted by microscopy and dye test methods. 74 APPENDIX 75 Table 4. Operating Data for Opening Cleaning and Picking Machinery Details Type of Opening Line 4 - Bale Breakers 1 - Blending Hopper Cleaning Machines 2 - Super-Jets 1 - Superior Cleaner Type of Picker Saco-Lowell Model F-2 Weight per Yard of Lap (ounces) 13.50 Width of Lap (inches) 38.00 Total Weight of Lap (pounds) 60.00 Production Rate (pounds per hour) 400.00 76 Table 5. Operating Data for Piatt Revolving Flat Card Mechanical Actions Diameter Type of Clothing RPM Cylinder 50" Metallic 250 Doffer 27" Metallic 14 Lickerin 9" Metallic 600 Width (inches) 40.00 Weight Fed (ounces per yard) 13.50 Weight Delivered (grains per yard) 52.00 Waste Removed (percent) 4.00 Production Rate (pounds per hour) 15.00 77 Table 6. Operating Data for Ideal Drawing Machine Details Pre-Comber Drawing Finisher Drawing Roll Settings 1st - 2nd 1.6250" 1.7500" 2nd - 3rd 1.7500" 1.8750" 3rd - 4th 1.9375" 2.0625" Roll Diameters Front 1.60" 1.60" Calender 2.00" 2.00" Roll Speeds Front 1600 RPM 1200 RPM Calender 1300 RPM 700 RPM Ends-up in Creel 10 8 Weight Fed per End (grains) 52 60 Weight Delivered (grains) 520 480 Actual Draft 44 60 Production Rate (pounds per hour 86 65 per delivery) 78 Table 7. Operating Data For Saco-Lowell Lap Winder Machine Details Number of Ends-up in Creel 20 Weight Fed (grains per yard) 875 Weight Delivered (grains per yard) 850 Actual Draft 1.035 Production Rate (pounds per hour) 213 79 Table 8. Operating Data For Saco-Lowell Model 140 Comber Machine Details Number of Slides 2 Number of Laps per Creel 6 Weight Fed (grains per yard) 5100 Weight Delivered (grains per yard) 54 Drafting Element Type 4-over-5 Top Roll Covers Synthetic Bottom Rolls Metallic Roll Settings T0£ Bottom Back-to-Fourth 23/16 Fourth-to-Third 2 3/16 2 Third-to-Second 2 9/16 1 15/32 Second-to-Front 1 7/8 1 5/32 Draft Distribution Back 1.14 Middle 1.42 Front 5.91 Nips per Minute 132 Production Rate (pounds per hour) 45 80 Table 9. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Drawing Machine Details Type Verasmatic Model DC-8B Draft System 4-over-5 Roll Settings Bottom Top 1st - 2nd 1.2500" 1.9375" 2nd - 3rd 1.5000" 2.9375" 3rd - 4th 2.0625" 2.2500" 4th - 5th 2.2500" Front Roll Speed (RFM) 12.70 Diameter of Front Roll (inches) 1.125" Ends-up in Creel 10 Weight Fed per End (grains) 52.0 Total Weight Fed (grains) 520.0 Weight Delivered (grains) 60 Actual Draft 8.57 81 Table 10. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Rovematic Machine Details Drafting Element FS - 2 tru-set Roll Diameter 1.125" Front 1.125" Middle 1.000" Back 1.125" Roll Settings Front to Middle 2.000" Middle to Back 1.750" Roll Speeds Front (RPM) 240 Middle (RPM) 45 Back (RPM) 20 Break Draft 2.11 Total Draft 12.00 Twist Multiplier 1.20 Weight Fed (grains per yard) -60 Hank Roving Delivered 1.60 HR Production Rate (pounds per spindle per hour) 1.052 Spindle Speed (RPM) 14 x 7 Package Size 82 Table 11. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Spinning Machine Detail Model Saco-Lowell 1951 Spindles per Frame 228 Bottom Roll Settings Back to Middle 1.8438" Middle to Front 2.0133" Type of Drive Tape Diameter of Front Roll 1.000" Diameter of Spindle Drive 1.000" Diameter Cylinder 10.0000" Diameter Whrol 1.1667" Traveler Size 10/0 Speed of Front Roll 190 RPM Delivery of Front Rod (inches per minute) 597 Spindle Speed (RPM) 12,500 Speed of Cylinder (RPM) 1330 Clearers Top Revolving Bottom Pneumatic Draft Range 29.7 - 30.9 Break Draft Range 1.4 - 1.5 Counts Fed 1.10 - 1.60 HR Counts Delivered 4.5 - 48.5 HR Production Rate (pounds per hour per spindle) 0.0264 83 Table 12. Comber Lap Cotton Array Data Length (l/16ths in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 1.27 1.71 3 2.00 2.69 5 1.94 2.61 7 2.06 2.97 9 2.82 3.79 11 3.82 5.13 13 6.58 8.84 15 8.18 10.99 17 10.26 13.79 19 12.24 16.45 21 8.27 16.47 23 8.27 11.11 25 2.72 3.66 Average Mean Length 1.04 Average Upper Quartile Length 1.29 % Fibers <% inch 9.70 % Coefficient of Variation 33.31 84 Table 13. Comber Noil Cotton Array Data Length (l/16th in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 8.11 11.10 3 5.85 8.00 5 9.65 13.21 7 11.39 15.60 9 9.74 13.33 11 6.54 8.95 13 6.49 8.88 15 4.20 5.75 17 4.62 6.32 19 3.43 4.69 21 2.97 4.07 23 0.07 0.10 Average Mean Length 0.57 Average Upper Quartile Length 0.82 % Fibers Table 14. Combed Sliver Cotton Array Data Length (l/16th in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 .27 .37 3 .60 .81 5 .76 1.03 7 1.20 1.63 9 1.81 2.45 11 2.87 3.89 13 4.57 6.19 15 7.23 9.80 17 9.78 13.26 19 11.26 15.26 21 16.27 22.05 23 11.74 15.91 25 5.42 7.35 Average Mean Length 1.15 Average Upper Quartile Length 1.36 7o Fibers Table 15. Breaker Drawing Cotton Array Data Length (l/16ths in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 .24 0.33 3 .60 0.82 5 .88 1.20 7 1.25 1.70 9 1.91 2.60 11 2.96 4.03 13 4.82 6.56 15 7.32 9.96 17 9.76 13.28 19 12.63 17.18 21 16.37 22.27 23 12.14 16.51 25 2.63 3.58 Average Mean Length 1.13 Average Upper Quartile Length 1.35 7o Fibers <% inch 4.04 7o Coefficient of Variation 25.66 87 Table 16. Finisher Drawing Cotton Array Data Length (l/16th in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 0.35 .48 3 0.68 .94 5 0.69 .96 7 1.05 1.45 9 1.56 2.16 11 2.92 4.04 13 4.04 5.59 15 6.54 9.05 17 10.50 14.54 19 10.60 14.68 21 16.47 22.80 23 12.25 16.96 25 4.58 6.34 Average Mean Length 1.15 Average Upper Quartile Length 1.37 % Fibers <\ inch 3.83 % Coefficient Variation 25.62 88 Table 17. Cotton Fiber Array Data Length (l/16th in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 .47 .64 3 .58 .78 5 .79 1.07 7 1.34 1.81 9 1.98 2.68 11 3.41 4.61 13 4.87 6.59 15 7.29 9.86 17 9.64 13.04 19 12.47 16.87 21 15.85 21.45 23 11.17 15.11 25 4.05 5.48 Average Mean Length 1.13 Average Upper Quartile Length 1.35 % Fibers <% inch 4.29 7o Coefficient of Variation 26.66 89 Table 18. Roving No Twist Cotton Array Data Length (l/16th in.) Weight of Fibers (mg.) % by Weight 1 .38 .52 3 .24 .33 5 .79 1.08 7 .93 1.26 9 1.66 2.28 11 3.06 4.19 13 5.10 6.99 15 7.02 9.62 17 10.18 13.95 19 13.09 17.94 21 16.79 23.01 23 11.04 15.13 25 2.68 3.67 Average Mean Length 1.14 Average Upper Quartile Length 1.34 % Fibers Table 19. Comber Noil Fibrograph Data Specimen Length Number Percent (Ins.) Amount 1 99.9 .151 1657 2 95 .152 1595 3 90 .171 1512 4 85 .193 1431 5 80 .211 1346 6 75 .235 1267 7 70 .256 1181 8 66.7 .272 1127 9 65 .279 1101 10 60 .301 1017 11 55 .324 935 12 50 .346 853 13 45 .373 769 14 40 .399 687 15 35 .429 605 16 30 .461 522 17 25 .499 439 18 20 .544 357 19 15 .599 274 20 10 .672 194 21 7.5 .727 150 22 5 .789 109 23 4 .825 93 24 3 .858 77 25 2.5 .886 67 26 2 .887 59 91 Table 20. Comber Lap Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data Specimen Upper Uniformity Number Mean Length Half Mean Ratio 1 .769 1.40 55 2 .739 1.40 53 3 .728 1.40 52 4 .751 1.39 54 5 .755 1.40 54 6 .764 1.41 54 7 .737 1.38 53 8 .745 1.39 54 9 .729 1.39 52 10 .747 1.38 54 11 .760 1.39 55 12 .744 1.41 53 13 .733 1.39 53 14 .724 1.39 52 15 .763 1.40 55 16 .753 1.41 53 17 .752 1.41 53 18 .748 1.42 53 19 .737 1.40 53 20 .754 1.41 53 X - .747 X = 1.40 X = 53 92 Table 21. Comber Noil Digit Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data Specimen Upper Uniformity Number Mean Length Half Mean Ratio 1 .336 .98 34 2 .338 .98 34 3 .345 .98 35 4 .341 .99 34 5 .332 .96 35 6 .328 .96 34 7 .327 .96 34 8 .334 .97 34 9 .335 .94 36 10 .322 .92 35 11 .337 .97 35 12 .333 .96 35 13 .339 .99 34 14 .348 .97 36 15 .342 .97 35 16 .336 .96 35 17 .342 .98 35 18 .336 .95 35 19 .346 .97 36 20 .336 .96 35 X = .337 X .97 X = 35 93 Table 22. Comber Sliver Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data Specimen Upper Uniformity Number Mean Length Half Mean Ratio 1 .863 1.47 59 2 .860 1.47 59 3 .804 1.42 57 4 .831 1.44 59 5 .837 1.43 59 6 .844 1.45 58 7 .816 1.44 57 8 .839 1.44 58 9 .851 1.46 58 10 .849 1.46 58 11 .853 1.45 59 12 .873 1.46 60 13 .818 1.43 57 14 .837 1.45 58 15 .866 1.47 59 16 .869 1.48 59 17 .847 1.45 58 18 .860 1.45 59 19 .830 1.45 57 20 .857 1.47 58 X = .845 X - 1.45 X = 58 P^ 4-J •r-l o 6 •r^ M U ^•»ooo^o^ooooo^r-r^oooo^^Ol—ir-iONOOOON Ol o Cd inminmiOLomiommmmvovovoiniovDio >x> U-J p:J in •H c II CcD !=) Xi Q) S Xi Cu cd ^1 Cd W) jj o CO u Q XI C •H C Cd fa Cd $-1 QJ CM CM CM .—1 CO CM t—l r-l O I—1 c QJ ^1 6 (U •H X r-iCNjro Table 24. Finisher Drawing Digital Fibrograph Mean and Upper Half Mean Length Data Specimen Upper Uniformity Number Mean Length Half Mean Ratio 1 .840 1.43 59 2 .820 1.42 58 3 .854 1.45 59 4 .865 1.46 59 5 .842 1.43 59 6 .840 1.44 58 7 .847 1.43 59 8 .854 1.43 60 9 .848 1.43 59 10 .844 1.44 59 11 .840 1.42 59 12 .855 1.44 59 13 .863 1.44 60 14 .845 1.43 59 15 .863 1.45 60 16 .846 1.43 59 17 .860 1.45 59 18 .867 1.44 60 19 .850 1.44 59 20 .848 1.43 59 X = .850 X = 1.44 X = 59 cy2 ZJ T3 C 03 hOI—'I—'!—'h-^l—'I—'(—'I—'h-'I—' B O OvOOO^JO>Ui-P-'^N3h-'OvOCX>~^ H 03 S cr II M n03) 0) :3 00 OO000O0O00000000000O0000OD0000000O00CXCX3 ro J>^OL^0^4^•C^^J•-J4^0^^0^U^OOL^O^^OU)^—'0 t-" Ul o J>ON3-P^-^-P^>X>-f>K)LnLnOoaN(—'0-P"•f>00^0 03 3 TO rt 03 ?« nr 13 o (^ H<- 3 XaJ ()Q t3 03 O t-i M- OP ffi (-•• ft) rt XI h-" 03 ffi Hi h-" II as t—' S ^ f-h Tc3 fD H- TD 03 cr S (D 3 I-i N3j>-~JvOLn^JON004>--P~4^OiUiCr'aNLnJ>^^LnLn fD i-i o 05 r' (TO 3 03 i-i J3 03 CIQ -o rt- 3" tr 'X (13 o03 03 rt 3 03 XI a II 3 H- UiLnLnUiUiLnONLnUiO>LnCr>Lncy>LnCT\UnLnUiUn ?d l-h 00 *X)^J000000v£)Ovo00Ov£)O'X)O00O^-J00tT>Ln 03 O rr •i H- 3 O H> rt ^ ON 1^ >- ON 4-1 X •H CU r^v£>rOLnCT\vDi-4mr^Or-Hi—lOvOOJOv£)CO»vD <]) t-l It II w • cc CO > 0^ 0) w IX U P-. 0) y-N W) o•n to aJ v.e^ r-1 CO rs P^ 4-J •H O CO c CU. H CL CO CO* XI 1-4 ^1 v-^ O (N o cn 00 in 00 CM o cn o CM 00 00 00 O O o CO CM ^ CM t—1 CM i-i CM CO 0) CO cn 00 o <7\ in O as (U ^ e U U C3N 00 00 in 00 in in i-i 00 CTi CTi 00 ON 00 OO o pq W) t—1 t—1 t—1 I—1 t-l 1—1 t—1 t-l t—1 t—1 I—1 1—1 CM tH t—1 1—1 t—1 1-4 t-l I—1 t-4 r—1 1—1 CM o c 0) +>J^ w CM CO H C 0) J-l f2 CU •i^ X3 ^-lCM^o<^mvDr^ooc^Ot-lCMco CO rt h 0) 3 O h-'H-'l—'h-^h-'Mh-'h-'l—'l-'l—'I—'I—'h-'l-'l—'I—'I—'I—'h-"!—'I-JI—'I—'I—' "TO td 3 -^4>-OOK)J>>LnLnv£>4>-OOU5N3UitO 03 o s: ro H- bb ^3 rot—'hOt-'t-"l—'I—'Ml—'NJh-^h-'l—'I—'h-iNJ I—• I—' I—' h-* t—' N) I-' TO C S' 3 ^S VO O rt O 00N>00OUiOOl-n Lnro4>U)00OLn4>»OO<-nO Ln O 1—a ' /-\ fD O y 03 TO • (TO n ?« < M XI M a> II II Ln -p- 4> 1—' cn • c^ I—" Ln • Ln H CO 4> U) •~J TO n> I—' 3 C3^"-JvDL000004>OO^J000^4^>4>-P"CO^LO-P^OOOoa^LOLOCX)U3 B U3 H o 1—'OJI-'LnaNO-^OON3*X>Cr>h-'OI—'^J^K30>I—'J^^hO^CT\L0--J (1) H* X n- <<; 00 99 Table 28. Combed Sliver Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pre2ssle y Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 18.12 2.24 45.9 2 11.15 1.54 41.1 3 19.22 2.42 45.0 4 18.03 2.24 45.6 5 19.52 2.43 45.6 6 14.09 1.94 41.2 7 19.55 2.40 46.2 8 20.30 2.50 46.0 9 20.95 2.57 46.2 10 18.62 2.30 45.9 11 18.48 2.27 46.2 12 19.74 2.40 46.6 13 20.93 2.65 4.68 14 15.88 1.96 45.9 15 19.52 2.42 45.7 16 19.95 2.45 46.2 17 17.32 2.24 43.8 18 17.12 2.20 44.1 19 13.94 1.85 42.7 20 18.52 2.25 46.7 21 17.92 2.24 45.4 22 17.37 2.20 44.8 23 18.40 2.44 42.8 24 19.33 2.40 45.7 25 20.12 2.48 46.0 E - 1128.1 X = 45.1 s2 = 2. 60 s = 1 61 7oCV = 3 6 R — 5. 7 100 Table 29. Breaker Drawing Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 15.40 1.88 44.7 2 16.20 2.07 43.2 3 18.90 2.30 44.8 4 20.97 2.48 46.7 5 14.72 1.90 43.8 6 19.12 2.36 44.2 7 12.00 1.55 42.8 8 17.80 2.26 43.0 9 16.40 2.08 43.0 10 17.63 2.30 42.4 11 16.90 2.20 42.4 12 18.62 2.30 44.2 13 12.70 1.56 44.9 14 17.78 2.20 44.6 15 18.28 2.34 43.2 16 18.38 2.27 44.2 17 15.08 2.00 41.1 18 16.78 2.20 42.1 19 20.12 2.40 46.3 20 18.10 2.30 43.5 21 20.86 2.60 44.3 22 76.18 2.05 43.1 23 14.22 1.76 44.1 24 17.18 2.24 42.4 25 18.28 2.36 42.8 1091.8 X = 43.7 s2 = 1.6 4 s = 1.2 8 7oCV = 2. 93 R = 5.6 101 Table 30. Finisher Drawing Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 20.88 2.60 46.4 2 17.70 2.20 46.5 3 14.28 1.86 44.4 4 17.73 2.20 46,6 5 14.84 1.95 44.0 6 19.78 2.46 46.5 7 19.49 2.33 48.3 8 18.12 2.26 46.3 9 20.62 2.55 46.7 10 19.58 2.38 47.5 11 16.85 2.12 45.9 12 17.92 2.23 46.4 13 17.23 2.14 46.5 14 16.18 2.00 46.7 15 19.92 2.40 48.0 16 16.00 2.08 44.5 17 17.15 2.18 45.5 18 16.90 2.16 45.2 19 18.08 2.24 46.6 20 16.52 2.02 47.3 21 17.08 2.23 44.3 22 18.44 2.40 44.4 23 17.66 2.30 44.4 24 17.93 2.30 45.0 25 19.05 2.40 45.9 = 1149.8 X = 46.0 s2 = 1.37 s = 1.17 %CV = 2.5 R = 4.3 102 Table 31. Roving Tenacity at Zero Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex I 20.83 2.52 45.5 2 17.00 2.15 43.5 3 18.38 2.24 45.2 4 17.73 2.16 45.2 5 13.90 1.80 42.5 6 16.70 2.04 445.1 7 15.80 1.95 44.6 8 17.83 2.20 44.6 9 17.82 2.20 44.6 10 18.48 2.28 44.4 11 17.10 2.08 45.3 12 14.10 1.90 40.9 13 18.48 2.27 44.8 14 16.70 2.00 46.0 15 16.82 2.06 45.0 16 16.03 2.00 44.2 17 17.83 2.10 46.8 18 14.42 1.82 43.6 19 15.93 1.90 46.2 20 19.50 2.42 44.4 21 17.48 2.30 41.9 22 20.40 2.46 45.7 23 14.73 1.84 44.1 24 15.20 1.90 44.1 25 16.32 2.00 44.9 E = 1113.1 X = 44.5 s2 = 1.5 7 s = 1 25 %CV = 2. 80 R = 5.9 103 Table 32. Comber Lap Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 16.10 3.53 32.6 2 14.92 3.36 31.7 3 15.63 3.56 31.4 4 14.23 3.36 30.2 5 17.25 4.14 29.7 6 14.98 3.22 33.2 7 14.48 3.08 33.6 8 17.80 3.86 33.0 9 17.21 3.79 32.4 10 16.76 3.68 32.6 11 14.08 3.14 32.0 12 15.55 3.58 31.0 13 15.52 3.44 32.2 14 15.05 3.47 31.0 15 16.55 3.56 33.2 16 15.45 3.27 33.7 17 15.17 3.42 31.7 18 16.35 3.64 32.0 19 14.62 3.08 33.9 20 17.25 4.06 30.3 21 17.45 3.82 32.7 22 15.05 3.44 31.3 23 15.05 3.12 34.4 24 14.85 3.26 32.6 25 13.52 2.90 33.3 26 15.91 3.31 34.3 27 14.88 3.12 34.0 28 14.78 3.14 33.6 29 16.73 3.89 30.7 30 16.14 3.51 32.9 E = 971.2 X = 32.4 s2 = 1.60 s = 1.26 7oCV = 3.9 R = 4.7 104 Table 33. Combed Sliver Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 15.05 3.30 32.6 2 17.10 3.78 32.3 3 13.30 3.14 30.2 4 16.85 3.72 32.3 5 12.52 2.84 31.5 6 13.48 3.12 30.9 7 17.90 4.12 31.0 8 16.32 3.66 31.8 9 14.50 3.28 31.6 10 14.45 3.10 33.3 11 12.70 2.82 32.1 12 12.25 2.62 33.4 13 15.75 3.30 34.1 14 13.48 2.90 33.2 15 13.43 2.92 32.9 16 16.42 3.72 31.5 17 11.95 2.52 33.8 18 14.45 3.26 31.6 19 13.25 2.92 32.4 20 13.60 2.92 33.3 21 15.60 3.38 33.0 22 16.42 3.60 32.6 23 14.35 3.08 33.3 24 14.60 3.24 32.1 25 14.20 3.12 32.4 26 15.42 3.58 30.8 27 12.90 2.84 32.4 28 15.30 3.66 29.8 29 13.00 2.94 31.6 30 13.65 3.04 32.0 E == 965.8 = 32.2 s2 .= 1 01 S rz 1 00 %CV == 3. 1 R == 4.3 105 Table 34. Breaker Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex X 17.75 3.92 32.3 2 14.50 3.20 32.3 3 15.88 3.42 32.1 4 12.30 2.58 31.0 5 17.80 3.96 32.1 6 11.59 2.52 32.9 7 12.15 2.74 31.7 8 16.86 3.70 32.6 9 15.85 3.40 33.3 10 15.62 3.58 31.2 11 15.01 3.28 32.7 12 17.19 3.84 31.9 13 19.15 4.38 31.2 14 15.25 3.24 33.6 15 15.15 3.42 31.6 16 15.40 3.34 33.0 17 16.01 3.36 34.0 18 17.23 3.66 33.6 19 15.05 3.42 31.4 20 16.70 3.86 30.9 21 15.05 3.29 32.7 22 14.31 3.52 29.0 23 12.65 3.04 29.7 24 17.39 4.00 31.1 25 17.70 4.06 31.1 26 13.60 2.87 33.8 27 13.72 3.38 29.0 28 14.68 3.02 34.8 29 17.11 3.72 32.9 30 12.90 2.78 33.2 E = 965.7 32.2 s2 = 2 01 s = 1.4 2 7oCV = 4.4 1 R = 5.8 9 • 106 Table 35. Finisher Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 16.30 3.42 34.0 2 12.19 2.66 32.8 3 14.38 3.16 32.4 4 16.93 3.66 33.1 5 17.39 3.98 31.2 6 16.02 3.78 30.2 7 13.30 2.88 33.0 8 16.85 3.60 33.4 9 15.15 3.32 32.6 10 14.45 3.10 33.3 11 16.30 3.54 32.9 12 16.71 3.60 33.2 13 17.65 3.94 32.0 14 15.68 3.48 32.1 15 16.83 3.68 32.7 16 13.80 2.88 34.2 17 15.98 3.44 33.2 18 16.40 3.68 31.8 19 15.61 3.54 31.5 20 16.55 3.70 31.9 21 15.00 3.32 32.2 22 15.32 3.46 31.6 23 16.65 3.76 31.6 24 16.90 3.80 31.7 25 16.92 3.64 33.2 26 14.20 3.26 31.1 27 17.12 4.12 29.7 28 17.19 3.76 32.7 29 15.05 3.46 31.1 30 16.03 3.38 33.9 970.3 x = 32.3 1.53 s = 1.24 %CV = 3.8 R = 4.5 107 Table 36. Roving Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 16.23 3.72 31.2 2 15.52 3.42 32.4 3 14.30 3.22 31.7 4 14.90 3.38 31.5 5 15.78 3.52 32.0 6 13.52 2.96 32.7 7 15.81 3.56 31.7 8 17.70 4.05 31.3 9 15.95 3.44 33.1 10 15.10 3.38 31.9 11 15.30 3.50 31.2 12 17.42 3.81 32.7 13 16.30 3.56 32.7 14 14.55 3.08 33.7 15 15.75 3.62 31.1 16 15.47 3.38 32.6 17 15.90 3.79 29.9 18 14.39 3.30 31.2 19 14.90 3.35 31.7 20 16.70 3.58 33.3 21 16.55 3.46 34.1 22 13.50 3.08 31.3 23 16.38 3.68 31.8 24 14.68 3.42 30.7 25 14.13 3.20 31.5 26 16.08 3.62 31.7 27 17.12 3.82 32.0 28 17.52 3.82 32.8 29 14.23 3.04 33.4 30 14.49 3.02 43.2 963.1 - X = 32.1 s2 = 1 04 s = 1 02 7oCV = 3 2 R = 4.3 108 Table 37. Comber Lap Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 17.02 3.90 29.7 2 12.96 3.04 29.0 3 17.06 4.26 27.3 4 13.64 3.36 27.7 5 12.56 3.18 26.9 6 15.02 3.76 27.2 7 14.04 3.47 27.6 8 16.10 4.00 27.5 9 14.90 3.59 28.3 10 11.02 2.61 28.8 11 9.98 2.41 28.2 12 13.90 3.40 27.9 13 13.93 3.50 27.1 14 15.22 3.87 26.8 15 12.91 3.23 27.3 16 14.10 3.61 26.7 17 11.77 2.86 28.1 18 11.08 2.66 28.4 19 11.80 2.94 27.3 20 9.00 2.22 27.6 S = 555 .4 X = 27. 3 s2 = .66 s = .81 7oCV = 2.91 R = 3.0 ^Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 109 Table 38. Comb er Sliver Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Str ength (lbs.) Weight (mg ) gm/Tex 1 10.99 2.76 27.1 2 15.78 3.86 27.9 3 18.12 4.18 29.5 4 15.51 3.69 28.6 5 18.06 4.21 29.2 6 13.82 3.27 28.8 7 16.47 3.91 28.7 8 15.94 3.82 28.4 9 12.40 2.92 29.0 10 16.91 4.01 28.8 11 13.96 3.27 29.1 12 13.74 3.25 28.8 13 16.82 3.87 29.7 14 19.47 3.26 30.3 15 13.32 3.17 28.7 16 19.70 4.76 28.2 17 13.26 3.02 29.9 18 16.18 3.73 29.6 19 15.96 3.79 28.7 20 18.20 4.25 29.2 Z 578.2 X 28.9 s2 .52 s .72 7oCV = 2.49 R 3.2 ''Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 110 Table 39. Breaker Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* Specimen Breaker Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 14.06 3.31 29.0 2 15.20 3.48 29.8 3 14.98 3.65 28.2 4 16.36 3.90 28.6 5 15.79 3.71 29.0 6 12.24 2.91 28.7 7 13.25 3.03 29.8 8 18.55 4.26 29.7 9 17.48 3.97 30.0 10 17.00 3.90 29.7 11 14.74 3.55 28.3 12 14.84 3.51 28.8 13 18.50 4.34 29.0 14 18.80 4.38 29.2 15 15.98 3.71 29.4 16 15.42 3.71 28.4 17 16.82 3.84 29.9 18 19.95 4.68 29.1 19 18.36 4.20 29.8 20 15.42 3.61 29.1 S = 583.5 X = 29.2 s2 = .32 s = .57 7oCV = 1.95 R = 1.8 ^Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station Ill Table 40. Finisher Drawing Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressley* Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 16.72 3.87 29.5 2 14.96 3.41 29.9 3 14.84 3.37 30.0 4 17.82 3.98 30.5 5 19.75 4.62 29.1 6 18.83 4.29 29.9 7 13.24 2.96 30.5 8 8.16 1.86 29.9 9 14.56 3.38 29.4 10 17.21 3.90 30.1 11 12.74 3.07 28.3 12 20.40 4.82 28.8 13 17.73 4.15 29.1 14 15.10 3.52 29.2 15 17.75 4.19 28.9 16 16.30 3.85 28.8 17 12.69 2.89 29.9 18 15.11 3.42 30.1 19 14.17 3.44 28.1 20 16.35 3.87 28.7 588.7 X = 29.4 s2 = .49 S - .7 7oCV = 2.4 R = 2.4 ^Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 112 Table 41. Roving Tenacity at One-Eighth Gauge Pressl^2y * Specimen Break Bundle Tenacity Number Strength (lbs.) Weight (mg.) gm/Tex 1 18.97 4.51 28.7 2 17.69 4.22 28.6 3 8.82 2.00 30.1 4 15.00 3.40 30.1 5 17.80 4.17 29.1 6 15.40 3.60 29.2 7 14.58 3.33 29.9 8 16.38 3.69 30.3 9 14.86 3.51 28.8 10 18.32 4.30 29.0 11 19.92 4.59 29.6 12 12.53 2.99 28.6 13 12.20 2.84 29.3 14 20.14 4.61 29.8 15 15.12 3.64 28.3 16 16.98 4.02 28.8 17 17.32 4.03 29.3 18 16.88 3.97 29.0 19 14.70 3.44 29.1 20 17.60 4.12 29.1 = 584.7 1. 29.2 s2 = 0.31 9 s = 0. 56 %CV .= 1,9 1 R = 2. 0 ^Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 113 Table 42. Comber Lap Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex % Elongation 1 4.4 2.22 32.7 8.3 2 3.8 2.04 30.7 11.1 3 4.8 2.70 29.3 7.0 4 3.3 1.64 33.2 7.0 5 6.1 3.04 33.1 7.0 6 3.8 1.98 31.7 12.5 7 4.3 2.04 a4.7 9.7 8 4.1 2.12 31.9 8.3 9 4.1 2.24 30.2 8.3 10 6.1 3.26 30.9 7.0 11 4.6 2.48 30.6 8.3 12 3.2 1.84 28.7 7.0 13 5.0 2.54 32.5 8.3 14 3.4 1.78 31.5 7.0 15 4.9 2.46 32.9 7.0 16 6.6 3.60 30.3 7.0 17 4.6 2.44 31.1 7.0 18 3.9 2.12 30.4 8.3 19 3.3 1.68 32.4 9.7 20 4.9 2.42 33.4 8.3 21 3.7 2.00 30.5 9.7 22 5.2 2.66 32.3 7.0 23 5.9 3.22 30.2 7.0 24 4.4 2.20 33.0 8.3 25 3.8 2.04 30.7 13.9 26 5.3 2.86 30.6 7.0 27 5.0 2.68 30.8 8.3 28 3.8 1.94 32.3 8.3 29 4.3 2.26 31.4 7.0 30 4.5 2.36 31.5 7.0 S = 945.6 E = 247.6 X= 31.5 X= 8.3 s2 = 1.81 s2= 2.98 (Continued) 114 Table 42. Comber Lap Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer (Concluded) Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex % Elongation s = 1.35 s = 1.73 7cCV = 4.29 7oCV =2.08 R = 6.1 R = 6.9 115 Table 43. Combed Sliver Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (gm.) gm/Tex % Elongation 1 4.5 2.12 35.0 7.0 2 3.7 2.06 29.6 7.0 3 5.1 2.34 36.0 7.0 4 4.4 2.26 32.1 7.0 5 5.4 2.65 33.6 7.0 6 5.3 2.76 31.7 8.3 7 4.2 2.26 30.7 7.0 8 3.6 2.12 28.0 7.0 9 3.3 1.73 31.5 9.7 10 3.2 1.53 34.5 8.3 11 5.9 3.28 29.7 7.0 12 5.2 2.60 33.0 7.0 13 5.9 3.08 31.6 8.3 14 5.8 3.1 30.9 5.6 15 5.6 3.05 30.3 7.0 16 6.0 3.12 31.7 5.6 17 4.6 2.62 29.0 8.3 18 4.0 2.12 31.1 8.3 19 2.7 1.44 30.9 8.3 20 4.7 2.48 31.3 8.3 21 2.9 1.50 31.9 7.0 22 3.7 2.12 28.8 7.0 23 3.1 1.76 29.1 7.0 24 4.7 2.62 29.6 7.0 25 4.9 2.65 30.5 5.6 26 4.8 2.56 30.9 5.6 27 5.5 3.06 29.7 7.0 28 3.5 1.92 30.1 7.0 29 3.0 1.70 29.1 8.3 30 4.5 2.56 29.0 . 7.0 I = 930.9 E = 217.5 X = 31.0 1 = 7.3 s2 = 3.54 s2 = 1.17 (Continued) 116 Table 43. Combed Sliver Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer (Concluded) Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (gm.) gm/Tex 7o Elongation s = 1.88 s = 1.08 %CV ==6.06 %CV =1.48 R = 8.0 R = 4.1 ; 117 Table 44. Breaker Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (gm.) gm/Tex 7o Elongation 1 3.9 3.12 30.3 7.0 2 5.9 3.48 28.0 9.7 3 6.4 4.06 26.0 11.1 4 5.2 2.88 29.8 8.3 5 4.6 2.68 28.3 8.3 6 4.4 2.62 29.5 9.7 7 3.6 2.12 28.0 7.0 8 5.7 2.82 33.4 9.7 9 4.6 2.86 26.5 9.7 10 4.6 2.44 31.1 7.0 11 6.3 3.12 33.3 9.7 12 4.7 2.42 32.0 9.7 13 4.2 2.38 29.1 8.3 14 5.1 2.68 31.4 7.0 15 3.3 1.54 35.4 7.0 16 3.2 1.84 28.7 7.0 17 5.7 3.16 29.8 8.3 18 4.4 2.40 30.3 7.0 19 4.2 2.14 32.4 7.0 20 5.8 2.96 32.3 12.5 21 4.2 2.40 28.9 8.3 22 4.6 2.68 28.3 4.2 23 4.5 2.48 30.0 8.3 24 4.1 2.06 32.8 7.0 25 5.5 3.02 30.0 5.6 26 6.6 3.58 30.4 7.0 27 5.1 2.92 28.8 8.3 28 4.6 2.54 29.9 8.3 29 5.2 2.70 31.8 7.0 30 4.5 2.52 29.5 7.0 S =906.0 S = 242.0 X = 30.2 X = 8.1 s2 = 4.35 s2 = 2.69 (Continued) 118 Table 44. Breaker Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer (Concluded) Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex % Elongation s ^ 2.09 s =1 1.64 7oCV =6.92 %CV = 2.02 R =9.49 R =8.3 U3NJhorONirOhOhON3K)MI—'I—'I—'I—'I—'I—'I—'l-'h-'l-' 3 o O^OO^Ja^U^-P-U)^Ol—'0^00-^a^U^^bo^o^-'OvOOO•^O^U^•P^OJ^O^-» fD 3 t-t ro 3 H to cr CO rt td jOQ 3 h-^h-'4:^4>^Ja^^^Dt\3^J^OO^OO~JU)-P^O^O^^-'OO^OOOVOOOO^^OI—'ONI—'-^ OQ W • rt ?r to rt 3 O 3 CO (D I I—'Lou)N3U)U)rou3U)to^3Loro^Jh-'U)(JOUJOJ^owu3U>u>l^^JU)^oOJCJO '-s ft) OQ o a o UDroi—'--^Ol—'4>tsJOOONi-P-UivOvOOO-P~Ol—'0~^-P"OU)UnU)Lri(_00 OP OQ to ooooooo4>^ooooo^oc3^c^4^~o-P-oooooooo^4^>-F^o4^•ooo-P>^o 3^ s: rt O 3 to OQ C H cn (D CD M xl M 3 11 il II H CO too jOQ fD U) K) 00 ^o^oro^JCJ^3^3^JU)^J^o^J^o^J^J^JLo^3^oro^o^3^oN3^J^ow^o^o^o 3 3 rt 00 U) 0^0^000^0>oa^0^^-'^a^OOU^O^OO'^00~vJ-vJOOOOU^Ooa^U^•^OOOI-" ^^ to -P• > VO H O LO • ^JD^>30voo^J:^a^^o-P>ooooo^oo4>^^u)0^ou)Oooa^UJ-P>•P-•^U1-P-l—'I—' to o • 3 -!> CL W t—' O 3 OQ ro Xl M to rt II II II H- O t—' --J K3 I-' 3 I—' --j-^^j^JOO-JLn^J^J-^(-n^JOOOO--JLn-^00--JLnUiOO-vJUni—'Ui"^00-^^J O 4• > h-• " K3 O 0000(-OOC3^000a^OU)tOOC5^0^-OOCy'C^lJJOO^^-'a^O(-000 • a: r+ O 3 € 120 Table 45. Finisher Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer (Concluded) Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex 7o Elongation s = 1.85 s = 1.18 7oCV= 6.61 7oCV= 1.66 R= 6.6 R= 5.5 121 Table 46. Roving Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex % Elongation 1 3.6 2.00 29.7 8.3 2 3.7 1.92 31.8 7.0 3 3.7 2.08 29.4 8.3 4 5.2 2.72 31.5 8.3 5 5.4 2.66 33.5 7.0 6 4.6 2.22 34.2 7.0 7 3.0 1.96 25.3 7.0 8 5.6 2.84 32.5 8.3 9 2.6 1.36 31.6 9.7 10 3.9 1.98 32.5 7.0 11 5.5 2.88 31.5 8.3 12 3.2 1.58 33.4 9.7 13 4.0 2.02 32.7 8.3 14 3.0 1.54 32.1 8.3 15 4.9 2.52 32.1 8.3 16 4.7 2.36 32.9 8.3 17 4.4 2.36 30.8 9.7 18 3.6 1.92 29.8 7.0 19 4.9 2.42 33.4 8.3 20 4.5 2.38 31.2 7.0 21 6.2 3.20 32.0 8.3 22 3.4 1.70 33.0 7.0 23 3.1 1.56 32.8 7.0 24 5.3 2.42 36.2 8.3 25 4.5 2.14 34.7 7.0 26 5.4 2.70 33.0 8.3 27 4.3 2.22 32.0 7.0 28 4.9 2.40 33.7 7.0 29 3.8 2.08 30.2 7.0 30 4.7 2.34 33.2 5.6 S = 962.7 S = 233.6 X = 32.1 X = 7.8 s2 = 5.39 s2 = .94 >- 122 Table 46. Roving Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer (Concluded) Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex 7o Elongation s = 2.32 s = .97 %CV = 7.23 7oCV = 1.24 R = 9.4 R = 4.1 123 Table 47. Comber Lap Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex 7o Elongation 1 2.62 1.63 26.9 8.0 2 2.45 1.48 27.6 7.8 3 3.52 2.05 28.6 7.8 4 3.84 2.29 28.0 8.0 5 3.12 1.93 27.0 7.8 6 3.90 2.32 28.0 7.7 7 3.78 2.26 27.9 8.0 8 3.93 2.27 28.9 7.9 9 3.48 1.92 30.2 7.6 10 3.12 1.72 30.2 8.0 11 2.48 1.40 29.5 7.5 12 3.39 1.93 29.3 7.8 13 3.28 2.98 28.3 7.8 14 2.98 1.73 28.6 8.0 15 2.53 1.45 29.0 7.8 16 2.40 1.43 28.0 7.4 17 2.75 1.64 28.0 7.4 18 3.48 2.06 28.2 7.2 19 3.02 1.78 28.3 7.9 20 3.55 2.09 28.3 7.9 E = 568.8 Z = 155.3 X = 28.4 X = 7.8 s2 = .79 s2 = .05 s = .89 s = .2 7oCV = 2.78 %CV = 2.56 R = 3.3 R = ;8 •Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 124 Table 48. Comber Sliver Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex Z Elongation 1 3.14 1.78 28.8 7.4 2 4.68 2.69 28.4 7.3 3 4.38 2.61 27.4 7.8 4 4.00 2.35 27.8 7.5 5 5.02 2.86 28.8 7.9 6 3.95 2.23 29.0 7.8 7 3.30 1.84 29.3 7.8 8 3.24 1.80 29.4 7.5 9 4.96 2.93 27.7 7.8 10 4.59 2.66 28.3 7.9 11 2.90 1.60 29.6 7.8 12 4.15 2.26 30.1 7.9 13 3.63 2.12 27.4 7.6 14 4.50 2.69 27.4 7.5 15 5.04 2.95 28.0 7.6 16 3.83 2.30 27.4 7.4 17 3.50 1.96 29.3 8.0 18 3.55 2.02 28.8 8.0 19 2.81 1.62 28.3 7.8 20 3.98 2.22 29.3 7.8 E = 570.5 z = 154.1 X = 28.5 X = 7.7.7 s2 = .70 s2 = .04 s = .84 s = .2 7oCV = 2.95 7oCV . 2.6 R = 2.7 R = .7 '•'^'Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 125 Table 49. Breaker Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg.) gm/Tex % Elongation 1 2.9 1.65 29.6 7.4 2 3.68 2.02 30.0 8.0 3.73 3.73 2.15 28.7 7.8 4 2.97 1.70 28.9 7.7 5 3.84 2.21 28.7 7.8 6 3.34 1.90 29.0 7.6 7 2.93 1.60 30.3 7.8 8 3.42 1.90 29.7 8.0 9 4.93 2.74 29.7 7.8 10 4.49 2.49 29.7 8.0 11 3.55 2.06 28.4 7.4 12 3.95 2.25 29.0 8.1 13 3.35 1.90 29.0 7.3 14 3.10 1.80 28.4 7.8 15 3.55 1.94 30.3 7.6 16 2.90 1.60 29.9 7.4 17 3.59 1.91 31.0 7.8 18 2.58 1.38 30.9 7.8 19 2.62 1.45 29.8 7.6 20 3.30 1.80 30.3 7.8 E = 591.3 S = 154.5 X = 29.6 X = 7.7 s2 = .61 s2 = .05 s = .78 S - .2 7oCV = 2.6 7oCV = 2.60 R = 2.6 R = 1.8 ^Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 126 Table 50. Finisher Drawing Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity Number (kg.) (mg-) 7o Elongation 1 4.53 2.59 27.4 7.6 2 4.15 2.36 27.5 7.8 3 2.82 1.61 27.4 7.8 4 3.58 2.00 28.0 7.8 5 3.70 2.03 28.4 7.8 6 3.86 2.16 28.0 7.8 7 3.57 2.02 27.7 7.4 8 3.80 2.14 27.8 7.4 9 2.72 1.54 27.7 7.8 10 3.30 1.87 27.5 7.7 11 4.33 2.39 28.3 7.8 12 3.60 2.01 28.0 7.8 13 3.82 2.19 27.1 7.0 14 4.23 2.40 27.5 7.8 15 3.61 2.00 28.3 7.9 16 3.90 2.15 28.3 7.8 17 4.36 2.38 28.6 7.4 18 4.25 2.36 28.1 7.5 19 3.57 1.97 28.3 7.4 20 4.23 2.29 28.9 7.7 S = 558.8 E = 153.0 X = 27.9 X = 7.7 s2 = .22 s2 = .05 s = .47 s = .2 7oCV =1.68 %CV .= 2.6 R = 1.8 R = 1.8 'Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 127 Table 51. Roving Tenacity and Elongation at One-Eighth Gauge Stelometer* Break Bundle Specimen Strength Weight Tenacity 7o Elongation Number (kg.) (tng.) gm/Tex 1 3.41 1.89 28.6 7.4 2 3.02 1.73 27.9 7.0 3 3.05 1.56 31.2 7.2 4 2.80 1.46 30.5 7.1 5 2.57 1.34 30.5 7.2 6 2.82 1.51 29.8 7.2 7 3.22 1.69 30.4 7.1 8 3.24 1.73 29.8 7.4 9 4.10 2.14 30.5 7.4 10 4.62 2.48 29.6 7.4 11 3.84 2.10 29.2 7.4 12 4.23 2.32 28.9 7.3 13 4.01 2.25 28.3 7.4 14 3.31 1.89 27.9 7.3 15 3.68 2.01 29.2 7.4 16 3.32 1.86 28.4 7.7 17 4.32 2.46 28.0 7.1 18 4.33 2.41 28.6 7.8 19 3.04 1.70 28.5 7.2 20 3.64 1.98 29.3 7.1 E = 585.1 Z = 146.1 X = 29.3 X = 7.3 s2 = 1.00 s2 = .04 s = 1.00 s = .2 %CV = 5.26 7oCV = 2.74 R = 3.3 R = .8 '''Personal Communication Georgia Experiment Station 128 Table 52. Comber Lap Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 1 25.3 2 30.4 3 30, 4 30, 5 4 17, 6 2 13.0 7 3 13.3 8 6 21.0 9 2 10.9 10 10 33.9 11 7 18.1 12 2 9.6 13 6 16.0 14 4 15.5 15 6 19.7 16 4 14.4 17 4 14.4 18 4 8.0 19 5 21.4 20 1 4, 21 7 22, 22 5 19. 23 5 16. 24 7 19. 25 9 29.0 26 4 21.0 27 2, 14, 28 5, 14, 29 6 17, 30 4, 21, 31 9, 22, 32 3, 14. 33 4, 18, 34 4, 16. 35 3, 16.0 36 3, 13.0 37 6, 11.5 38 5.6 17.1 (Continued) 129 Table 52. Comber Lap Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data (Concluded) Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 39 3.7 14.2 40 7.8 22.9 41 4.6 12.6 42 2.0 9.8 43 5.6 20.6 44 6.9 23.8 45 1.9 5.9 46 3.8 7.5 47 2.6 10.9 48 7.3 23.8 49 5.5 9.8 50 5.5 31.5 51 7.5 28.2 52 5.6 22.2 53 7.0 10.7 54 6.71 17.1 55 4.0 17.4 56 4.9 16.2 57 4.4 13.9 58 6.9 13.6 59 5.6 17.3 60 5.1 13.1 61 4.6 10.1 62 7.6 24.3 E = 336.0 S = 1090.0 X = 5.4 X = 17.6 s2 ^ 4.39 s2 ~ 42.5 s=2.09 s=6.5 7oCV = 38.7 7oCV =36.9 130 Table 53. Comber Noil Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 1 6.8 23.9 2 1.9 7.2 3 2.2 5.2 4 3.3 8.7 5 6.1 20.4 6 7.2 16.8 7 7.5 18.8 8 4.2 14.8 9 2.7 12.4 10 4.5 10.0 •11 1.2 9.2 12 8.6 24.8 13 4.1 12.8 14 3.7 12.4 15 2.3 6.0 16 6.9 24.8 17 5.6 25.6 18 6.2 30.8 19 4.5 15.2 20 5.7 15.2 21 1.9 12.4 22 6.5 15.6 23 6.1 12.4 24 2.9 25.6 25 3.0 13.2 26 6.0 15.6 27 2.2 10.8 28 5.1 17.2 29 5.0 19.6 30 6.6 21.6 31 9.6 40.8 32 5.6 11.6 33 7.0 17.2 34 5.6 12.4 35 3.9 17.6 36 7.71 40.8 37 6.4 21.2 38 (Continued5.4 ) 21.6 131 Table 53. Comber Noil Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data (Concluded) Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 39 6.9 18.0 40 9.2 14.8 41 5.2 12.8 42 2.4 21.2 43 6.1 21.6 44 5.6 16.0 45 4.2 24.0 46 8.4 37.2 47 5.9 16.8 48 9.1 18.8 49 9.6 28.0 50 1.8 4.0 51 3.9 20.4 52 4.2 10.8 s ^ 274.2 S = 9 26.3 X = 5.3 X = 17.8 s2 = 4.22 s2 = 87.2 s = 2.05 s = 9.34 7oCV ^ 38.7 %CV = 52.5 132 Table 54. Combed Sliver Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 1 7.0 14.2 2 7.9 11.0 3 4.2 12.5 4 4.0 18.4 5 4.1 16.0 6 5.1 20.5 7 5.5 11.2 8 7.4 19.5 9 4.0 7.0 10 7.9 18.2 11 8.4 18.2 12 5.5 26.4 13 3.8 10.7 14 4.8 26.1 15 3.4 8.6 16 4.3 12.5 17 5.3 22.1 18 4.3 15.7 19 7.6 23.8 20 3.8 13.3 21 7.6 14.2 22 8.8 17.4 23 2.0 10.1 24 6.8 22.1 25 3.6 14.4 26 4.1 19.0 27 3.1 9.8 28 6.2 18.9 29 4.0 11.0 30 4.7 10.7 31 4.4 8.3 32 4.5 16.0 33 3.7 12.6 34 4.3 13.4 35 8.5 23.6 36 4.1 22.7 37 4.8 19.8 38 (Continued4.0 ) 14.2 133 Table 54. Combed Sliver Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data (Concluded) Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 39 5 16.5 40 9 7.8 41 7 26.1 42 9 32.6 43 7 16.0 44 6 18.8 45 4 16.0 46 3 18.0 47 10 15.2 48 11 9.8 49 4 20.8 50 2 12.8 51 4 20.8 52 5 18.8 53 2 13.2 54 6 14.8 55 7.23 23.2 301.3 s = 897.3 X 5.5 X = 16.37o s2 4.08 s2 = 29.10 s 2.02 s = 5.39 7oCV 36.7 7oCV = 33.1 134 Table 55. Breaker Drawing Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 1 6. 15.6 2 7, 26.8 3 4. 8.0 4 10. 30.4 5 5. 16.0 6 4. 22.4 7 4. 22.8 8 1. 20.0 9 4. 14.4 10 2. 13.6 11 3. 11.6 12 6. 32.4 13 3. 8.4 14 4. 28.8 15 2, 7.6 23.6 16 2. 19.2 17 6. 47.6 18 11. 14.8 5. 19 12.4 20 4. 17.2 21 2. 16.8 22 4. 33.2 23 5. 28.4 24 6. 28.4 25 4. 27 6 26 6. 11 6 27 2. 18 8 28 4, 21 2 29 5. 13, 2 30 5. 24.8 31 4. 11.2 32 3, 28.0 33 7. 17.2 34 3. 15.6 35 3. 20.8 36 5. 6.8 37 3.2.7 7.6 38 (Continued) H CO cr>UiUiLnUiLnUiLnUiLnLn^4>'4>-P--P>-P"-P*-P*4>-P*UJ 3 o ovooo>^ W •-i fD ?r fD o 03 t, (W 03 o CO H- < en t\5 Xl M ^^ 3 Ooa^U^U^U)U3^0-P>4>'^^-O^O^O^J^OO^U^-F>U^U)^JtO O OQ II II II 11 II 3O t-" -p- ^JOOVOOOl—'Cr>U300Ln^Jt—'h-'OO^JOLn^JvOhOUiLOO PQ 03 O ft) CO N) 4> Ln U) rt ?r I—' •n • • • • o C (-•• c^ h-' 00 O h-' Cu cr VO O ho fD • fD »-{ rt fD OQ rt rr 03 M o CO m N3 M o o < xl roroNJi—'I—'NJhororoi—'h-'hoh-'hoi—'hoi—'I—'h-* i—' 3 11 II II il !l rOLnC^004>00l—'I—'4^00UiLnOi—'U)-^00 Table 56. Finisher Drawing Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 1 6.9 14.4 2 6.2 20.0 3 1.8 14.4 4 4.3 15.2 5 7.1 14.4 6 7.4 19.2 7 7.8 15.6 8 4.1 9.2 9 5.4 20.4 10 11.3 29.2 11 7.7 23.2 12 3.4 14.8 13 6.1 23.2 14 1.1 17.2 15 10.0 20.4 16 8.7 23.6 17 2.4 8.4 18 4.1 18.0 19 8.3 25.2 20 5.2 13.6 21 2.0 9.6 22 2.4 14.8 23 5.0 19.6 24 7.9 45.2 25 5.7 21.2 26 1.8 9.6 27 2.9 15.2 28 9.0 15.2 29 4.2 13.2 30 6.8 29.6 31 5.7 15.6 32 3.5 14.4 33 3.8 14.8 34 4.6 18.8 35 5.0 14.4 36 4.8 21.2 37 5.6 20.4 38 (Continued2.1 ) 8.4 137 Table 56. Finisher Drawing Single Fiber Strenth and Elongation Data (Concluded) Specimen Breaker Number Strength Elongation 39- 3.6 12 .8 40 8.1 17 .2 41 4.5 18 .0 42 4.0 22 .8 43 7.4 34 8 44 3.2 14 .4 45 11.8 31 6 46 7.3 20 .8 47 2.4 9 2 48 7.1 23 .2 49 8.7 32 4 50 6.3 14 8 51 2.2 21 2 18 8 52 4.5 26 8 53 8.3 15 6 54 4.5 8 4 54 3.5 23 2 56 3.7 Z = 303.2 S = 3046.8 X = 5.4 X = 18 7% s2 = 6.14 s2 = 50 23 s = 2.48 s = 7.09 7oCV= ^5.9 7oCV = 37 9 138 Table 57. Roving Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 1 7.5 21.2 2 3.9 11.6 3 2.9 10.8 4 4.2 40.8 5 6.5 18.4 6 4.2 13.6 7 5.0 21.6 8 6.3 25.2 9 5.6 13.2 10 7 3 26.8 11 2.1 9.2 12 5.3 12.8 13 3.6 15.2 14 8.5 37.2 15 6.6 12.8 16 5.5 18.8 17 8.1 25.2 18 3.4 14.8 19 6.1 9.2 20 5.1 18.8 21 9.3 27.2 22 9.0 12.8 23 5.8 21.2 24 5.1 27.2 25 7.5 37.2 26 4.8 14.4 27 2.3 12.8 28 4.4 14.4 29 5.1 10.8 30 5.0 15.2 31 7.6 24.8 32 6.3 26.4 33 2.4 7.6 34 3.4 10.8 35 5.2 16.8 36 3.3 10.8 37 6.4 26.8 38 (Continued5.8 ) 25.6 139 Table 57. Roving Single Fiber Strength and Elongation Data (Concluded) Specimen Break Number Strength Elongation 39 3.6 10.8 40 4.1 15.6 41 4.9 16.8 42 6.8 20.8 43 3.2 8.4 44 4.9 14.8 45 4.6 12.4 46 5.3 14.8 47 5.7 18.4 48 5.2 11.2 49 7.5 14.8 50 4.3 9.6 51 9.9 16.8 52 8.9 14.8 53 5.7 33.6 S = 291.1 E = 953.6 X = 5.5 X = 18.0% s2 = 1.86 s2 = 60.44 s = 3.46 s = 7.77 7oCV = 33.8 7oCV= 43.2 140 Table 58. Comber Lap Single Fiber Energy Measurements Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 1 547.62 2 614.83 3 333.55 4 607.37 5 341.35 6 62.23 7 124.46 8 375.87 9 97.08 10 886.16 11 373.38 12 99.57 13 311.15 14 194.16 15 405.74 16 209.10 17 196.65 18 129.44 19 316.13 20 44.81 21 475.44 22 296.21 23 243.94 24 341.02 25 582.48 26 263.86 27 124.46 28 258.88 29 341.02 30 629.77 31 617.32 32 116.99 33 241.45 34 278.79 35 169.27 36 151.84 37 221.58 38 502.82 39 144.37 (Continued) 141 Table 58. Comber Lap Single Fiber Energy Measurements (Concluded) Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 40 535.18 41 159.31 42 84.63 43 303.68 44 453.03 45 34.85 46 77.17 47 64.72 48 420.67 49 74.68 50 415.70 51 540.16 52 353.47 53 216.56 54 328.57 55 229.01 56 211.58 57 199.14 58 268.83 59 248.92 60 211.58 61 136.91 62 577.49 S = 18,375.30 X= 296.38 142 Table 59. Comber Noil Single Fiber Energy Measurements Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 1 448.06 2 32.36 3 32.36 4 74.68 5 375.87 6 341.02 7 410.72 8 129.44 9 206.60 10 121.97 11 44.81 12 632.26 13 156.82 14 159.31 15 44.81 16 490.37 17 418.19 18 490.37 19 266.34 20 97.08 21 440.59 22 248.92 23 224.03 24 114.50 25 248.92 26 67.21 27 238.96 28 291.24 29 450.55 30 1,239.62 31 258.88 32 224.03 33 219.05 34 206.60 35 502.82 36 206.60 37 400.76 38 368.40 39 450.55 (Continued) 143 Table 59. Comber Noil Single Fiber Energy Measurements (Concluded) Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 40 455.52 41 233.98 I 42 181.71 \ 43 368.40 44 238.96 ^ 45 221.54 I 46 913.54 47 241.45 i 48 510.29 I 49 911.05 I 50 32.36 ' 51 176.73 52 121.97 S = 15,983.17 X = 307.37 144 Table 60. Combed Sliver Single Fiber Energy Measurements Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 1 194.16 2 241.45 3 119.48 4 243.94 5 214.07 6 273.81 7 201.63 8 373.38 9 72.19 10 597.41 11 530.20 12 373.38 13 94.59 14 331.06 15 77.17 16 131.93 17 231.50 18 166.78 19 502.82 20 174.24 21 293.73 22 440.59 23 69.70 24 448.06 25 154.33 26 214.07 27 67.21 28 293.73 29 114.50 30 146.86 31 89.61 32 251.41 33 129.44 34 156.82 35 575.01 36 231.50 37 311.15 38 169.27 39 261.37 (Continued) 145 Table 60. Combed Sliver Single Fiber Energy Measurements (Concluded) Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 40 94.59 41 465.48 42 881.18 43 216.56 44 306.17 45 211.58 46 179.22 47 186.69 48 102.06 49 216.56 50 365.91 51 97.08 52 253.90 53 495.35 S= 13,635.88 X= 257.28 146 Table 61. Breaker Drawing Single Fiber Energy Measurements Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 1 206.60 2 575.01 3 79.65 4 761.70 5 186.69 6 283.77 7 308.66 8 131.93 9 119.48 10 116.99 11 72.19 12 423.16 13 77.17 14 246.43 15 49.78 16 149.35 17 348.49 18 1,296.87 19 209.09 20 112.01 21 89.61 22 206.60 23 527.71 24 470.46 25 360.93 26 398.27 27 54.76 28 221.54 29 221.54 30 97.08 31 360.93 32 87.12 33 365.91 34 186.69 35 69.70 36 336.04 37 37.34 38 57.25 39 59.74 (Continued) 147 Table 61. Breaker Drawing Single Fiber Energy Measurements Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 40 370.89 41 82.14 42 169.27 43 241.45 44 296.21 45 345.0 46 74.68 47 505.31 48 84.63 49 724.36 50 124.46 51 336.04 52 248.92 53 296.21 54 97.08 55 318.62 56 99.57 57 238.96 58 415.70 59 410.72 60 577.49 S = 16,022.95 X = 267.05 148 Table 62. Finisher Drawing Single Fiber Energy Measurements Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 1 273.81 2 278.79 3 67.21 4 191.67 5 306.17 6 365.91 7 181.71 8 39.83 9 246.43 10 704.44 11 438.10 12 121.97 13 301.19 14 109.52 15 405.74 16 540.16 17 32.36 18 121.97 19 460.50 20 179.22 21 34.85 22 79.65 23 243.94 24 1,102.72 25 181.71 26 37.34 27 82.14 28 413.21 29 136.91 30 425.65 31 194.16 32 94.59 33 89.61 34 146.86 35 206.60 36 552.60 37 169.27 38 131.93 39 124.46 (c Table 62. Finisher Drawing Single Fiber Energy Measurements (Concluded) Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 40 405.74 41 196.65 42 221.54 43 614.83 44 92.10 45 983.23 46 316.13 47 624.79 48 380.85 49 47 5.44 50 184.20 51 49.78 52 121.97 53 535.18 54 156.82 55 42.32 56 124.46 S = 15,340.93 X= 273.95 150 Table 63. Roving Single Fiber Energy Measurement Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 1 323.60 2 84.63 3 42.32 4 467.97 5 286.26 6 121.97 7 261.37 8 326.09 9 194.16 10 450.55 11 32.36 12 146.86 13 714.40 14 201.63 15 139.40 16 281.28 17 530.20 18 146.86 19 144.37 20 263.86 21 729.34 22 209.10 23 316.13 24 368.40 25 634.75 26 84.63 27 67.21 28 129.44 29 121.97 30 204.11 31 647.19 32 443.08 32 49.78 34 69.70 35 74.68 36 72.19 37 333.55 38 338.53 39 84.63 (Continued) 151 Table 63. Roving Single Fiber Energy Measurement (Concluded) Specimen Number Energy (dyne/cm) 40 144.37 41 201.63 42 328.57 43 57.25 44 184.20 45 164.29 46 241.45 47 256.39 48 94.59 49 293.73 50 107.04 51 425.65 52 415.70 53 241.45 T, = 13,294.86 X= 250.84 152 Table 64. Comber Lap, Combed Sliver, and Comber Noil Fiber Fineness Data Specimen Comber Comber Comber Number Lap Sliver Noil 1 3.6 4.1 2.9 2 3.6 4.1 2.9 3 3.7 4.0 2.9 4 3.8 4.0 2.9 5 3.8 4.0 2.9 6 3.7 4.0 2.9 7 3.6 3.9 2.8 8 3.7 4.0 2.8 9 3.7 4.0 2.8 10 3.7 4.0 2.8 4.0 11 3.6 2.8 3.7 4.0 2.8 12 3.6 3.9 2.8 13 3.7 4.0 2.8 14 3.7 4.0 2.8 15 3.7 4.1 2.8 16 3.6 4.0 2.8 17 3.6 4.0 2.9 18 3.7 3.9 2.8 19 3.7 4.0 2.8 20 s = 73.5 S = 56.7 2 = 86.0 X = 3.7 X = 2.8 X = 4.0 s2 = .0055 s2 = .0035 s2 = .0030 s = .07 s = .059 s = .05 en 00 in in CTi •si- r-- c ro CO CN CM CM CM CM CM t—1 CN rH ,—1 CNj r-H Csl ro CM CO CM 1—1 •H V CM o vD CO O > W) •r-cl CO C^O 4-1 u CO U Q Q (U W) x: >-i en en •cH O I—1 o o Q) t-l XI CO H C at S u(U •H x i-icMco Table 66. Friction Measurements for Comb er Lap Fibers Average Specimen Norma1 Number Force 1 8.93 2.53 20.15 .233 5.26 .485 2.08 2 13.64 2.72 20.15 .251 5.43 .538 2.14 3 15.69 2.66 20.15 .244 5.72 .525 2.15 4 16.00 2.72 20.15 .249 4.70 .432 1.73 5 16.28 2.76 20.15 .254 4.79 .440 1.73 6 15.99 2.71 20.15 .249 4.75 .436 1.75 7 12.47 2.12 20.15 .194 4.43 .407 2.10 8 11.06 1.88 20.15 .172 4.59 .421 2.45 9 13.37 2.27 20.15 .208 4.37 .401 1.93 10 14.12 2.40 20.55 .216 4.77 .429 1.99 11 14.46 2.45 20.55 .221 5.26 .474 2.14 12 13.48 2.29 20.55 .206 4.93 .444 2.16 S 2.697 5.432 24.35 X .225 .453 2.03 s2 .006 .002 .042 s .024 .014 .205 7oCV 10.7 3.09 10.1 155 Table 67. Friction Measurements for Comber Noil Fibers Average Specimen Normal Number Force 1 9.53 1.62 20.15 .149 3.21 .295 1.98 2 99.61 1.63 20.15 .150 3.33 .306 2.04 3 7.84 1.33 20.15 .122 2.79 .256 2.10 4 14.07 2.39 20.15 .219 4.48 .411 1.88 5 16.23 2.75 20.15 .253 4.50 .413 1.63 6 13.30 2.25 20.15 .207 5.04 .463 2.23 7 13.14 2.23 20.30 .203 4.23 .386 1.90 8 11.77 1.98 20.30 .180 3.41 .310 1.72 9 12.98 2.20 20.30 .201 4.19 .382 1.90 10 14.79 2.51 20.10 .136 5.41 .493 3.62 11 13.56 2.30 20.10 .125 5.03 .458 3.67 12 14.61 2.48 20.10 .135 5.09 .464 3.45 S 2.080 4.637 28.12 X .173 .386 2.34 s2 .076 .005 .534 s .28 .02 .73 7oCV 16.2 5.18 3.12 156 Table 68. Friction Measurements Eor Combed Sliver Fibers Average Specimen Normal Number Force 1 14.14 2.39 20.05 .220 5.33 .490 2.23 2 16.01 2.69 20.05 .247 5.54 .510 2.06 33 14.77 2.51 20.05 .231 5.10 .471 2.03 4 14.70 2.50 20.05 .230 5.40 .498 2.16 5 14.17 2.41 20.05 .222 5.17 .477 2.15 6 17.79 2.98 20.05 .274 5.29 .487 1.78 7 13.78 2.38 19.80 .217 4.16 .387 1.78 8 11.37 1.93 19.80 .180 3.80 .353 1.97 9 12.19 2.07 19.80 .193 3.99 .373 1.93 10 11.15 1.88 19.70 .176 3.38 .317 1.80 11 10.74 1.81 19.70 .170 3.39 .319 1.88 12 9.61 1.63 19.70 .153 3.49 .326 2.14 S 2.513 5.008 23.91 X .209 .417 1.99 s2 .101 .440 .023 s .10 .210 .15 7oCV 4.78 5.04 7.54 in inr-^inLn r-l- C •H OVOOOOOT—icMr-. ^1 rooint-i :3 CD CO CU IS Ln,-^v£)cx>00r^vo0r-^0^•<^ IK IxJ J3 CO H i-i«Nm Table 70. Friction Measurements for Finisher Drawing Fibers AREA Average Specimen - Normal LL, H [i \i , Number ^1 \ ^ Force ^ "^^^ ^ ^/^^k 1 13.69 2.32 20.35 .211 4.96 .451 2.13 2 12.39 2.10 20.35 .191 4.07 .370 1.94 3 14.56 2.47 20.35 .225 4.46 .405 1.81 4 13.16 2.23 20.40 .203 4.68 .424 2.10 5 14.24 2.42 20.40 .219 4.89 .443 2.02 6 13.72 2.33 20.40 .211 4.89 .443 2.10 7 13.51 2.29 19.85 .217 4.31 .402 1.85 8 12.40 2.11 19.85 .196 3.91 .364 1.86 9 12.22 2.07 19.85 .193 3.75 .350 1.81 10 17.16 2.91 19.95 .270 5.41 .502 1.86 11 18.45 3.13 19.95 .290 5.83 .541 1.86 12 16.45 2.79 19.95 .259 5.36 .497 1.92 E 2.685 5.192 23.26 X .224 .433 1.94 s2 .001 .003 .019 s .01 .02 .14 7oCV 4.45 4.6 7.21 159 Table 71. Friction Measurements for Roving Fibers Average AREA Specimen Normal ^s/|i. Number Force max 1 10.71 1.82 20.10 .167 3.61 .332 1.99 2 8.99 1.53 20.10 .140 2.86 .263 1.87 3 11.35 1.93 20.10 .177 3.33 .307 1.73 4 11.68 1.98 20.1.0 .102 3.64 .335 1.84 5 12.56 2.13 20.10 .196 3.83 .353 1.80 6 11.57 1.96 20.10 .181 3.44 .317 1.75 7 14.80 2.51 19.95 .233 5.22 .484 2.08 8 15.49 2.63 19.95 .244 5.30 .492 2.02 9 14.20 2.41 19.95 .224 4.89 .453 2.03 10 12.74 2.16 19.75 .203 4.33 .406 2.00 11 13.62 2.31 19.75 .217 4.65 .436 2.01 12 12.85 2.18 19.75 .204 4.52 .423 2.07 S 2.368 4.601 23.19 X .197 .383 1.93 s2 .001 .005 .015 s .03 .07 .12 7oCV 15.2 18.3 6.2 CO 2! X) C fD O CO I-' h-» M 3 o H > to 4>-U)OJ(jOLn(jJhOUiLni-'N>vO cr " sw i-j ^OU)^0--JI-'O^00L^v«0OOO (D C^O^X)004>W-^U^CJ^L^{JOO^ N3> > ~J to rvJK)NiroNiN3hON5hOt-'N)H-' Tl ffil *-i -P*N3K)LOUiOJt-' ON I—'OJh-'H-'h-'l—'I—'I—'hOH-"!—'rot-'NJ 1= -vlh-'OvOOOO^JOOVOVOVOO-^'^OvOI—' ^U)i—'ro^ooioooov£>oooo^vo-^U) 1= 00 30 ,- 25 I/) 20 F: (O i- cn - s: Direction of Travel 0) 15 1f-' o 10 -Feature B- 0 1 3 4 5 Scale: 2.3 cm = 1 mm Distance Along Fiber (Millimeters) Figure 23. Typical Friction Plot Exhibiting Damaged Fiber. o\ l62 DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length Combed Sliver DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length Figure 2k. Typical Frictional Plots for Selected Processes, Series I. 163 a. Breaker Drawing Sample UJ CO o 00 O CO ^ u- E fO II _) S- 2: •!- oj O r- ^«v. o 2: wVl/^^ I—«>»_.' AAA*«.A^A».#m.^AAAA*^*^^^*p,/^#^/^A^AA. >*fM'>-M*i'>i ^^-^^^rT^ < CJ) 00 DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length Finisher Drawing DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length LU CO Roving CJ> 00 Di.—> • O CO «^ ^ E 03 II _l S- z •!- oj O 1— ">-s. ly^ ce: < o DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length < DISTANCE ALONG FIBER (Millimeters) o 00 SCALE: 1/2" = 1 mm of Fiber Length Figure 25. Typical Frictional Plots for Selected Processes, Series II. 4 *,*•?• f«^i?t>^J f^'-y?-^ Altil"^- 4-^ S'^'...i ^•O,^'^^' • .' 'f -/it Jy?c€-; • -.;.>:3v^-^i.^-'^jt"^^""^ |f-.;v^ i^ (a) 1T2X (h) lUTX (c) 6,150X Figure 26. Egyptian Menoufi Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. CTs 4=- fm (a) 1T2X (b) li+TX (c) 6,150X Figure 2T« Pima S-2 Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. ON ii^ (a) 1T2X (h) ll+TX (c) 6,150X Figure 28. Comber Lap Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. (a) 172X (h) IUTX (c) 6,150X Figure 29. Comber Noil Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. H ON * ^v^ *• \' ft'* J. (a) 1T2X (h) IUTX (c) 6,150X Figure 30. Combed Sliver Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. ON OO J (a) 1T2X (b) IUTX (c) 6,150X Figure 31. Breaker Drawing Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. o^ r^/^ ^ we J^ -^^ (c) 6,150X (a) 1T2X (b) l^TX Figure 32. Finisher Drawing Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Secti on (b) Shape (c) Surface. r-"" -•«' V~ *7- V (a) 1T2X (b) IUTX (c) 6,150X Figure 33. Roving Fiber Optical and Electron Micrographs (a) Cross Section (b) Shape (c) Surface. 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 REFERENCES CITED 1. W. P. Virgin and H. Wakeham, "Cotton Quality and Fiber Properties-- The Relation Between Single Fiber Properties and Behavior of Bundles, Slivers and Yarns," Textile Research Journal 26, (1956) 177. 2. Anonymous, "Gin Damage Research Intensified," Textile Industries 124, (September 1960) 177. 3. A. M. Goldfarb, Cotton Fiber Properties as Affected by Ginning, Master's Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (August 1966) 4. H. R. Levy, The Effect of Opening, Cleaning, Picking, and Carding of Empire WR Cotton Fibers, Master's Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (September 1966). 5. G. L. Louis, L. A. Fiori and J. F. Sands, "Blending Cottons Differ ing in Fiber Break Elongation Part I Effect on the Properties of Combed Single Yarns," Textile Research Journal 31 6. R. W. Webb, "Interrelationship Among Five Cotton-Quality Factors, Including Fiber Strength One-Eighth Inch versus Zero Gauge As Related to Yarn Strength at Three Staple Length Levels," Marketing Research Report No. 684, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. (May 1965). 7. Virgin, e_t a_l. , ££. cit. 8. L. Rebenfeld, "The Effect of Processing on Cotton Fiber Properties," Textile Research Journal (June 1957) 473. 9. W. L. Balls, "Studies of Quality in Cotton," Macmillan, London 1928. 10. Louis, ejt aj^. , £2^. cit. 11. L. A. Fiori, J. F. Sands, H. W. Little, and J. N. Grant, "Effect of Cotton Fiber Bundle Break Elongation and Other Fiber Properties on the Properties of a Coarse and a Medium Singles Yarn," Textile Research Journal 26, 553-564 (July 1956). 12. Ibid. 13. Virgin, ejt. £l. , 0£. cit. 14. Fiori, e_t. aj^. , ££. cit. 174 15. L. A. Fiori and J. J. Brown, "Effects of Cotton Fiber Fineness on the Physical Properties of Single Yarns," Textile Research Journal, 21, 750-757 (October 1951). 16. S. Kohler. "The Influence of Fiber-Length as the Proportion of Fiber-Strength Utilized in Cotton Yarn," The Journal of the Textile Institute 25, T141-T149 (1934). 17. A. N. Gulati and A. J. Turner, "The Foundations of Yarn-Strength and Yarn-Extensions Part IV--The Influence of Yarn--Twist on the Diameters of Cotton Yarns," Journal of the Textile Institute 21, T561 (1930). 18. Fiori, e_t. al. , ££• cit. 19. H. Loveless, "What Happens to Cotton in Multiple Drawing?," Textile World 100, 110 (August 1950). 20. Ibid. 21. W. E. Morton and R. J. Summers, "Fiber Arrangement in Card Slivers," Journal of the Textile Institute 40, P106 (1949). 22. Ibid. 23. W. D. Morton and R. Nield, "The Effect of Lap Preparation on Waste Extraction at the Cotton Comber," Journal of the Textile Institute 44, T317 (1953). 24. R. A. Mullikin and F. E. Newton, "Get Better Combing," Textile Indus tries 128, 131 (September 1964). 25. Wakeham, H., W. P. Virgin, and N. Spicer, "Cotton Quality and Fiber Properties Part I Effect of Mechanical Blending on Cotton Fiber Properties," Textile Research Journal 24, 802 (September 1954) 26. Ibid. 27. J. N. Grant, 0. W. Molier, and J. M. Scott, "Effects of Mechanical Properties of Fibers," Textile Research Journal 22, 682 (1952). 28. Ibid. 29. K. P. R. Pillay, "A Study of the Hairiness of Cotton Yarns, Part I: Effect of Fiber and Yarn Factors," Textile Research Journal 34, 663 (August 1964). 30. K. P. R. Pillay, "A Study of the Hairiness of Cotton Yarns, Part II: Effect of Processing Factors," Textile Research Journal 34, 783 (September 1964). 175 31. G. T. Mahaffey, Determination of Optimum Draft Districution for Combed Cotton Yarns, Master's Thesis, Georgia Institute of Techno logy (July 1966). 32. E. B. Grover and R. E. Wiggins, Textile Fundamentals, North Carolina State University Press at Raleigh (1964). 33. F. Charnley, Manual of Cotton Spinning Vol. IV, Part III: Draw- frames, Combers and Speed Frames, The Textile Institute and Butter- Worth, London (1964). 34. Grover, e_t al. , _0£. cit. 35. Charnley, o£. cit. 36. Ibid. 37. E. B. Grover and R. E. Wiggins, Fundamentals of Textiles, Part II: Yarn Manufacturing, North Carolina State University Press at Raleigh (1964). 38. Grover, ejt a_l. , ^. cit. 39. Charnley, ££. cit. 40. E. E. Stout, Introduction to Textiles, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (1965). 41. T. E. McBride, Development of an Instrument to Measure Friction of Textile Fibers, Master's Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (August 1965). 42. J. P. Bryant, An Investigation of the Factors Which Influence the Frictional Properties of Textile Fibers, Master's Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (September 1966). 43. R. B. Belser and J. L. Taylor, Frictional Properties of Cotton Fibers, U. S. D. A. Grant No. 12-14-100-7661 (72), Semiannual Report No. 1 (August 1965). 44. The Pressley Cotton Fiber Strength Tester and Accessories. 45. Book of A. S. T. M. Standards, Part 25, Textile Materials--Fibers and Products, Leather (Philadelphia, March 1964) Text D 1447-54T 338. 46. Levy, ££. cit. 47. Manual of Instruction Fibrograph Model 230-A. 176 48. Book of A. S. T. M. Standards, Part 25, Fibers and Products, Leather (Philadelphia, March 1964) Test D 1440-55, 299. 49. E. B. Grover, and D. S. Hamby, Handbook of Textile Testing and Quality Control, Textile Book Publishers, New York (1960). 50. J. E. Booth, Principles of Textile Testing, Chemical Publishing Company, New York (1964). 51. I. Miller and J. F. Freund, Probability and Statistics for Engi neers, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1965). 52. E. L. Grant, Statistical Quality Control, McGraw-Hill (1964). 53. R. B. Belser and J. L. Taylor, Frictional Properties of Cotton Fibers, U.S.D.A. Grant No. 12-14-100-7661 (72) Semi-Annual Report No. 4 (February 1965). 54. J. F. Simmons, Investigation of a Miniature Spinning System as a Screening Agent for Spin Finish Components on Polyacrylonitrile Fibers, Master's Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (August 1967). 55. Stout, ££. cit. 56. Levy, ££. cit. 57. G. G. Clegg, "The Examination of Damaged Cotton by the Congo Red Test," Journal of the Textile Institute 31, (May 1940) T49.