a study of the reasons for shrink-resistance and ... - UNSWorks

A STUDY OF THE REASONS FOR

SHRINK-RESISTANCE AND MACHINE WASHABILITY

OF SUPERLIGHT WEIGHT, WOVEN, PURE WOOL FABRICS

BY

CATHRYN ELIZABETH LEE SCHOOL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPERVISORS: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MARK HOFFMAN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR MIKE PAILTHORPE,

DR SURINDER TANDON

A Thesis Submitted for Fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FEBRUARY, 2006

i

“Woollens should be washed early in the morning, on a bright, breezy day for preference.

The more quickly they are dried the less they will shrink”

Common-Sense Laundry Book, p50, The NSW Cookery Teachers’ Association,

George B. Philip & Son, Sydney (circa 1920).

1

ABSTRACT

The washing of wool textiles has been an ongoing problem for the wool industry as the

conditions of washing, especially in an automatic washing machine invariably lead to

the felting shrinkage of the fabric. Much research effort has gone into the prevention of

felting shrinkage to make wool fabrics ‘machine washable’, however the processes

which have been most effective in achieving this alter the properties of the fibres. This

project has been an investigation into the reasons for the shrink-resistance of a woven,

pure wool, fabric that has not been treated with any chemical shrink-resist treatments.

The fabric was developed by Canesis Network Limited, as part of ongoing research into

weavable singles yarns.

It has been found that, for the fabrics in this project, felting shrinkage resistance is

dependent upon a unique yarn structure with high levels of twist, tight fabric

construction with high end and pick density and short float lengths, and finishing

processes which permanently set the fabric using heat and steam under lateral

compression. This combination of factors means that the individual fibres are so tightly

bound in the yarns and the fabric structure, and so well set in their close configuration

that they are unable to move in washing and cause felting. The density of the fabric was

found to be the measure that best described the reasons for the changes the felting

shrinkage of the fabric.

Due to the recognised importance of the scales and the directional frictional effect in

felting experiments were carried out to determine if there had been any change in the

frictional properties of the fibres through low stress mechanical testing. Furthermore, as

changes to wool chemistry have been used extensively in other shrink-resistance

treatments, chemical testing was carried out. It was found that changes took place in the

parameters measured in these tests; however, they were unable to explain the changes in

felting shrinkage.

2

CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY..................................................................................ii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT..........................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... 1

CONTENTS...................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................ 18

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 21

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 2 HYPOTHESIS.......................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW, FELTING AND OTHER FORMS OF

WOOL SHRINKAGE AND FINISHING OF WOOL FABRICS ................................. 25

3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 25

3.2 THE FELTING PROCESS............................................................................. 25

3.3 FRICTION IN WOOL.................................................................................... 26

3.4 THEORIES ON SCALES AND FRICTION ................................................. 27

3.4.1 “The Ratchet Mechanism”...................................................................... 27

3.4.2 “The Ploughing Mechanism”.................................................................. 28

3.4.3 Other Theories ........................................................................................ 28

3.5 CONDITIONS OF FELTING ........................................................................ 29

3.5.1 Temperature ............................................................................................ 29

3.5.2 pH and The Action Of Soaps And Detergents........................................ 30

3.6 FIBRE PROPERTIES AFFECTING FELTING ............................................ 31

3.6.1 Fibre Length............................................................................................ 31

3.6.2 Fibre Diameter ........................................................................................ 32

3.6.3 Fibre Crimp............................................................................................. 33

3.6.4 Elastic Properties/Elasticity .................................................................... 34

3.7 YARN AND FABRIC PROPERTIES AFFECTING FELTING................... 35

3.8 THEORIES ON WOOL FRICTION AND FELTING................................... 36

3.9 WOOL FABRIC FINISHING PROCESSES ................................................. 38

3.9.1 Scouring .................................................................................................. 38

3.9.2 Milling..................................................................................................... 40

3.9.3 Drying ..................................................................................................... 41

3.9.4 Carbonising ............................................................................................. 42

Contents

3

3.9.5 Raising and Brushing.............................................................................. 43

3.9.6 Setting and Pressing Processes ............................................................... 43

3.9.6.1 Crabbing.............................................................................................. 43

3.9.6.2 Potting ................................................................................................. 44

3.9.6.3 Beaming .............................................................................................. 44

3.9.6.4 Decatising ........................................................................................... 45

3.9.6.5 Pressing ............................................................................................... 47

3.9.7 Singeing And Shearing ........................................................................... 48

3.9.8 London Shrinkage................................................................................... 48

3.10 CONVENTIONAL SHRINKPROOFING METHODS................................. 49

3.10.1 Degradative Processes ............................................................................ 50

3.10.1.1 Chlorination Processes........................................................................ 51

3.10.1.2 Other Degradative Processes .............................................................. 52

3.10.2 Electrical Discharge Treatments Or Plasma Treatments ........................ 53

3.10.2.1 Glow Discharge Treatments ............................................................... 53

3.10.2.2 Corona Treatments.............................................................................. 54

3.10.3 Enzyme Processes................................................................................... 54

3.10.4 Polymer Treatments ................................................................................ 55

3.10.5 Other Methods Of Preventing Shrinkage................................................ 57

3.11 OTHER FORMS OF SHRINKAGE IN WOOL FABRICS........................... 57

3.11.1 Relaxation Shrinkage .............................................................................. 57

3.11.2 Hygral Expansion.................................................................................... 57

3.12 SETTING OF WOOL FABRICS ................................................................... 59

3.13 SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................. 62

4.1 FABRIC PRODUCTION: WEAVING, FINISHING, AND SAMPLING.... 62

4.1.1 Weaving .................................................................................................. 62

4.1.2 Finishing And Sampling ......................................................................... 64

4.1.2.1 Plain Weave: Pilot Production............................................................ 65

4.1.2.1.1 Pressure Decatising Cycle................................................................... 67

4.1.2.2 Plain Weave: Bulk Production ............................................................ 67

4.1.2.3 Twill Fabric Production ...................................................................... 70

4.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TEST METHODS.................................... 74

Contents

4

4.2.1 Measurement Errors................................................................................ 74

4.2.2 Sample Preparation ................................................................................. 75

4.2.2.1 Test Conditions ................................................................................... 75

4.2.3 Wash Shrinkage ...................................................................................... 76

4.2.4 Physical Test Methods ............................................................................ 79

4.2.4.1 Fabric Width ....................................................................................... 79

4.2.4.2 Mass Per Unit Area............................................................................. 80

4.2.4.3 Yarn Crimp ......................................................................................... 80

4.2.4.4 Ends and Picks .................................................................................... 81

4.2.4.5 Derived Parameters ............................................................................. 81

4.2.5 Objective Testing .................................................................................... 84

4.2.5.1 Fabric Assurance by Simple Testing (FAST) Method ....................... 84

4.2.5.2 Kawabata Evaluation System- Fabric (KES-F) Method..................... 86

4.2.6 Chemical Testing .................................................................................... 88

4.2.6.1 Initial Sample Preparation................................................................... 88

4.2.6.2 Alkali Solubility.................................................................................. 89

4.2.6.3 Urea Bisulfite Solubility ..................................................................... 90

4.2.6.4 pH of Water Extract of Wool.............................................................. 90

4.2.6.5 Amino Acid Analysis (AAA) ............................................................. 91

4.2.6.6 Spectroscopy ....................................................................................... 93

4.2.7 Yarn Testing............................................................................................ 94

4.2.8 Microscopy ............................................................................................. 96

4.2.9 Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 98

4.2.9.1 Error Calculation................................................................................. 98

4.2.9.2 Plots and Regression ........................................................................... 98

4.2.9.3 Correlation Values .............................................................................. 99

4.2.9.4 Other Methods .................................................................................... 99

CHAPTER 5 WASH TESTING, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................. 101

5.1 WOOLMARK 1X7A RELAXATION SHRINKAGE................................. 101

5.2 WOOLMARK 5X5A TOTAL AREA SHRINKAGE.................................. 106

5.2.1 Pilot Production .................................................................................... 106

5.2.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 107

5.2.3 2/1 Twill Production (26ppcm and 33ppcm) ........................................ 109

Contents

5


5.3 WOOLMARK 5X5A FELTING SHRINKAGE.......................................... 111


5.3.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 113



5.3.5 Felting Shrinkage: Comparisons Across Batches ................................. 117

5.4 CUFF EDGE FELTING ............................................................................... 118


5.4.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 118

5.4.3 Twill Productions (All Productions)..................................................... 119

5.4.4 Correlations with Felting Shrinkage ..................................................... 120

5.5 DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 120

CHAPTER 6 PHYSICAL TESTING, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................. 123

6.1 WIDTH ......................................................................................................... 123


6.1.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 123

6.1.3 Twill Production ................................................................................... 123

6.1.4 Calculated ............................................................................................. 124


6.2 MASS PER UNIT AREA: MEASURED AND CALCULATED ............... 127

6.2.1 Pilot Production ............................................................................................ 127

6.2.2 Bulk Production ............................................................................................ 128

6.2.3 Twill Productions.................................................................................. 128

6.2.4 Calculated ............................................................................................. 128


6.3 YARN CRIMP.............................................................................................. 130


6.3.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 130



6.4 ENDS AND PICKS ...................................................................................... 133


Contents

6

6.4.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 133



6.5 COVER FACTOR: SI AND FRACTIONAL....................................... 136


6.5.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 136



6.6 COMPACTNESS RATIO ............................................................................ 138


6.6.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 139



6.7 FABRIC VOLUME DENSITY.................................................................... 140


6.7.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 141



6.8 DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 143

CHAPTER 7 OBJECTIVE TESTING, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................... 145

7.1 FAST TESTING ........................................................................................... 145

7.1.1 Relaxation Shrinkage (RS) ................................................................... 145

7.1.1.1 Pilot Production ................................................................................ 146

7.1.1.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 146

7.1.1.3 Twill Productions.............................................................................. 147

7.1.1.4 Correlations with Felting Shrinkage ................................................. 147

7.1.2 Hygral Expansion (HE)..................................................................... 150


7.1.2.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 151



7.1.3 Formability............................................................................................ 155

7.1.3.1 All Productions ................................................................................. 155

Contents

7


7.1.4 Extensibility .......................................................................................... 157


7.1.4.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 157



7.1.5 Bending Rigidity (B)............................................................................. 160


7.1.5.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 160

7.1.5.3 2/1 Twill Production ......................................................................... 161



7.1.6 Shear Rigidity ....................................................................................... 163


7.1.6.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 163




7.1.7 Compression ......................................................................................... 165


7.1.7.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 166




7.2 KESF TESTING ........................................................................................... 171

7.2.1 Surface Properties MIU, MMD, and SMD........................................... 171


7.2.1.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 171



7.2.2 Bending Properties................................................................................ 176


7.2.2.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 176

Contents

8




7.2.3 Shear Properties .................................................................................... 181

7.2.3.1 Pilot Production .................................................................................... 181

7.2.3.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 181

7.2.3.3 Twill Productions.................................................................................. 181

7.2.3.4 Correlations with Felting Shrinkage ..................................................... 182

7.2.4 Tensile Properties.................................................................................. 186


7.2.4.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 186



7.2.5 Compression Properties .................................................................... 191


7.2.5.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 191



7.3 DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 195

CHAPTER 8 CHEMICAL TESTING, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................... 197

8.1 SOLUBILITY TESTING ............................................................................. 197

8.1.1 Alkali Solubility............................................................................................ 197


8.1.1.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 199

8.1.2 UREA BISULFITE SOLUBILITY ...................................................... 201


8.1.2.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 203

8.2 AMINO ACID ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 205


8.2.1.2 Bulk Production ................................................................................ 208

8.3 DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 210

CHAPTER 9 MICROSCOPY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................. 212

9.1 FIELD EMISSION SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY................. 212

Contents

9


9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (ESEM)215

9.1.2 Bulk Production .................................................................................... 215


9.1.3.1 2/1 Twill Production: 26ppcm .......................................................... 219



9.1.3.4 3/3 Twill Production: 33ppcm ......................................................... 227

9.1.3.5 Washed Samples ............................................................................... 229

9.3 DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 230

CHAPTER 10 YARN TESTING, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................ 231

10.1 RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 231

10.2 DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 232

CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 235

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 240

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................

APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE NAMES AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................... 262

APPENDIX 2 YARN SHRINKAGE TRIALS ............................................................ 266

APPENDIX 3 TEST RESULTS................................................................................... 267

APPENDIX 4 TYPICAL TENSILE AND COMPRESSION CHARTS ..................... 312

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Wool Fibre..................................................................................................... 27

Figure 3.2 The Ratchet Mechanism................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.3 Traditional Dolly Scour................................................................................. 39

Figure 3.4 Milling Machine ............................................................................................ 41

Figure 3.5 Yorkshire Crab .............................................................................................. 44

Figure 3.6 Pressure Decatising Unit ............................................................................... 46

Figure 3.7 Shearing......................................................................................................... 48

Figure 4.1 Finishing and Sampling of Plain Weave Pilot Production ............................ 66

Figure 4.2 Finishing and Sampling of Plain Weave Bulk Production............................ 69

Figure 4.3 Finishing and Sampling of 2/1 and 3/3 Twill Fabrics: 26 picks per cm........ 72

Figure 4.4 Finishing and Sampling of 2/1 and 3/3 Twill Fabrics:33 picks per cm......... 73

Contents

10

Figure 4.5 Marking of Wash Samples ............................................................................ 77

Figure 4.6 Yarn Felting Unit........................................................................................... 96

Figure 5.1 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): Pilot Production ................................. 102

Figure 5.2 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): Bulk Production................................. 103

Figure 5.3 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): 2/1 Twill Production.......................... 104

Figure 5.4 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): 3/3 Twill Production.......................... 105

Figure 5.5 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): Pilot Production............................ 107

Figure 5.6 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): Bulk Production............................ 108

Figure 5.7 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): 2/1Twill Production...................... 110

Figure 5.8 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): 3/3 Twill Production..................... 111

Figure 5.9 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Pilot Production........................................ 112

Figure 5.10 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Bulk Production ..................................... 114

Figure 5.11 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): 2/1 Twill Production (26ppcm only)...... 115

Figure 5.12 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): 3/3 Twill Production (26ppcm only)...... 116

Figure 5.13 Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5 only): Corresponding Samples.................... 117

Figure 5.14 Cuff Edge Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Bulk Production.................... 119

Figure 6.1 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Fabric Total Width

(Measured), including selvdges .................................................................................... 127

Figure 6.2 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v gsm (Measured).................. 129

Figure 6.3 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Yarn Crimp......................... 132

Figure 6.4 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Yarn Crimp........................... 132

Figure 6.5 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Picks per Centimetre ..................... 135

Figure 6.6 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Ends per Centimetre ..................... 135

Figure 6.7 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Total Cover Factor

(Fractional).................................................................................................................... 138

Figure 6.8 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Compactness Ratio ............. 140

Figure 6.9 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Fabric Density at 2g Load .. 142

Figure 6.10 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Fabric Density

at 100g Load ................................................................................................................. 142

Figure 7.1 Warp Relaxation Shrinkage, FAST Method: All Productions,

Corresponding Samples ................................................................................................ 148

Figure 7.2 Weft Relaxation Shrinkage, FAST Method: All Productions,


Contents

11

Figure 7.3 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Relaxation Shrinkage

(FAST) .......................................................................................................................... 149

Figure 7.4 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Relaxation Shrinkage

(FAST) .......................................................................................................................... 149

Figure 7.5 Warp Hygral Expansion in Finishing: All Batches,


Figure 7.6 Weft Hygral Expansion in Finishing: All Batches,


Figure 7.7 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Hygral Expansion (FAST).. 154

Figure 7.8 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Hygral Expansion (FAST) ... 154

Figure 7.9 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Formability (FAST)............ 156

Figure 7.10 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Formability (FAST)............ 156

Figure 7.11 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp 100g Extensibility

(FAST) .......................................................................................................................... 159

Figure 7.12 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft 100g Extensibility (FAST) . 159

Figure 7.13 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Bias Extensibility (FAST) 160

Figure 7.14 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Bending Rigidity (FAST) . 162

Figure 7.15 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Bending Rigidity (FAST)... 162

Figure 7.16 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Shear Rigidity (FAST) ..... 165

Figure 7.17 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v 2g Unreleased Thickness

(FAST) .......................................................................................................................... 169

Figure 7.18 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v 100g Unreleased Thickness

(FAST) .......................................................................................................................... 169

Figure 7.19 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Unreleased Surface

Thickness (FAST)......................................................................................................... 170

Figure 7.20 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Released Surface Thickness

(FAST) .......................................................................................................................... 170

Figure 7.21 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Coefficient of Friction

(MIU) ............................................................................................................................ 174

Figure 7.22 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Coefficient of Friction

(MIU) ............................................................................................................................ 174

Figure 7.23 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Geometric Roughness

(SMD) ........................................................................................................................... 175

Contents

12

Figure 7.24 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Geometric Roughness

(SMD) ........................................................................................................................... 175

Figure 7.25 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Bending Rigidity .............. 179

Figure 7.26 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Bending Rigidity ................ 179

Figure 7.27 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Bending Hysteresis

at 1cm-1.......................................................................................................................... 180

Figure 7.28 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Bending Hysteresis

at 1cm-1.......................................................................................................................... 180

Figure 7.29 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Shear Rigidity................... 184

Figure 7.30 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Shear Rigidity..................... 184

Figure 7.31 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Shear Hysteresis (at

0.5degrees shear angle)................................................................................................. 185

Figure 7.32 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Shear Hysteresis (at

0.5degrees shear angle)................................................................................................. 185

Figure 7.33 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Tensile Strain.................... 189

Figure 7.34 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Tensile Strain...................... 189

Figure 7.35 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Tensile Resilience............. 190

Figure 7.36 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Tensile Resilience .............. 190

Figure 7.37 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Compression..................... 193

Figure 7.38 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Compressional Energy ..... 193

Figure 7.39 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Compressional Resilience 194

Figure 8.1 Alkali Solubility in Finishing: Pilot Production.......................................... 198

Figure 8.2 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Alkali Solubility: Pilot

Production ..................................................................................................................... 199

Figure 8.3 Alkali Solubility in Finishing: Bulk Production.......................................... 200

Figure 8.4 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Alkali Solubility: Bulk

Production ..................................................................................................................... 201

Figure 8.5 Urea Bisulfite Solubility in Finishing: Pilot Production ............................. 202

Figure 8.6 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Urea Bisulfite Solubility:

Pilot Production ............................................................................................................ 203

Figure 8.7 Urea Bisulfite Solubility in Finishing: Bulk Production ............................. 204

Figure 8.8 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Urea Bisulfite Solubility:

Bulk Production ............................................................................................................ 205

Contents

13

Figure 8.9 Lanthionine in Finishing: Pilot Production ................................................. 207

Figure 8.10 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Lanthionine Content: Pilot

Production ..................................................................................................................... 207

Figure 8.11 Lanthionine in Finishing: Bulk Production ............................................... 209

Figure 8.12 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Lanthionine Content: Bulk

Production ..................................................................................................................... 210

Figure 9.1 Loom Sample, Pilot..................................................................................... 213

Figure 9.2 CrabSample, Pilot........................................................................................ 213

Figure 9.3 Stent Sample, Pilot ...................................................................................... 213

Figure 9.4 Crop Sample, Pilot ...................................................................................... 213

Figure 9.5a Decatised at 110°C for 2min, Pilot............................................................ 214

Figure 9.5b Decatised at 110°C for 4min, Pilot............................................................ 214

Figure 9.5c Decatised at 110°C for 6min, Pilot............................................................ 214







Figure 9.8a Loomstate: damaged fibres, Pilot .............................................................. 215

Figure 9.8b 121°C 6min: damaged fibres, Pilot ........................................................... 215

Figure 9.9a Loomstate Sample: Surface, Bulk.............................................................. 216

Figure 9.9b Plain Loomstate: Warp Cross Section, Bulk.............................................. 216

Figure 9.9c Plain Loomstate: Weft Cross Section, Bulk............................................... 216

Figure 9.10a Plain Scoured Sample: Surface, Bulk ...................................................... 216

Figure 9.10b Plain Scoured: Warp Cross Section, Bulk ............................................... 216

Figure 9.10c Plain Scoured: Weft Cross Section, Bulk ................................................ 216

Figure 9.11a Plain Crabbed: Sample: Surface, Bulk..................................................... 216

Figure 9.11b Plain Crabbed: Warp Cross Section, Bulk ............................................... 216

Figure 9.11c Plain Crabbed: Weft Cross Section, Bulk ................................................ 216

Figure 9.12a Plain Stentered: Sample: Surface, Bulk ................................................... 217

Figure 9.12b Plain Stentered: Warp Cross Section, Bulk ............................................. 217

Figure 9.12c Plain Stentered: Weft Cross Section, Bulk .............................................. 217

Contents

14

Figure 9.13a Plain Cropped: Sample: Surface, Bulk..................................................... 217

Figure 9.13b Plain Cropped: Warp Cross Section, Bulk............................................... 217

Figure 9.13c Plain Cropped: Weft Cross Section, Bulk................................................ 217

Figure 9.14a Plain Dec 121°C 6m: Surface, Bulk......................................................... 217

Figure 9.14b Plain Dec 121°C: Warp Cross Section, Bulk........................................... 217

Figure 9.14c Plain Dec 121°C: Weft Cross Section, Bulk ............................................ 217

Figure 9.15a Plain Dec 121°C 6m+RP: Surface, Bulk ................................................. 218

Figure 9.15b Plain Dec 121°C+RP: Warp Cross Section, Bulk.................................... 218

Figure 9.15c Plain Dec 121°C+RP: Weft Cross Section, Bulk..................................... 218

Figure 9.16a Plain Dec 121°C 6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m: Surface, Bulk ........................ 218

Figure 9.16b Plain Dec 121°C+RP+ 121°C6m: Warp Cross Section, Bulk ................. 218

Figure 9.16c Plain Dec 121°C+RP+121°C6m: Weft Cross Section, Bulk ................... 218

Figure 9.17a Plain Dec 121°C 6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m+BL2: Surface, Bulk ............... 218

Figure 9.17b Plain Dec 121°C+RP+121°C6m +BL2: Warp Cross Section, Bulk........ 218

Figure 9.17c Plain Dec 121°C+RP+121°C6m +BL2: Weft Cross Section, Bulk......... 218

Figure 9.18a 2x1 26ppcm Loomstate Sample: Surface ................................................ 219

Figure 9.18b 2x1 26ppcm Loomstate: Warp Cross Section ......................................... 219

Figure 9.18c 2x1 26ppcm Loomstate: Weft Cross Section .......................................... 219

Figure 9.19a 2x1 26ppcm Scoured Sample: Surface .................................................... 220

Figure 9.19b 2x1 26ppcm Scoured: Warp Cross Section ............................................. 220

Figure 9.19c 2x1 26ppcm Scoured: Weft Cross Section .............................................. 220

Figure 9.20a 2x1 26ppcm Crabbed Sample: Surface.................................................... 220

Figure 9.20b 2x1 26ppcm Crabbed: Warp Cross Section............................................. 220

Figure 9.20c 2x1 26ppcm Crabbed: Weft Cross Section.............................................. 220

Figure 9.21a 2x1 26ppcm Stentered Sample: Surface .................................................. 220

Figure 9.21b 2x1 26ppcm Stentered: Warp Cross Section ........................................... 220

Figure 9.21c 2x1 26ppcm Stentered: Weft Cross Section ............................................ 220

Figure 9.22a 2x1 26ppcm Cropped Sample: Surface ................................................... 221

Figure 9.22b 2x1 26ppcm Cropped: Warp Cross Section ............................................ 221

Figure 9.22c 2x1 26ppcm Cropped: Weft Cross Section ............................................. 221

Figure 9.23a 2x1 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min: Surface ................................................... 221

Figure 9.23b 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m: Warp Cross Section ................................... 221

Figure 9.23c 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m: Weft Cross Section .................................... 221

Contents

15

Figure 9.24a 2x1 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min+ RP: Surface ........................................... 221

Figure 9.24b 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP: Warp Cross Section ............................ 221

Figure 9.24c 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP: Weft Cross Section ............................. 221

Figure 9.25a 2x1 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min+ RP+121°C 6m: Surface ........................ 222

Figure 9.25b 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+121°C 6m: Warp Cross Section.......... 222

Figure 9.25c 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+121°C 6m: Weft Cross Section........... 222

Figure 9.26a 2x1 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min+ RP+121°C 6m+BL2: Surface ............... 222

Figure 9.26b 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+121°C 6m+ BL2: Warp Cross Section222

Figure 9.26c 2x1 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+ 121°C 6m+BL2: Weft Cross Section 222










Figure 9.30a 2x1 33ppcm Finished Sample: Surface ................................................... 223

Figure 9.30b 2x1 33ppcm Finished: Warp Cross Section ............................................ 223

Figure 9.30c 2x1 33ppcm Finished: Weft Cross Section ............................................. 223




Figure 9.32a 3x3 26ppcm Scoured Sample: Surface .................................................... 224

Figure 9.32b 3x3 26ppcm Scoured: Warp Cross Section ............................................. 224

Figure 9.32c 3x3 26ppcm Scoured: Weft Cross Section .............................................. 224







Contents

16

Figure 9.35a 3x3 26ppcm Cropped Sample: Surface ................................................... 225

Figure 9.35b 3x3 26ppcm Cropped: Warp Cross Section ............................................ 225

Figure 9.35c 3x3 26ppcm Cropped: Weft Cross Section ............................................. 225

Figure 9.36a 3x3 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min: Surface ................................................... 225

Figure 9.36b 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m: Warp Cross Section ................................... 225

Figure 9.36c 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m: Weft Cross Section .................................... 225

Figure 9.37a 3x3 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min+ RP: Surface ........................................... 226

Figure 9.37b 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP: Warp Cross Section ............................ 226

Figure 9.37c 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP: Weft Cross Section ............................. 226

Figure 9.38a 3x3 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min+ RP+121°C 6m: Surface ........................ 226

Figure 9.38b 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+121°C 6m: Warp Cross Section.......... 226

Figure 9.38c 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+ 121°C 6m: Weft Cross Section.......... 226

Figure 9.39a 3x3 26ppcm Dec 121°C 6min+ RP+121°C 6m+BL2: Surface ............... 226

Figure 9.39b 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+121°C 6m+ BL2: Warp Cross Section226

Figure 9.39c 3x3 26ppcm Dec121°C 6m+RP+ 121°C 6m+BL2: Weft Cross Section 226










Figure 9.43a 3x3 33ppcm Finished Sample: Surface ................................................... 228

Figure 9.43b 3x3 33ppcm Finished: Warp Cross Section ............................................ 228

Figure 9.43c 3x3 33ppcm Finished: Weft Cross Section ............................................. 228

Figure 9.44a Plain Loomstate Bulk Washed Sample: Surface ..................................... 228

Figure 9.44b Plain Loomstate Bulk Washed: Warp Cross Section .............................. 228

Figure 9.44c Plain Loomstate Bulk Washed: Weft Cross Section ............................... 228

Figure 9.45a Plain Dec 121°C 6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m+BL2 Bulk Washed Sample:

Surface .......................................................................................................................... 228

Contents

17

Figure 9.45b Plain Dec 121°C 6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m+BL2 Bulk Washed: Warp

Cross Section ................................................................................................................ 228

Figure 9.45c Plain Dec 121°C 6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m+BL2 Bulk Washed: Weft

Cross Section ................................................................................................................ 228

Figure 10.1 Yarn Felting Shrinkage v Time of Felting ................................................ 232

Figure A4.1a Typical Tensile Curve (2/1 Twill 121/6+RP+121/6).............................. 312

Figure A4.1b Typical Tensile Curve (Plain KD instead of crab) ................................. 312

Figure A4.2a Typical Compression Curve (2/1 Twill 121/6+RP+121/6) .................... 313

Figure A4.1b Typical Compression Curve (Plain KD instead of crab) ........................ 313

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Fabric Production Specifications .................................................................... 63

Table 4.2 Decatising Time and Temperature Conditions ............................................... 65

Table 4.3 Length Measurement Equipment.................................................................... 74

Table 4.4 Sample Conditioning frictional difference ..................................................... 75

Table 4.5 Mass of ECE Phosphate Reference Detergent for Each Test ......................... 76

Table 4.6 Specimen Size for Wash Samples .................................................................. 77

Table 4.7 Conditioning of Wash Samples Prior to Measurement .................................. 78

Table 4.8 Number of Repeats for gsm Calculation......................................................... 80

Table 6.1 Width and Felting Shrinkage Data................................................................ 126

Table A1.1 Pilot Plain Weave Sampling ...................................................................... 262

Table A1.2 Bulk Plain Weave Sampling ...................................................................... 262

Table A1.3 2/1 and 3/3 Twill Weave Sampling ........................................................... 262

Table A2.1 Results of Yarn Shrinkage Trial ................................................................ 266

Table A3.1 Wash Testing Results................................................................................. 268

Table A3.2 Physical Test Results ................................................................................. 273

Table A3.3 Objective Test Results, FAST Testing....................................................... 283

Table A3.4 Objective Test Results, KES-F Testing ..................................................... 293

Table A3.5 Chemical Testing ....................................................................................... 298

Table A3.6 Pilot Amino Acid Analysis ........................................................................ 303

Table A3.7 Bulk Amino Acid Analysis........................................................................ 305

Table A3.8 Yarn Testing............................................................................................... 309

18

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Australian Wool Innovation Limited for their generous financial support

that has made this project possible.

Funding for the research conducted pursuant to this thesis was provided by Australian

wool producers and the Australian Government through Australian Wool Innovation

Limited.

Thanks to Canesis Network Limited, for the technical assistance and the provision of

library facilities, laboratory facilities and pilot plant equipment that has made this

project possible.

Thanks to Associate Professor Mark Hoffman, Emeritus Professor Mike Pailthorpe, and

Dr Surinder Tandon for ongoing help and guidance.

Thanks to Dr Nigel Johnson, Dr Robert Finch, and all the staff at Canesis Network

Limited for help and support and making my trips to New Zealand so fantastic.

My thanks also go to the following people:

Juan Araya and Thanh Vo Ngoc of the School of Chemistry, UNSW for help with

chemical testing, especially for the use of laboratory facilities.

Dr Allan De Boos of Australian Wool Innvation Limited for helpful discussions on the

interpretation of results, especially KES-F results.

Dr Elizabeth Carter of the Vibrational Spectroscopy Facility, School of Chemistry,

University of Sydney for help in spectroscopy trials.

Peter Durrant of Canesis Network Limited for photographing some of the equipment

used in this project.

Acknowledgements

19

Heather Glassey of Canesis Network Limited for assistance in carrying out yarn

shrinkage test trials.

Lorraine Greer, Lynn Griffin, Waveney Potts, Ashley Fairbrass and the rest of the staff

in Canesis Network Limited, Testing for training in equipment use and assistance with

test methods.

Roger Hartshorn of Canesis Network Limited for help in the production of the yarn

felting shrinkage test apparatus and the production of test yarns that did not come from

production.

Aaron Jackson, Les Duckmanton and Lyell Bright of Canesis Network Limited for

finishing fabrics and helping in collecting samples. Also the staff of Alliance Textiles,

Limited and Lane Walker Rudkin, for their help with finishing.

Dr Serge Kokot of the School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Queensland

University of Technology, Prof Brynn Hibbert, and Diako Ebrahimi of the School of

Chemistry, and Dr Andy Wilkins of Canesis Network Limited for their help with data

analysis.

Dr Jim Lappage of Canesis Network Limited for helpful discussions on weaveable

singles yarns and yarn felting shrinkage experiments.

John Lindsay of Canesis Network Limited for help with fabric production at all stages.

Jenny Norman, Vera Piegerova, Sigrid Fraser, and Dr Marion Kalceff-Stevens of the

Electron Microscopy Unit, UNSW for assistance with microscopy work. Also, Dr

Gerry Danilatos of ESEM Research Laboratory for a helpful discussion on ESEM work.

Dr Doug Rankin of Canesis Network Limited for helpful discussions on chemical

testing of wool and other factors which may be tested to determine contribution to

shrink-resist effect.

Acknowledgements

20

Sandy Souter of Canesis Network Limited for weaving and Richard Hill and Ian Fowler

for yarn production.

Carol Thomas of Canesis Network Limited for ongoing support with library searches

and the provision of (sometimes difficult to obtain) literature.

David Trinh and Angela Langdon, fellow students for help in understanding the concept

of ‘measurement errors’.

Peter van den Brink of Canesis Network Limited for conducting HPLC for amino acid

analysis.

Dr Richard Walls, of Canesis Network Limited for assistance and training in the use of

KES-F equipment.

Dr Jack Watt, of Canesis Network Limited for helpful discussions on fabric felting,

fabric mechanical properties, yarn felting shrinkage, and possible reasons why the

shrink-resist effect may have been achieved.

Dr Joy Woods, of Canesis Network Limited for help with microscopy work.

The library staff at CSIRO TFT Geelong for the use of their library facilities.

21

ABBREVIATIONS

AAA Amino Acid Analysis

AOX Adsorbable Organo-Halides

CNL Canesis Network Limited

EMU Electron Microscopy Unit

epcm ends per centimetre

ESEM Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy

FS Felting Shrinkage

gsm grams per square metre

HE Hygral Expansion

ppcm picks per centimetre

RS Relaxation Shrinkage

SEM Scanning Electron Microscope

tpm Turns per metre

UNSW University of New South Wales

WRONZ Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand

αm Alpha metric, twist factor

22

CHAPTER 1

PROJECT BACKGROUND

This project developed from prior research and development by Canesis Network

Limited (CNL) (formerly the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, Inc. -

WRONZ) into weaveable singles yarns, and their use in light weight, woven, pure wool

fabrics. It was found through this work, that a fabric had been produced which

demonstrated a remarkably low felting propensity without the application of any

conventional shrink-resist treatments. The reason for this resistance to felting was not

completely understood, but it was clear that this property could have significant

commercial benefits. The purpose of this project was to determine the reasons for the

shrink-resist property demonstrated by this fabric.

The potential benefits of such research include manufacturing cost reductions, as a

machine washable wool fabric can be produced, without the costs associated with a

conventional shrink-resist process. There are also environmental advantages, as most

conventional shrink-resist processes are considered to be environmentally harmful,

especially those involving the use of AOX producing compounds.

The fabrics that were developed by CNL have been so successful that trials have begun

for full commercial production in several mills.

23

CHAPTER 2

HYPOTHESIS

“That shrink-resistance is imparted as a combination of physical properties

imposed by a unique yarn structure, the setting of yarn and fabric by various

finishing processes, and changes in the frictional properties of the fibres

through finishing the fabric.”

The unique yarn structure refers to fibres being better bound in the structure of the

Solospun™ yarn [1] which has a structure that is slightly different to conventional ring

spun yarn, and also has high twist.

In order to examine the reasons for the shrink-resistance of the fabric, yarn was spun

and fabric was woven and finished according to the specifications determined in the

earlier research and development work conducted at CNL. Several changes were made

to the production route as problems were identified, however these were documented

for comparison with the original work and to evaluate the potential impact on changes

to shrink-resistance. The batch referred to as “Pilot” in this project most closely

resembles the initial development samples.

In order to test the hypothesis, the following areas were explored and tested:

1. Finishing processes: Fabric samples were taken from the production process at

key stages in finishing and subjected to a range of tests, including shrinkage

from machine washing, to identify the effect of each finishing process on the

shrinkage of the fabric. Tests were also carried out to determine how changes in

other fabric properties may have influenced changes in the fabric felting

shrinkage. Test methods also included procedures which would indicate

changes in the frictional properties of fibres and/or yarns.

Chapter 2 Hypothesis

24

2. Fabric structure: Different fabric structures were woven in order to determine

the contribution of the fabric structure to the felting shrinkage of the fabric. This

involved changes to the weave type, float length, and pick density.

3. Unique yarn structure: Solospun™ yarn samples, taken from fabric production

were tested for their felting shrinkage behaviour and compared with the felting

shrinkage behaviour of a conventional, two fold, ring spun yarns, as well as

other Solospun™ yarns with different twist factors.

Note: The specifications for the fibres, and yarn production used by CNL had

been found to be successful in achieving the shrink-resist outcome. It is

possible that changes to fibre and yarn specifications may have an effect on the

felting shrinkage of the fabric. However, resource limitations meant that an

exhaustive study of all possible parameters was not possible and so these

specifications were not altered significantly from those used previously at CNL.

CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

FELTING AND OTHER FORMS OF WOOL SHRINKAGE AND

FINISHING OF WOOL FABRICS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Felting of wool has been studied by many researchers for many years who have

investigated fibre friction properties, and the conditions which cause felting. Many

theories have been developed as to why wool felts, and much effort has been spent on

developing treatments to prevent felting and overcome the difficulties associated with

machine washing. However, felting is not the only form of shrinkage a fabric may

experience, and other forms of shrinkage may be introduced by some finishing

processes.

3.2 THE FELTING PROCESS

Felting is the process which occurs in wool and other animal fibres, of irreversible

“entanglement”1 [2] creating a dense mass of fibres [2, 3]. Felting can occur in loose

wool form, yarns, or fabrics, and is caused by fibre movement in relation to other fibres

in the mass, under conditions of moisture and agitation [2]. Wool fibres have

overlapping scales on their surface, as shown in Figure 3.1 which creates a frictional

difference between rubbing toward the root and the tip [2, 4]. The scales overlap such

that the steep edge of each scale faces the tip end of the fibre [2]. This frictional

difference causes fibres to move preferentially toward the root [3, 5]. For felting to

occur, it requires, amongst other things, that the fibres are moved [6].

1 Makinson, K.R., Ref [2], p.112.

25

Chapter 3 Literature Review

Felting has also been defined as “a form of tangling produced by the persistent

rootward migration of the individual fibres, which is caused by the frictional difference

of the fibres”2 [5].

Felting is a property that can be considered an advantage or disadvantage depending on

the end use of the product. The ability of wool fibres to felt is often used under the

controlled conditions of milling to produce thicker fabrics with greater pick and end

density than is possible through weaving alone. Uses for such fabrics include blankets

and heavy coating fabrics [3]. However, for most applications, the felting of wool

fabrics is a serious disadvantage, causing shrinkage, loss of elasticity, and changes to

the fabric structure and surface [7], eventually leading to a garment which is too small

to wear or an article which is no longer suitable for its intended use [3]. This has

serious consequences for the washing of wool fabrics, because washing invariably

involves moisture and agitation. There is an array of felting prevention methods

available, some of which are outlined in Section 3.10.

3.3 FRICTION IN WOOL

As stated above, there is a difference in the coefficient of friction of wool fibres

depending on the direction of rubbing. This frictional difference in wool is often

referred to as the “directional frictional effect”3 (DFE) [3]. Friction in wool has been

extensively studied by Makinson (eg [2, 4, 8]). The coefficients of friction for wool

fibres are measured for “with-scale”, “(µw)”4 rubbing and “against-scale”, “(µa,)”5

rubbing [8].

2 Mercer, E.H., and Makinson, K.R., Ref [5] p. T234. 3 For example Moncrieff, R.W., Ref [3], p.76. 4 Makinson, K.R., Ref [8] p.1084. 5 Makinson, K.R., Ref [8] p.1084.

26


Tip

Root

Figure 3.1 Wool fibre [9] showing scales and potential for difference in friction

3.4 THEORIES ON SCALES AND FRICTION

Makinson [2, 4] has identified a number of researchers’ theories on the reasons for

friction in wool fibres.

3.4.1 “The Ratchet Mechanism”6

“The Ratchet Mechanism” views fibres as ratchets, whereby the scales on the surface of

one fibre lock together with scales on adjacent fibres which are arranged in the opposite

direction, or with asperities on some other surface [2, 4]). Makinson [10, 11] has found

experimental evidence to support this mechanism. “The ratchet mechanism” has also

been investigated experimentally by Mercer and Makinson [5] who found that it is the

cause of frictional differences in wool. The effect of a variety of shrinkproofing

treatments on this mechanism has also been investigated [8]. This mechanism is

demonstrated in Figure 3.2.

6 Makinson, K.R., Ref [2] p.85. and Makinson K.R., Ref [4] p.128.

27


Figure 3.2 “The Ratchet Mechanism” between a wool fibre and another surface,

showing the contact between asperities [4].

3.4.2 “The Ploughing Mechanism”7

This mechanism occurs when there is a large frictional difference between two surfaces.

It occurs when the scales of the fibre plough through the surface of another material,

and may occur when two wool fibres are arranged with their scales in the same

direction [2, 4].

3.4.3 Other Theories

A number of other theories have also been put forward on the way that the scales on the

surface of the wool fibre affect the frictional properties of the fibres. However, it has

been suggested [2] that it is only “The Ratchet Mechanism” that is responsible for

felting, and that “Ploughing” may act in shrink-resistant wool. For detail on other

theories, see Makinson [2, 4].

7 Makinson, K.R, Ref [2] p.93. and Makinson, K.R., Ref [4] p.130.

28


3.5 CONDITIONS OF FELTING

The conditions of felting vary depending on the form of the fibre mass, that is, if the

fibres are in loose fibre, top, yarn, or fabric form. In general, however, felting requires

fibre agitation in an aqueous solution. Other conditions for felting are discussed in

more detail in the following sections.

3.5.1 Temperature

The effect of the temperature on felting has been researched by many workers, for many

years, but full agreement is lacking on the temperature most conducive to the felting of

wool in any form.

The rate of felting of loose wool has been shown to increase in the range 21-80°C in

0.1N HCl with a small quantity of non-ionic detergent [12]. The same study also

showed that, in acid solutions, there was a decrease in friction both with and against the

scales as temperature increased, but in water, the friction remained almost constant over

the same temperature range. Studies on single fibres [5] indicated an increase in the

difference between friction measured in the two directions along the fibre, as the

temperature was increased, which was suggested may, in part, explain the increase in

feltability with increases in temperature.

Yarn shrinkage studies [13], conducted at different pH values, also showed that felting

increased, as temperature increased, over the range 20-60°C. The effect of pH on

felting shrinkage will be discussed in Section 3.5.2.

Schofield [14], in his research on loose wool felting, found that felting increases with

water temperature, up to the boiling point. The methods used in this study have been

criticised by Speakman [15, 16]. Others [17] have concluded from their experiments,

that 45°C is the optimum milling temperature in water. This is because the extensibility

of the fibres increases as the temperature increases, but the ability to recover from

extension decreases with temperature. The importance of extension and recovery has

also been suggested by others [18] where 35°C is suggested as the temperature above

29


which the recovery properties are reduced. Speakman, Menkart and Liu [19] found that

the critical temperature for fabric milling depended on the pH of the milling solution.

In alkali conditions the best milling was found to be in the temperature range 35-37°C,

and in acid conditions, shrinkage increased with increasing temperature, but an

optimum temperature was not found.

Recommended temperatures for milling in practical situations vary. Bearpark, Marriott,

and Park [20] suggested temperatures in the range 40-50°C, while Rouette and Kittan

[21] suggested a range of 30-35°C, but commented that the rate of felting is increased

with increased temperature.

3.5.2 pH and The Action Of Soaps And Detergents

Overall, felting has been shown to be greatest in acid or alkaline conditions, but this

will vary depending on the conditions under which felting takes place.

Research on the frictional properties of single fibres [5] showed that there was a change

in the frictional properties with changes in pH of the solution they were measured in.

Studies on fabric milling [17] showed that shrinkage is greatest at pH 10 for alkaline

milling; and shrinkage increases as pH decreases under acid conditions. Mercer [13]

found in tests on yarn shrinkage, a continuous decrease in felting from acid to alkali pH

conditions, with a small increase seen around pH 10, depending on the conditions, and

the lowest yarn felting was found at pH 9-10. Measurements of DFE under different pH

conditions suggested that the change in felting with pH was a result of changes in the

DFE of fibres, as changes in the DFE of fibres with changes in pH were comparable

with the results of felting experiments [22].

Further studies on fabric milling [23] showed that shrinkage decreased as pH increased

from acid to alkaline in buffered solutions. Measures of fibre scaliness with pH, in the

same study, showed slightly different trends to the behaviour of the fabric. The elastic

properties of the wool fibres were highlighted as the reason for the difference between

the scaliness and felting shrinkage as pH changed [23]. Later studies [18], using

30


unbuffered solutions indicated that fabric felting shrinkage in the range pH 8-9 is

affected by adsorbed soap, and that this is responsible for a small increase in felting in

this range.

Feldtman and McPhee [24] also found that felting of untreated fabric is more rapid in

acid conditions than in alkaline conditions, and that temperature had an effect on the

rate.

3.6 FIBRE PROPERTIES AFFECTING FELTING

3.6.1 Fibre Length

The effect of fibre length on the felting of wool in different forms has been studied by a

number of researchers with varying results.

In experiments [25] using samples of loose wool which were cut to reduce the mean

fibre length, while other properties remained unchanged, a minimum fibre length for

loose wool felting was found, beyond which felt balls did not form. This was conducted

to highlight the importance of fibre bending in felting. The minimum length depends on

the type of wool, and it was assumed that the effect was a result of changes to the

bending modulus. It was later shown [26] that fibre length does not significantly effect

on the felting rate of loose wool, regardless of type, as long as the length is greater than

2cm. Other researchers [27], using the Aachen felt ball test method, found that longer

fibres showed increased felting for loose wool felting.

Research on tops [28] has shown that tops produced from longer fibres have higher

felting shrinkage than shorter fibres cut from the same wool. Research on wool tops

produced from wool grown in different countries [29], also showed a trend toward

longer fibres causing more rapid felting.

Studies on the effects of fibre length on milling shrinkage [17] of woven fabrics, using

Wensleydale fibres, which were cut manually, and used as the weft on a cotton warp,

showed that felting was greatest in fabrics with longer fibres. However, when merino

31


fibres were studied, also as woven fabric with a cotton warp [30] short fibres were

found to felt more rapidly than longer fibres, for the same twist factors. Differences in

crimp and scaliness were suggested as possible reasons for the differences between the

two studies [30].

Hunter, Robinson, and Smuts [31] found that the felting shrinkage of plain and twill

weave fabric was highly correlated with a number of fibre properties, including fibre

length. They showed that increases in fibre length lead to decreases in felting

shrinkage. Other researchers [27] using plain and twill weave fabrics and several knit

constructions, found a trend towards reduced felting with an increase in mean fibre

length. In contrast, studies using knitted fabrics [28], and further research using both

woollen and worsted fabrics [32], have found that fabrics constructed from shorter

fibres showed less felting shrinkage.

Work conducted by van Rensburg and Barkhuysen [33] showed that although fibre

length affects the felting of wool, it is difficult to determine the degree, due to other

fibre properties also playing a part in the felting process.

3.6.2 Fibre Diameter

The results of studies relating fibre diameter to felting show better agreement between

researchers than the effect of length. This also has been investigated using a variety of

wool assemblies.

In a study of a range of the friction of different wools [34], it was found that there is a

trend toward an increase in the scaliness of fibres with decrease in fibre diameter, which

would affect milling performance.

Scheepers and Slinger [35] found that the diameter of the fibre is less important in the

felting of loose wool than the frequency of the fibre crimp. Chaudri and Whiteley [26]

also found that diameter does not have a direct effect on felting propensity of loose

wool. Others [36] showed there was no correlation between loose wool felting and

32


diameter of weathered full length samples, but for root ends of fibres, the diameter of

the fibre was correlated with felting.

In felting tests on tops [29], the results suggested that the diameter did not contribute to

felting.

Some researchers [31] have found that felting shrinkage decreases with increases in

fibre diameter for plain and twill weave fabrics. In contrast to the studies on loose wool

and tops, studies [37] on fabrics have found that in Punte-di-Roma and Cavalry twill

fabrics, the mean fibre diameter had the greatest effect on fabric felting shrinkage of all

fibre properties studied. Hunter, Shiloh and Smuts [27] found that for woven and

Punte-di-Roma fabrics fibre diameter had the greatest effect on felting shrinkage of a

range of fibre properties examined, but for other knit structures studied, different

properties had a greater effect. However, van Rensburg and Barkhuysen [33] found that

for plain knit fabrics, increased fibre diameter was associated with increased fabric

felting shrinkage.

3.6.3 Fibre Crimp

The contribution of fibre crimp to felting has been investigated by a number of

researchers. There appears to be disagreement regarding the effect of crimp on felting

shrinkage.

In general, there is an inverse correlation for loose wool between fibre crimp and felting

[2, 36]. Veldsman and Kritzinger’s [38] study of loose wool supports this, where

overcrimped wool was found to felt less than undercrimped wool. Other investigations

[39] have shown that fibres that require less energy to remove crimp, felt more rapidly

in the early stages of felting. In addition to the inverse relationship between crimp and

loose wool felting, the form of the crimp has been found by some researchers to be

significant [26]. Others [35] found that the frequency of the crimp was more important

than its shape or form. The crimp of wool fibres has also been shown to have an effect

on loose wool felting under acid conditions [12].

33


For wool tops and slivers [2] an increase in crimp has been associated with an increase

in felting. Other researchers have found [39] that higher crimp lead to lower felt ball

density for loose wool and lower felting shrinkage in knitted fabrics; while for slivers

and tops, higher crimp wool felted more than lower crimp.

In research on wool twill and Punte-di-Roma structures [37], it was shown that

increased in crimp was associated with reduced felting shrinkage. Also, it was shown

[27] that fibre crimp was the most influential fibre property affecting felting of rib and

single jersey knit fabrics. The influence of increased crimp on fabric felting shrinkage

was also found to be significant [31] in plain and twill weave fabrics, but not the most

significant factor.

In a study by van Rensburg and Barkhuysen [33] mixed results were found on the effect

of crimp on fabric felting shrinkage. Makinson [2] has suggested that fibre crimp has

little effect on fabric felting as it is greatly reduced during processing. Other studies

[40] indicate that crimp levels affect some yarn and fabric properties when wool is

processed on a French-spun worsted system. In a woollen system study [41] there were

changes in the fibre crimp found to result from various stages of processing. Both

studies [40, 41] showed that the degree of crimp in the loose fibre affected the amount

of crimp lost in processing.

3.6.4 Elastic Properties/Elasticity

Studies [17] on the effect of pH and temperature on felting, have shown that for wool to

felt, the fibres require conditions that allow for both the extension of the fibres and the

recovery.

Bogaty, Sookne, and Harris [42] found that for the felting of tops, chemicals which are

able to increase the resilience of wet fibres also increase the feltability of the fibres.

However, Szucht [43] found no link between elastic recovery and felting of loose wool

taken from treated tops.

34


3.7 YARN AND FABRIC PROPERTIES AFFECTING FELTING

Twist factor and fabric construction have been shown to have a significant effect on the

felting of a wool fabric. It has been shown that increasing the yarn twist [44-47] and

fabric tightness [44-48] leads to a reduction in felting shrinkage of woven and knitted

fabrics. It has also been shown [44, 45] that plying of the yarn did not affect fabric

felting shrinkage in woven fabrics, furthermore, it has been shown [44] that woven

fabrics produced with the same direction of twist in both the warp and weft yarns felt

less than if opposite twist directions are used. Other researchers have not found the

same effect [45]. Also , Ali [49] found that for yarn shrinkage tests of plied yarns,

plying did affect felting shrinkage in hand washing, and that worsted plied yarns with

an even number of plies were more shrink-resistant than a yarn with an odd number. It

was also found that as the number of plies increased, the rate of felting decreased and

that the level of plying twist also had an effect that was not significant [49].

Some researchers [44] found that higher yarn counts lead to lower felting shrinkage,

while others [45] found that fabrics produced from finer yarns showed lower felting

shrinkage.

The construction of a fabric can have a significant influence on the propensity of that

fabric to felt. Tighter fabric constructions have greater shrink-resistance [3, 44- 48, 50].

It has also been shown [51] that on tightly woven fabrics, chemical setting treatments,

which are not shrink-resist treatments, were able to provide shrink-resistance for fabrics

which were machine washed and tumble dried. The effect of tightness of yarn and

fabric structure on felting has been explained as being due to an increase in inter-fibre

friction, preventing fibre movement [47]. Fabric weave type has also been shown to

impact on felting shrinkage, in that fabrics with longer floats felt more than plain weave

constructions [44-46].

Moncrieff [3] also points out that the structure of knitted goods means that they are

much harder to make shrink-resistant through construction.

35


Blends with other fibres in loose wool, top, or knitted fabric, usually causes a reduction

in the feltability of the blended fibre assembly [2]. This depends on the deformability

of the fibres in the blend.

It has been concluded [33] that loose wool and fabric felting performance are not able to

be related. It has also been shown that it is difficult to relate feltability between

different types of fibre assemblies when they have been treated for shrink-resistance in

the different fibre assemblies [52]. For some fabric structures, loose fibre felting

properties have been found to be related to fabric felting shrinkage [27].

3.8 THEORIES ON WOOL FRICTION AND FELTING

There have been numerous theories produced by researchers over many years

attempting to understand why wool felts. The scale structure of wool fibres was first

recognised by Monge in 1790, [2, 3] who, through physical experiments on wool fibres,

found a directional scale structure. This scale structure was thought to affect felting by

causing the fibres in an assembly to move preferentially in one direction and lock

together [2].

The conditions which lead to felting of wool have also been recognised for many years.

Early work identified the importance of moisture, heat and pressure in order to create a

felted fabric. Moisture was considered the most important factor in causing shrinkage.

Heat and pressure were also considered important [3].

It has been recognised for many years that the scale structure of wool fibres is important

to felting, as well as the conditions the fibres are subjected to in order to cause felting.

Many other theories have been put forward which are detailed in other publications and

are outside the scope of this review (See for examples [2, [3]). Several more recent

theories are outlined below.

Shorter’s theory of felting [2, 3, 53] was based on interactions between fibres, where the

scale structure is important. The theory noted two types of interactions: tight contacts

36


under which the fibres are unable to move, and those loose enough that fibres may

move toward the root end.

An alternative theory developed by Arnold [2, 3], was based on fibre elongations and

contractions, similar to a worm crawling. Agitation in felting causes the fibres to move

in the root direction and become extended, when they attempt to contract, the fibre root

end is held due to the scales.

Martin [2, 3, 54] developed the theory that felting occurs because fibres are locked

together under compression.

Speakman and his collaborators [17, 34], studied the physical properties of wool fibres

that have an impact on felting. In particular, it was concluded that for felting or milling

to occur the fibres must require three properties [3, 17]:

“(1) Possess a surface scale structure.

(2) Be easily stretched and deformed.

(3) Possess the power of recovery from extension.”8

The ability of fibres to curl has also been put forward as important in felting [3, 55].

Other researchers have further asserted the importance of DFE and fibre movement in

felting [22] or simply the importance of fibre movement [6, 56].

8 Speakman, J.B., Stott, E., and Chang, H., Ref [17] p.T291.

37


3.9 WOOL FABRIC FINISHING PROCESSES

When wool fabric comes off the weaving loom it is in a state which requires a

significant amount of further processing before it can be considered finished and

suitable for its final purpose. The finishing processes the fabric undergoes vary

according to whether the fabric is knitted or woven, and if woven, whether it is a

woollen or worsted fabric. There are a wide variety of finishing processes available to

the finisher. Some of these are applicable to both woven and knitted fabrics, but in

general, the processes which will be outlined below are those related to woven fabric

finishing, and in particular to worsted fabric.

The reasons for fabric finishing include:

• cleaning to remove contaminants [9, 21, 57],

• developing the finish, such as handle, appearance, and wear performance [9, 21,

57],

• creating special characteristics [21, 57],

• additionally [57], finishing aims include: changing the moisture content or

dimensions of the fabric, or the geometry of the surface, and colouring.

3.9.1 Scouring

Scouring is often one of the first processes carried out. The scouring process involves

cleaning the fabric to remove impurities accumulated in earlier processing [9, 21, 20,

58], and is also used to relax tensions imposed during spinning and weaving [9, 21, 58].

Some fabrics require a setting process prior to scouring [59, 60].

38


Figure 3.3 Traditional Dolly Scour [9]

The scouring process relies heavily on surfactant chemistry in order to remove

impurities. The detergent selected must be able to remove the impurities found on the

fabric [9, 21, 58]. These impurities include a variety of oils from production, and also

wool grease, residual dyes, soils, chalks, and lubricants and sizes [21].

There are two methods available for scouring wool fabrics. Firstly, rope scouring,

where the fabric is sewn end to end [9] and circulated through the detergent liquor by a

series of rollers [9, 60]. The traditional dolly scour shown in Figure 3.3 is an example

of rope scouring. A number of ropes can be scoured at the one time [9]. The

disadvantage of this method is the potential for crease marks forming [9, 58]). Crease

marks can be avoided by using open-width machinery [9, 58] (see below), or bagging

the fabric [9, 20]. Bagging involves sewing the fabric selvedge to selvedge to produce

air pockets which move as the fabric circulates so that creases move and are less likely

to become set in the fabric [9]. Crease marks can also be avoided by ensuring an

adequate liquor volume so that the fabric can balloon [20].

The second method of scouring is open width scouring which can be either a batch or

continuous process. The fabric is moved in open width through the detergent. There

are a variety of different methods for circulating the liquor and also for keeping the

fabric open [9, 21]. This method prevents fabric creasing [60] and is used to prevent the

marks which can form in rope scouring [20].

39


Rope scouring has the advantage over open-width methods of removing reed marks and

giving a bulkier handle to the fabric [61].

High pH values in scouring have been found to be associated with higher levels of set

[62].

It is also possible to scour using solvents, but this does not remove reed marks from

woven fabrics and usually provides insufficient working of the fabric. There are also

environmental concerns regarding pollution resulting from vapour recovery [63].

3.9.2 Milling

The milling process relies on the ability of wool fibres to felt and is carried out to

consolidate the fabric in both the warp and weft directions. This, in turn, leads to an

increase in the mass per unit area and thickness [9, 21, 60]. Milling alters the handle

and appearance of the fabric and prepares the fabric for any later raising processes [9,

21, 57]. Milling also increases the strength of the fabric [20, 57, 60] and reduces the

fabric air permeability [60].

The process is similar to scouring in that the fabric is circulated in an aqueous liquor

and agitated [9, 21]. An example of a milling machine is shown in Figure 3.4. It is

possible, if required, to mill and scour at the same time given the right equipment [57,

58, 64, 65]. Combined milling and scouring leads to savings in time, labour, space, [60,

64] and water [64]. Milling is not usually used for worsted fabrics [59], but may

sometimes be used to alter the handle [57] and produce a more consolidated cloth [58].

40


Figure 3.4 Milling machine [9]

Experiments on the effects of milling on fabric properties showed that the mechanical

properties of fabrics were altered as a result of changes in the fibre interactions [66].

Milling has also been found to reduce the hygral expansion in a fabric [67], and

treatment after piece dyeing reduces the hygral expansion of the fabric.

Milling should be conducted at a maximum of 40-50°C [20, 58] because above this

range, fibre damage can occur [58]. pH should be controlled, as this impacts on the rate

of milling, and liquor ratio is important as too much liquor prevents felting, and too

little causes damage to the fabric [20].

3.9.3 Drying

Discussion of drying of a wool fabric will be broken up into two parts: mechanical and

thermal. Both methods are used because thermal drying is relatively expensive, so as

much water as possible is removed mechanically before thermal drying is used [9, 21].

There are three main mechanical water removal techniques. Firstly, centrifuging or

hydro- extracting, which is able to remove the most water of all the methods. This

method is often avoided as it may create creases that are difficult to remove [9, 21], and

the removal of water may not be even throughout the piece [21, 60]. Secondly,

mangling or squeezing the fabric [9, 21, 60]. This cannot be used for delicate or pile

fabrics, where the surface may be damaged [9, 21]. It can also cause “bursting” of the

41


fabric as a result of excessive pressure [68]. Finally, the water may be removed by

means of suction, where the fabric is passed over slots where the water is sucked out of

the fabric [9, 21, 60]. Centrifuging tends to be used for fabrics in rope form and

mangling and suction methods for fabrics in open width [65].

Thermal drying can be achieved by the use of a tenter or stenter where the fabric is

moved through the machine on chains, while hot air is blown over it. It is possible

while stentering to straighten the weft yarns in the fabric which may have become

distorted in earlier processes [9, 21]. In feeding the fabric on to the chains there must

be devices which:

• straighten any curling of the selvedges [9,21],

• ensure the chains and the selvedges meet accurately [21].

The fabric must also be overfed a certain amount in order to allow for warp shrinkage

[9, 21, 60] and in order that it is extensible [57]. Changes in the dimensions of the

fabric, caused by stentering, alter the extensibility of the fabric due to changes in yarn

crimp, which also affects the hygral expansion of the fabric [69]. Care must be taken in

the way the fabric is fed into the stenter to avoid excessive or insufficient relaxation

shrinkage [70]. The fabric is cooled on exit [9, 21, 60] and should have a regain of

around 10-12% [65].

3.9.4 Carbonising

Carbonising is a process which is rarely carried out on worsted goods. It is used to

remove vegetable matter from the fabric and for worsted fabrics, this is usually done in

the mechanical processes leading up to spinning [9, 21].

The carbonising process involves treating the wool with acid which breaks the cellulose

down into a brittle material, and on drying and heating, this can be removed

mechanically. The fabric is then neutralised [9, 20, 21, 58, 60]. It is important to use

enough acid to cause degradation of the cellulose material without damaging the wool

[58].

42


3.9.5 Raising and Brushing

The raising process is carried out to produce a pile on the surface of the fabric using

bristles to lift fibres out of the plain of the fabric. The brushing process is used to lay

the pile in one direction [9, 21].

The raising process can cause warp stretching of the fabric, and weight losses [20, 57]

and strength losses [57].

3.9.6 Setting and Pressing Processes

These two processes have been dealt with together as they can overlap.

3.9.6.1 Crabbing

Crabbing is often the first process in worsted fabric finishing, and is carried out for

controlled relaxation of tensions from spinning and weaving. Without such a process,

the fabric can distort [20, 58, 63] and develop uneven shrinkage during later processing

[58, 59]. This initial setting may also be carried out by “wet blowing”9 [59]. Crabbing

permanently sets the fabric and can be used to remove marks from fabric [60].

For batch crabbing processes, the fabric is wound onto a roll which is in hot water and

is rotated, under pressure from a top roller [9, 21, 58-60]. The times recommended for

this rotation vary, but most suggestions are for around 10 minutes [21, 58-60]. The

fabric is rewound in the opposite direction and the process is repeated [9, 58, 60] to

avoid differences through the length of the fabric [9, 58]. Finally, the fabric is unwound

through cold water for cooling [9, 21] or has air drawn through the fabric [60]. An

example of batch crabbing using a Yorkshire crab is shown in Figure 3.5.

9 Brearley, A., and Iredale, J.A., Ref [59] p. 143.

43


Figure 3.5 Yorkshire Crab [9]

For most continuous crabbing processes the fabric is wet in hot water, squeezed and

steamed, then wound over a heated drum using a belt [9, 21, 58] and rapidly cooled on

exit [9, 58].

Experiments have shown [62] that changes in the roller pressure in crabbing can effect

the mechanical properties of the fabric. Higher roller pressure is also associated with

lengthwise stretching, which causes a crimp interchange and a reduction in fabric

elasticity.

3.9.6.2 Potting

This is a process which is rarely used now [21, 58]. The roll of fabric is placed in hot

water where it may be boiled [21, 58]. The fabric may be left for several hours [9, 21,

58] or up to 3 days [21]. It is then cooled while still rolled [9, 21, 58] or unwound

through cold water [21]. The fabric may then be rewound in the reverse direction and

the process repeated [58]. Potting produces a high level of set [58].

3.9.6.3 Beaming

This process can be used to prepare fabric for scouring, or to remove creases after

scouring or piece dyeing. This produces a more moderate level of set [9, 21]. The

fabric is wet in warm water (40-60°C) containing a wetting agent, then wound onto a

beam and allowed to cool [21].

44


3.9.6.4 Decatising

When decatising is used toward the end of the finishing process, it is important in

determining the handle and tailoring properties of the fabric [71]. Decatising is used to

stabilise the finish from other processes, set the fabric, and increase the dimensional

stability. It can be performed either as a continuous or batch process [21]. Decatising

falls into three main groups.

Firstly, finish decatising is carried out to affect the lustre [21] or surface properties of

the fabric [9]. It can also be used to increase the dimensional stability [21]. Secondly,

lustre decatising is carried out to produce lustre [9, 21]. Both these processes are

carried out at atmospheric pressure. The fabric is wound onto a perforated roller with a

wrapper cloth and steam is pumped through the roll. The effect of these processes can

be varied by altering the tension in the wrapper, pumping steam from inside or outside

the roll, treatment time, steam moisture content, cooling the fabric on or off the roll, or

the tension in unwinding [21]. For finish decatising, the fabric will never reach

temperatures greater than 100°C, but for lustre decatising the fabric can reach 108°C

[9].

Thirdly, pressure decatising involves treating the fabric in an autoclave under pressure

at temperatures of up to 130°C [21]. The fabric is rolled onto a perforated cylinder [72]

with a wrapper cloth and then treated in an autoclave [9, 21, 72] for up to 5 [9, 72] or 6

minutes [21]. An example of a Pressure Decatising Unit is shown in Figure 3.7. The

effects can be varied by similar means to those outlined above [21]. The air in the

autoclave can be removed by steam or vacuum [64]. Pressure decatising produces

permanent set [58] and the amount of permanent set depends on the treatment

conditions [60, 72]. The fabric is also cohesively set [72].

45


Figure 3.6 Pressure Decatising Unit [58]

Shows batching at 2, autoclave at 4, and unwinding at 6.

The processes outlined above are all for batch treatments, but advances have also been

made in continuous atmospheric processes. The continuous atmospheric processes

operate by passing the fabric over a perforated cylinder or series of cylinders while

under tension [21].

Continuous pressure decatising has been much harder to achieve due to the difficulty in

producing high pressure, while the fabric moves continuously and also achieving the

required tension in the fabric [21, 58]. This has now been overcome and continuous

pressure decatising is possible [21, 58, 73].

Pressure decatising can lead to yellowing [61, 65, 74], loss of brightness [74] and the

potential for variation through the roll [61]. The fabric can also lose strength and

abrasion resistance [74].

Experiments by Jeong and Phillips [75] showed that the drape coefficient of fabrics

were effected by pressure decatising. The fabrics also showed a slight increase in mass

due to a decrease in the dimensions of the fabric. This loss in dimensions has also been

found by other researchers [76, 77], one of the consequences being an increase in

extensibility [77]. The fabric also increases in lustre [74].

46


Amino acid analysis of decatised fabrics which have been dyed or blank dyed has

shown a general increase in the cysteine and cystine content [78]. Increasing the time

of steaming has been found to produce an increase in the lanthionine content and

reduced the urea bisulfite solubility. High regain and long decatising times will also

increase hygral expansion [79]. Increases in the winding tension of the fabric caused an

increase in length and a reduction in width and thickness [79]. The wrapper has an

important effect on the temperature and regain of a fabric, which has an effect on the

finished fabric [71]. The regain of the wrapper cloth has been shown to have an effect

on the mechanical properties of the fabric [80].

Decatising, either as atmospheric or pressure decatising, may be used to stabilise fabrics

prior to other finishing processes [65].

3.9.6.5 Pressing

Paper pressing is a discontinuous process where the fabric is folded with a piece of

glazed cardboard inserted into each fold and, at regular intervals, an electrically heated

board is inserted which is used to heat the fabric. When the stack of fabric has been

completed the electrically heated boards are heated while pressure is applied [9, 21].

This is maintained for up to eight [21] to 12 hours [9] at 40-80°C [9]. The fabric is then

turned so that the areas in the folds are pressed and the process is repeated [9, 21, 60].

Semi-continuous paper pressing equipment has been developed where multiple layers of

fabric are pressed at once [9, 21, 60].

Continuous pressing methods, such as rotary pressing, involve passing the fabric

between a heated cylinder and a fixed heated bed. The bed is kept under pressure. At

the end of the process the fabric is cooled and conditioned [9, 21, 60].

An alternative pressing system has been developed called the Contipress. This process

involves steaming the fabric and then pressing it against a heated roller using a heated

belt. This gives less warp tension and higher pressure [9].

47


3.9.6.6 Singeing and Shearing

Both these processes aim to reduce the hairs on the surface of the fabric which creates a

smoother, cleaner finish. The singeing process involves presenting the fabric to a gas

flame which burns the surface fibres [9, 21]. Singeing must be very carefully controlled

to adequately remove the surface fibres, without damaging the fabric [9, 21]. Scouring

is required to remove the singed fibres [9].

Figure 3.7 Shearing [9] showing fabric at A, and blade at B

Shearing uses a rotating blades and a fixed blade, as shown in Figure 3.7, to cut the

surface fibres. This is carried out to produce a clean surface, or a regular pile height in

the case of pile fabrics [9, 21, 60].

3.9.7 London Shrinkage

This is a relaxation process used to remove strains in the fabric. The fabric is moistened

and dried without tension, and then re-pressed without tension [59, 81].

48


3.10 CONVENTIONAL SHRINKPROOFING METHODS

There have been an enormous number of methods devised for the prevention of wool

felting, but very few have become commercially successful. Not all the possibilities for

shrinkproofing wool have been dealt with here. Those that will be, are mainly those

which have been used commercially. Shrinkproofing processes that will be dealt with

here have been grouped into four main categories:

• Degradative processes,

• Plasma Treatments,

• Enzyme Treatments, and

• “Additive”10/Polymer processes.

Wool shrinkproofing can be carried out at the fibre, top, yarn, or fabric stage, however,

not all treatments are suited to application at all stages of production.

The term ‘shrinkproofing’ refers only to treatments which decrease the felting of wool.

It does not include other sources of shrinkage in fabric [2].

Many chemical shrinkproofing processes (particularly degradative treatments) work by

rupturing crosslinks and breaking other bonds, [2, 3]. However, not all agents capable

of breaking disulfide bonds [82, 83] or reducing cystine content [84] are able to reduce

felting shrinkage.

Shrinkproofing requires changes in the frictional properties of wool fibres and studies

by Makinson [8], on different treatment types, suggest that the frictional difference

should be reduced. However, McPhee [84] was not able to show a direct relationship

between frictional difference and felting behaviour.

Experiments indicate that, to be effective, chemical modification needs to be

concentrated in the cuticle [83, 85]. If the cortex is subjected to treatment, fibre

properties such as extension, bending, and swelling can be affected [85].

10 Makinson, K.R., Ref [2] p. 256.

49


Shrinkproofing treatments have generally been found to have a negative effect on the

soil release properties of fabrics with the exception of chlorine-Hercosett applied to

wool tops [86].

3.10.1 Degradative Processes

Degradative processes are those which cause degradation of the cuticle [2].

Degradative processes are often only used for hand washing applications, as they tend

to cause too much damage to the wool when treating to the standard required for

machine washability [87].

Traditional degradative techniques effected shrinkproofing through damage to or

removal of the scales, causing a reduction in the frictional difference of the fibres [2].

However, many degradative treatments currently used, reduce felting by making the

cuticle softer when wet than when dry. This is because the disulfide bonds in the

exocuticle have been degraded. When dry, the fibre is held together by hydrogen bonds

and salt links, and so the scales are not soft. Mild treatments increase the with-scale

friction making it more difficult for the fibre to move. Severe treatments increase with-

scale friction and decrease the frictional difference, so that the fibres can move in either

direction [2].

It is also possible to reduce felting by removal of scales or scale tips, but these methods

cause excessive damage and leave the fibres vulnerable to later damage [2].

Attempts have also been made to explain the action of degradative treatments in terms

of electrical charge in the fibres causing repulsion when wet [2, 63]. Investigations into

how charged groups effect shrinkproofing have been inconclusive, but they have

indicated that charged groups do have an effect [88].

It is important to control the rate of reaction in degradative processes to avoid excessive

fibre damage and give even treatment [89]. Salts can be used to control degradation and

have been shown to be able to allow lower concentrations of chemicals to achieve a

desired level of shrink-resistance [82].

50


3.10.1.1 Chlorination Processes

The history of chlorination processes is associated with the development of processes to

enhance the dyeing of wool, [2, 3, 81] in particular for printing [3, 81]. The early

processes were difficult to control [3].

The chlorination processes fall into three main groups:

• Wet chlorination processes [2, 3]

• Dry chlorination processes [2, 3], and

• Chlorine-Hercosett processes11.

There are a number of methods and agents which can be used for treating wool with wet

chlorination processes.

When wet chlorination processes are used involving free chlorine a severe treatment

occurs. Treatments using two to four percent chlorine on weight of wool cause a loss in

weight of about four percent [3].

Alternatively, hypochlorous acid causes very little damage to the wool. Hypochlorous

acid also maintains warmth and soft handle. Damage to the wool fibre starts with much

higher concentrations of chlorine compared with chlorine water [3].

Dichloroisocyanuric acid (DCCA) can also be used, which, it is suggested, releases

hypochlorous acid when hydrolysed to create cysteic acid in the cuticle from cystine

[2]. Temperature and pH are used to control the reaction [20, 63, 90].

Chloramines and chloramides treat wool without excessive damage. There are a

number of these chemicals which are suitable for the chlorination of wool [3].

The Negafel Process uses formic acid with aqueous hypochlorite solutions to form the

chlorinating agent [2, 3] without severe damage [3].

11 These will be dealt with in the section on polymer additives, as they require chlorination and polymer application

51


Dry chlorination processes use gaseous chlorine to treat the fibres at a very low regain.

Dry chlorine gas will not have an effect on the shrinkage properties of wool if treated at

zero regain [3]. Dry chlorination processes do not cause any loss of weight [3]. Dry

chlorination can cause a harsh handle depending on the process used [2]. Chlorine gas

may be circulated at either atmospheric pressure [2, 3] or in an evacuated chamber [2, 3,

81].

3.10.1.2 Other Degradative Processes

There are many other degradative agents which have been tried, several of which are

outlined below.

Permanganate treatments cause damage inside the scales [91]. This causes the scales to

swell and become softer when wet [91-93] and reduces felting through changes to the

frictional properties of the fibres [92]. Makinson [92] found that there is a difference in

friction depending on how measurements are made in relation to crimp. It has also been

found that there is a difference in the scale structure depending on where the scales are

in relation to the crimp [91]. Some researchers [94] have found that permanganate

treatments cause a decrease in against-scale friction, while others [82] found an increase

in with scale friction and no change to against-scale friction for permanganate

treatments with sodium chloride. Potassium permanganate processes produce a

manganese dioxide precipitate, which requires treatment with sodium bisulfite for

removal [2]. This sodium bisulfite treatment has also been shown to increase the

shrinkproofing effect [2, 82, 95].

When added salt is used with neutral permanganate, the surface of the fibre is more

degraded as the salt concentration is increased [94]. Addition of salt has been found to

increase the rate of reaction up to a maximum concentration over which the rate

decreases again [96]. Other researchers [97] have found that only small quantities of

salt are required to give an improvement in shrink-resistance, and that larger quantities

did not have a great effect on shrinkage properties.

52


If treated with strong acids after permanganate treatments, the shrink-resistance is

reduced [98].

Hydrogen peroxide treatments have also been found to provide shrink-resist properties

to wool fabrics [99] and can be used with or without enzyme treatments. Many other

degradative chemicals have been found to provide shrinkage resistance, but a full

discussion of each of these is outside the scope of this project. See for example [98].

3.10.2 Electrical Discharge Treatments Or Plasma Treatments

Much of the research into plasma treatments has been driven by environmental issues,

especially associated with the release of adsorbable organo-halogen (AOX) compounds

[100].

3.10.2.1 Glow Discharge Treatments

This process involves the use of electrical current under pressure [100]. These processes

treat only the surface of the fibre [100, 101].

Friction both with and against scales has been found to be increased [102] as has

interfibre friction [100]). Dyeing properties are also enhanced for loose wool [102,

103].

When tested on fabrics, plasma treatments have been found to have beneficial effects on

the dyeability of the fabric and reduced quantity of dye in effluent, increased abrasion

resistance, and reduced hygral expansion and relaxation shrinkage, as well as improved

felting resistance. Unfortunately, there is a loss of recovery and extension properties,

and an increase in stiffness of the fabric [104]. Also, to achieve machine washability,

the fabric requires additional treatment, such as the application of a polymer [100, 101]

or biopolymer [101]. However, Rakowski [100] has been able to achieve machine

washability for some hand knitting yarns. When different gases were examined for

effectiveness, oxygen was found to give the greatest reduction in felting shrinkage

[102].

53


3.10.2.2 Corona Treatments

The corona discharge is created under atmospheric pressure, through the application of

high voltage to electrodes which are narrowly separated and produces a range of

products [105]. Some corona treatments have not been found to give good shrink-resist

results, but in general lead to increased inter-fibre friction and give improved spinning

performance, soiling resistance, and wetting properties [63]. Corona treatments have

been found to give poor felting resistance for fabrics as they do not treat more than the

surface fibres [106]. Corona treatments have been found to increase the

electronegativity of wool, however, this has not been found to be related to the shrink-

resistance of corona treated wool [107]. Corona treatments of yarns have been found to

increase yarn breaking strength, but give no change to single fibres [106]. Under some

treatment conditions, increases in with scale and against scale friction have been found

[106].

3.10.3 Enzyme Processes

These processes are based on the use of enzymes, most commonly papain, to damage

the scales [2, 3]. For enzyme processes to be effective, they require that the wool is

initially treated to start the breakage of disulfide bonds [2,3]. Enzymes are thought by

some to only attack the surface of the wool fibre as they were considered too large to

enter the fibre [3].

Many commercial enzyme processes involve a chlorination treatment at some stage [2,

108].

It should be noted that enzymes used in many domestic washing detergents have been

found to damage and degrade wool; both untreated and shrink-resist treated [109].

Enzyme treatments have also been shown to give increased whiteness, crease recovery,

drapeability, and resistance to pilling. Disadvantages include slight loss in weight and

loss of tensile strength as the concentration of enzyme is increased [110].

54


3.10.4 Polymer Treatments

These processes are also referred to as “additive”12 treatments due to the deposition of

polymer on the surface of the fibre to produce shrinkproofing. Such polymers must be

bonded to the fibre when wet and dry, they must be able to withstand dry cleaning.

Polymer treatments can be applied either as a polymer only process, or following a

degradative pre-treatment. Polymer treatments can create shrink-resistance by several

different mechanisms [2].

It is possible to prevent felting by bonding the fibres together, in yarn or fabric form, to

prevent fibre migration. The treatments must be applied to yarn or fabric, because if

applied earlier, further processing breaks the bonds, and the wool is no longer

shrinkproofed. Such processes have been associated with poor fabric handle. The

polymer should be strong enough so that inter-fibre bonds are not broken in use, and

extendable so that the fabric is not stiff [2].

Polymer treatments may work by masking the scales, but has also been associated with

fibre bonding. Effective masking requires polymer quantities of around 5-10 per cent

on mass of fibre, and this tends to create an unsatisfactory handle [2]. This mechanism

is in place in loose wool, sliver, and top treatments [111].

The fibres can also be held apart from each other according to the “stand-off

mechanism”13, but this is often found with masking. The polymer, for this mechanism

to occur, needs to be strong and not too easily deformable, as the bridges can become

flattened [2].

Some polymers are also able to create rougher fibres, which leads to an increase in the

with-scale and against-scale friction, and some decrease in frictional difference. These

were not available commercially in 1979 [2] and no evidence has been found more

recently to support their use. There is however, evidence of polymers which are able to

change the frictional properties of wool fibres [112].

12 Makinson, K.R., Ref [2] p. 256. 13 Makinson, K.R., Ref [2] p. 268.

55


Chlorine-Hercosett is one of the most common shrinkproofing processes for wool in top

form and can also be applied to fabrics [2]. It involves the pre-chlorination of wool

with hypochlorite, application polymer, and heat curing [58, 113]. The polymer used is

a polyamide epichlorohydrin [2, 58]. The polymer provides shrinkproofing by masking

the scales [2, 87]. The polymer swells when wet, and masks the scales [112, 114].

Chlorine-Hercosett, when applied to tops gives good handle to the finished fabric [63].

Chlorine-Hercosett treatments have also been found to increase the dye absorption rate

under some conditions [115]. These processes have been progressively updated to

produce better standards of shrinkproofing and greater efficiencies (for example [116]).

An alternative method for the application of chlorine-Hercosett treatment to tops is the

Kroy Deepim process, which uses chlorine water [87] or hypochlorous acid [58, 117].

It is claimed to use lower chemical levels, and give a more even treatment [58, 87].

Some research indicates that treatment is to a handwash standard only [87] while others

indicate that machine washability is possible [117].

There are many more polymers which can be used for the prevention of felting

shrinkage, but are too numerous to detail here. (See [2, 87, 118] for examples.)

56


3.10.5 Other Methods Of Preventing Shrinkage

Recently, research has been conducted which indicates that felting shrinkage is

heritable and may be able to be controlled through selection and breeding [119].

3.11 OTHER FORMS OF SHRINKAGE IN WOOL FABRICS

Felting is not the only form of shrinkage in wool fabrics. There are other forms of

reversible and irreversible shrinkage which can also occur.

3.11.1 Relaxation Shrinkage

This is an irreversible form of fabric shrinkage resulting from the removal of cohesive

set [120]. It can result from highly twisted yarns, stresses from weaving or knitting, and

stretching in finishing [3]. This form of shrinkage can be alleviated by a London

shrinkage process in finishing [20].

Smith and Baird [121] have found that there are a number of factors which can affect

relaxation shrinkage in yarns, including the type of processing oils, draft, yarn twist,

fibre diameter and length, dyeing and the type of spinning system. Ali [49] has

indicated that yarn relaxation may be the cause of the bulk of fabric relaxation, along

with the stresses imposed in fabric manufacture.

Shaw [122] attributes relaxation shrinkage to the cohesive and temporary set from

finishing, while Bissett and Medley [123] found that relaxation shrinkage in a fabric can

be increased by severe setting and over processing.

3.11.2 Hygral Expansion

Hygral expansion is a reversible form of dimensional change which occurs due to

changes in the regain of fibres [124, 125]. If fibres are taken from dry, as they absorb

water, there is an increase in the fabrics dimensions as the fibres begin to expand,

followed by a slight reduction in dimensions, until an equilibrium is reached [126]. If

57


hygral expansion is greater than five per cent [125] or five to six percent [127] problems

can arise in making up of garments.

There are several reasons put forward to explain hygral expansion in a wool fabric.

Baird [128] has suggested that hygral expansion is a result of the bilateral structure of

wool fibres. The different properties of the para- and ortho-cortex are considered to be

the reason for changes in fibre shape, when measured as loose fibres [125]. It has been

shown that fibre crimp and yarn crimp effect fabric hygral expansion [129]. Increases

in regain can also result in reduction of fabric dimensions as swelling of fibres is so

much greater than length increases [130].

The greater the degree of set in a fabric, the higher the hygral expansion experienced

and yarn crimp has the greatest effect of all fabric properties [122]. It has been shown

[130] that the degree of hygral expansion differs between warp and weft for

unsymmetrical weave patterns. Hygral expansion has been found to be linearly related

to yarn crimp in dyed fabrics, but also increases in permanent setting operations that do

not lead to crimp changes, but which increase the permanent set of the crimp [131].

This has been further confirmed by Baird [132] who showed that the relationship

between fabric hygral expansion and weave crimp depends on the degree of set, and that

there is no relationship in unset fabrics. The contribution of weave and fibre crimp has

been found by other researchers also [69, 133]. In addition to weave crimp, increases in

extensibility and reductions in shear properties were found to increase hygral

expansion, while fibre crimp increased the hygral expansion but only by a small amount

[134]. Others, [133] found hygral expansion to be slightly higher in twill weaves than

plain weaves.

Decatising, in particular, has been found to have an impact on the hygral expansion of

finished fabric. Increased steaming time and regain in decatising lead to increased

hygral expansion [79]. Dyeing also causes increases in hygral expansion [131, 135] and

milling after piece dyeing has been shown to reduce hygral expansion [67].

58


Shaw [122, 136] has found that temperature adds a further element to fabric expansion

and defines a further mechanism, “thermal expansion”14, as being reversible changes in

fabric dimensions with changes in temperature at a constant regain. Thermal and hygral

expansion are considered to be closely related. For the same regain, expansion is

greater under autoclave conditions than atmospheric conditions indicating that both

thermal and hygral expansion occur [137]. Test methods and apparatus have been

developed to monitor changes in dimensions with regain [129, 138].

3.12 SETTING OF WOOL FABRICS

The setting process is carried out to relax stresses which have built up through spinning

and weaving [21], to give the fabric stability, to limit distortions which may occur in

later processing, to prevent or remove distortions which may have occurred from other

finishing, or to maintain appearance in garment construction and use [57]. Setting also

affects the mechanical properties of fabrics [139]. Setting takes place during many

finishing processes [57].

There are several different forms of set. Firstly, cohesive set is lost when wool is

soaked in water at room temperature [57] or in water for 30 minutes at 20°C [71,140].

This form of set is obtained when set above the glass transition temperature [140, 141],

and is stable when subsequent treatments are below this temperature [140].

Secondly, temporary set is lost in hot water or steam, but is retained in cold water

[140].

Finally, permanent set is resistant to soaking in water for 30 minutes at 70°C [57, 71,

140]. The following discussion will refer to permanent set unless otherwise stated.

Bona [71] suggests that permanent set is achieved as free thiols and disulfides move and

that setting occurs more quickly when reducing agents are used. Permanent set

generally requires that the fabric is above the glass transition temperature [141].

14 Shaw, T., Ref [122] p.34. and Shaw, T., Ref [136] p.163.

59


It has been suggested that the conditions which release temporary set, also release

permanent set to some degree [141].

Setting takes place due to a combination of high temperature and moisture, which

causes hydrogen bonds and disulfide bonds to break and reform. This reorganisation of

bonds must be sufficient to withstand the conditions of use and the degree of set will

increase with time and temperature of treatment [74]. Some earlier researchers

considered hydrogen bonding to be the primary mechanism in permanent setting, with

or without setting agents, after an initial breakdown of cystine bonds [142].

Speakman [143] considered that in permanent setting, the bonds which reform after

breaking the disulfide bonds, are not the same as before setting. It was suggested, that

stability after setting is due to the formation of -S-NH- linkages, as well as cystine and

salt linkages. In support of this, Speakman and Whewell [144] found that treatments

which reduce the sulfur content in human hair reduce the permanent setting capabilities.

It has been found that [145] free thiol groups are essential to setting, due to the thiol-

disulfide interchange.

Regain in setting can be used to alter thickness, handle, shear properties in the finished

fabric [146]. Kopke [147] found that the rate of setting is affected by the regain of the

fabric, and that this is the most important factor in determining the rate of setting,

although temperature and pH were also found to have an effect. The regain of the fabric

in setting will also affect other fabric properties, such as breaking strength and shearing

[148]. Mechanical pressure variations have also been found to have an effect on the set

[148]. Increases in temperature cause the polymers behave more elastically [149].

Setting processes may cause stretching of the fabric which, if permanently set, will lead

to a permanent change in dimensions and a reduction in warp extensibility [57]. Cednäs

[130] has found that variations in conditions of setting as well as cloth construction,

alter the shrinkage behaviour of the finished fabric.

60


3.13 SUMMARY

This review has considered previous research into the felting of wool fabrics and the

efforts to reduce it. However, there are many negative effects associated with the

processes which have been developed and there is a need for a treatment or process

which does not cause such problems. This project investigated the reasons for shrink-

resistance which has been achieved in fabrics developed at CNL. It is hoped that by

understanding the reasons for the shrink-resistance in this fabric, the knowledge will be

able to be applied to other wool fabric structures and types to provide machine

washability without the negative side-effects that have been associated with traditional

shrink-resist treatments.

The conventional methods of preventing felting shrinkage in wool fabrics identified

here have relied on the chemical modification of wool fibres, with some reduction being

found to be a result of the structure of the fabric. This project involved an investigation

of whether there was a chemical modification taking place in the finishing processes, or

if the structure of the fabric was such that fibre movement necessary for felting was

impossible, or if some combination of both these was taking place. Samples were taken

at finishing processes identified as likely to cause a significant chemical or physical

change in the fabric and examined to determine what, if any changes had taken place

that related to the change in the felting shrinkage properties.

61

62

CHAPTER 4

MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1 FABRIC PRODUCTION: WEAVING, FINISHING, AND SAMPLING

Details of the fibre specifications, yarn production and much of the information relating

to finishing processes and parameter setting have been supplied by staff at CNL.

Experimental design was conducted on the basis of the literature review and in light of

the information supplied by CNL from previous productions and the details relating to

the productions for this project. Much training and guidance on the operation and

procedures involved in the test methods used was also provided by staff at CNL.

The results that were obtained in this project were effected by the natural variations in

wool fibres, the variations that occur as a result of the processes of fabric

manufacturing, and the errors resulting from testing. It was not possible to account for

the errors resulting from natural variation or from fabric manufacture. Measurement

errors were determined for some of the measurements that were made. The methods

used for this are given in Section 4.2.9.1.

In some areas of this work, the units that were used were not SI units. This was because

equipment was calibrated using these units, or because standard test methods were

written using non-SI units.

4.1.1 Weaving

Fabric production was carried out in 3 batches, and 3 different structures were woven.

All fabrics were produced from pure wool. The specifications for fibre quality, yarns,

and weaving are given in Table 4.1 below.

Chapter 4 Materials and Methods

63

Table 4.1 Fabric Production Specifications

Pilot: Plain Bulk: Plain 2/1 Twill 3/3 Twill Batch 1 2 3 3 Fibre Diameter

18.3µm 18.3µm 18.3µm 18.3µm

Hauteur Mean 73.9mm, cvH41.7%

Mean 73.9mm, cvH41.7%



Warp Count

20tex 22tex 22tex 22tex

Weft Count

20tex 20tex 20tex 20tex

Warp twist

114αm, 806tpm, S twist




Weft twist 114αm, 806tpm, S twist




Yarn Auto-claving

100°C; 0,2min, warp and weft




Warp Spinning

Ring spun using Solospun™ II attachments

Ring spun using Solospun™ I attachments



Weft Spinning





Weaving 27epcm 26ppcm Sulzer-Ruti Loom, rapier weft insertion

27epcm 26ppcm Sulzer-Ruti Loom, rapier weft insertion

27epcm, 2 pick densities: 26 and 33ppcm. Sulzer-Ruti Loom, rapier weft insertion

27epcm 2 pick densities: 26 and 33ppcm. Sulzer-Ruti Loom, rapier weft insertion

Warping No wax or lubricant in warping. Poor weaving lead to later spray on application of Adron, and also waxing. Still poor weaving.∗

Cold sized. Application of Durowax (Stephenson Thompson, UK), at 6% pickup in lick roller bath



Finishing and Sampling

As per flow chart Fig. 4.1

As per flow chart in Fig. 4.2

As per flow charts in Figs. 4.3 and 4.4

As per flow charts in Figs. 4.3 and 4.4

Weaving Date

February/ March, 2003

May/June, 2003 August, 2004 August, 2004

Finishing Date

February/ March, 2003

September, 2003

August/ September, 2004

August/ September, 2004


64

*Note: The Loomstate sample for the Pilot production was taken from both the sized

and unsized warp yarn fabric. The width measurements were made across both pieces,

and the mass per unit area was measured on the sized piece. All other testing was

carried out on the unsized fabric, except microscopy, which may have been from either

piece. All other samples in the Pilot production were taken from unsized and unwaxed

warp yarn fabric.

The fibre specifications that were used were selected by CNL based on previous

research, and had been found to give good results. It is possible that changes to the

fibre specifications would have an effect on the shrink-resistance of the fabrics,

however, it was not possible to vary these parameters as part of this project due to

budget and time constraints.

4.1.2 Finishing And Sampling

Samples were taken following the finishing processes which were identified from the

previous research of others during the literature survey as likely to have an effect on

properties of the fabric which may affect the felting shrinkage. The finishing processes

and conditions, as well as the sampling locations, are shown on the flow charts in

Figures 4.1-4.4. Each sample was 50-70cm long and full width to allow for the required

test specimens to be cut.

A number of the samples taken from the Pilot production were torn from the full length

as each sample was taken. For the remainder of the productions, samples were cut from

the full length to prevent the tearing action interfering with test results. If a “torn” edge

was required for the next process in the route, a small piece was torn off to give the

“soft” edge required before the process was carried out.


65

4.1.2.1 Plain Weave: Pilot Production

This production of fabric was conducted to investigate the effect of early stage finishing

processes on the felting shrinkage of the fabric and to thoroughly investigate the effect

of changes in pressure decatising time and temperature conditions. Previous

productions at CNL had identified pressure decatising as possibly affecting the shrink-

resistance [150].

During this production, a number of problems were encountered with weaving which

resulted in a short production run. This meant that the samples were approximately

50cm long, which was smaller than originally anticipated. As a result, wash samples

were smaller than specified in Woolmark TM 31 Washing of Wool Textile Products

[151], outlined in Section 4.2.2. The loomstate sample was taken in two small parts;

one from the sized warp fabric, and one from the unsized warp fabric. Other sampling

was taken from unsized and unwaxed warp.

Table 4.2 lists the pressure decatising conditions that were used for processing the

samples. Temperature and time variables were selected on the basis of calibrated

settings of the machinery, and on allowing a large enough difference in conditions so

that any changes in the fabric may be observable. Pre-vacuum and vacuum conditions

were the same for all samples tested.

Table 4.2 Decatising Time and Temperature Conditions

Temperature (°C) Time (min)

110 2, 4, 6

114 2, 4, 6

121 2, 4, 6

Finishing and sampling was carried out as per the flow chart in Figure 4.1, and the

sample names and abbreviations are given in Table A1.1 in Appendix 1.


66

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Yorkshire crab (James Bailey, Yorkshire) Approx. 100°C. Leader each end, no wrapper. 20min. in bath,

rewound, 20min. in bath. Cool in water at ambient temp. Drum dry sample to avoid extra setting.

Open width to prevent fold marks. Teric GN9. 5-10min in wetting/rinsing. 10min in liquor. 2x10min

rinses. 40-45°C.

Centrifuge.

Approx. 140°C. Streats moisture meter to determine moisture content and set speed. Finished regain

approx. 16%. Stent to advantage by 2cm with 2.5% overfeed, finished width: 150cm.

One pass only.

Loomstate

Once on face, once on reverse. No brushing.

One pass only.

Three head cropper: 1 cut on back and 2 on face. Solid bed, standard blade.

Hydro extract#

Stenter#

Steam Brush#

Crop#

Mend*

Singe*

Crab*

Scour#

Blow*Bailey blower. 2 min steam, 2 min final vacuum.

0.5m sample straight from crop

to blow

Decatise*

Steam Brush#

Pressure decatiser (James Bailey, Yorkshire): 2, 4 and 6min at 110°C, 114°C and 121°C. See notes

below for further details.

* Finishing process carried out at CNL.

# Finishing process carried out at Alliance Textiles (NZ) Ltd, Timaru, New Zealand.

Figure 4.1 Finishing and Sampling of Plain Weave Pilot Production


67

4.1.2.1.1 Pressure Decatising Cycle

The pressure decatising cycle involved a three minute pre-vacuum, and a three minute

post-steam vacuum. The nip bearing was 50psi (the pressure exerted on the roll to be

decatised by another roll) and the brake (tension used in rolling wrapper cloth) was

40psi. The pre-vacuum cycle ran to a maximum of approximately -15”Hg and 80°C,

then injected steam to raise the temperature to 102°C and just above atmospheric

pressure (this was not able to be accurately measured). The vacuum and steam injection

cycle was repeated a number of times through the pre-vacuum cycle; the number of

repeats depended on the availability of steam and the time to raise the temperature to

102°C.

The steaming cycle ran by injecting steam until it reached the maximum pressure, then

cut out, and let out the steam. It was not possible to hold the high pressure, as the

temperature would have continued to increase which would have damaged the fabric.

Steam was injected only from the outside of the roll to the inside (the opposite had been

trialed by CNL, but caused the fabric to be wet due to the limitations of the boiler).

When steam was let out it was drawn through the centre of the roll.

The final vacuum cycle ran at approximately 80°C for the full cycle. The cycle shock

cooled the fabric from the high temperature of the steaming cycle and created a vacuum

of approximately -20”Hg. There was no steaming involved in the final vacuum stage.

At the completion of the cycle, the fabric was cooled in ambient conditions.

4.1.2.2 Plain Weave: Bulk Production

A larger batch of plain weave fabric was produced to examine the full finishing route

which CNL had identified. Due to complications in weaving the Pilot batch, this Bulk

production had a higher warp yarn count and the warp yarns were sized. This meant

that some minor changes to the early stages of finishing were required. As a result, the

early stage finishing processes which had been examined in the Pilot production were

re-sampled and tested.


68

The sample which was chlorinated control sample was only sampled at the final stage.

This fabric was pretreated by winch exhaustion with 3% chlorine and 3% metabisulfite

solution. Basolan MW, BASF, was then applied at 6% on weight of fibre.

Finishing conditions and sampling are shown in Figure 4.2 and sample names are given

in Appendix 1 Table A1.2.


69

Sample

Sample

Sample

Rotary PressSample

Blow 1min

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Decatise 118°C 3min

Brucker stenter, heated from below, 4 bays each at 120°C. 5% overfeed,

141cm width. No final moisture content meter.

Yorkshire crab (James Bailey, Yorkshire) at approx. 100°C. Leader at each end, no wrapper. 20min in bath, rewound, 20min in

bath. Cooled in water at ambient temperature.

Pressure decatiser (James Bailey, Yorkshire): 121°C 6min, 110°C 2min or 124°C 2/4/6min. See notes in Pilot section for further

details.

Stenter^

Loomstate*

Open width- avoid fold marks. Teric GN9. 5min wet/rinse. 5min in liquor,

5min rinse, 5min wash. Approx 45°C.

Centrifuge for 10min. Sample drum dried to avoid setting.

Once on face, once on reverse. No brushing.

Mend*

Singe*

Scour#

Control sample treat with Cl2 and resin & finish.

Hydro extract#

Crab*

Hydro extract* Centrifuge for 6min. Sample drum dried to avoid setting.

Steam Brush*

Decatise*

OR

Decatise*

Steam Brush*

Crop*

2 passes, brushing only on face.

3 passes: 2 face, 1 reverse.


Bailey blower. 1,2, or 3 minute steam, 2 minute final vacuum.

Blow* Rotary Press*

Blow*

Bailey blower. 1,2, or 3min steam, 2min final

vacuum.

Pressure decatiser (James Bailey Yorkshire) : 121°C 6min or 110°C 2min.

See notes in Pilot section for details.

10bar, 8m/min, hot dish and hot cylinder, air cooled on exit.



^ Finishing process carried out at Argyle Fabrics, Limited/ Lane Walker Rudkin

Industries, Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Figure 4.2 Finishing and Sampling of Plain Weave Bulk Production


70

4.1.2.3 Twill Fabric Production

In order to examine the effect of the float length and yarn interactions on felting

shrinkage, twill weave fabrics were produced with the same yarn specifications and

finished according to the same finishing route as the plain weave productions.

Two structures were selected:

• 2/1 twill, as this is the twill structure with the smallest floats, and,

• 3/3 twill, as this allowed for longer floats in both the warp and weft without the

need for re-threading the loom.

Each structure was woven with two pick densities: 26 and 33 picks per centimetre

(ppcm) to examine the importance of yarn packing. 26ppcm had been used for the plain

weave fabrics and meant that the fabrics differed, principally, only in float length.

A single finishing routine was followed which used the conditions from the plain weave

Bulk production that gave the lowest felting shrinkage results. The finishing conditions

and sampling of the fabrics are shown in the flow charts in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 (the

sample names are given in Appendix 1 Table A1.3).

These fabrics were found to be difficult to singe and some suffered damage and

scorching in the process, especially the 3x3 twill. For most of the test specimens that

were cut, it was possible to cut around the severely damaged sections, but other

specimens had damaged areas. This proved to be a particular problem in the tensile

testing using the KES-F equipment, as some of the pieces tore in testing, and only one

sample was able to be used. The effect of this on other test results is not known.

Note that there was a change in the steps immediately following scouring, in that the

fabric was stentered at low temperature to prevent marks from centrifuging, and also

because it was not able to be immediately crabbed and therefore, would have been left

wet for some time if not stentered. Also, the Bailey blower was out of order and unable

to be used for these fabrics. For blowing treatments, the fabrics were treated in the


71

autoclave for three minutes at 2-3psi and 105-108°C, followed by a five minute

vacuum.

In addition, a piece of plain weave fabric was finished with this batch and was pressure

decatised instead of crabbed to determine the importance of the crabbing process in

producing a shrink-resistant fabric. Also, as this piece had not been wet in the crabbing

process, the hydroextraction and stentering that was used for the other batches of fabric

following crabbing were omitted. That is, the fabric went from scouring to stentering to

pressure decatising at 121°C for 6min then to steam brushing and cropping, and then

followed the same finishing route as in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 above. The results of this

sample are included with the Bulk plain production.

The sample that should have been taken from the 26ppcm 2/1 Twill production at the

scouring stage was actually found to be from the 33ppcm fabric when ends and picks

were measured. Therefore, the results for this piece have not been reported, and there

are no results for a 2/1 26ppcm scoured sample.


72

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample

Singe*

Scour#

Hydroextract*

Stenter#

Crab*

Loomstate*

One pass face, one pass reverse. No brushing.

Open width- avoid fold marks. Teric GN9. 5min wet/rinse. 5min in liquor, 5min rinse, 5min

wash. Approx 45°C.

Two passes at 120°C to dry fabric, due to time lapse before crabbing.

Stenter^

Steam Brush*

Crop*

Decatise*

Rotary Press*

Steam Brush*

Decatise*

Blow*

Yorkshire crab (James Bailey, Yorkshire) at approx. 100°C. Leader at each end, no

wrapper. 20min in bath, rewound, 20min in bath. Cooled in water at ambient temperature.

Centrifuge for 6min. Sample dried flat overnight to avoid setting.

Brucker stenter, heated from below, 4 bays each at 120°C. 5% overfeed, 141cm width. No

final moisture content meter.


3min steam, 2-3psi, 105-108°C, 5min vacuum in autoclave (Bailey blower out of order).



10bar, 8m/min, hot dish, hot cylinder, air cooled on exit.

(James Bailey, Yorkshire) 3min pre-vacuum, 121°C 6min, 3min final vacuum, nip bearing

50psi, brake 40psi.


50psi, brake 40psi.





Figure 4.3 Finishing and Sampling of 2/1 and 3/3 Twill Fabrics: 26 picks per

centimetre


73

Sample

Sample

Sample

Sample


50psi, brake 40psi.

3min steam, 2-3psi, 105-108°C, 5min vacuum in autoclave (Bailey blower out of order).

Rotary Press*

Steam Brush*

Full Decatise

Blow*


10bar, 8m/min, hot dish, hot cylinder, air cooled on exit.


50psi, brake 40psi.

Stenter^

Steam Brush*

Crop*

Full Decatise*

Singe*

Scour#

Hydroextract*

Stenter#

Crab*

Loomstate*

One pass face, one pass reverse. No brushing.

Open width- avoid fold marks. Teric GN9. 5min wet/rinse. 5min in liquor, 5min rinse, 5min

wash. Approx 45°C.

Two passes at 120°C to dry fabric, due to time lapse before crabbing.


Yorkshire crab (James Bailey, Yorkshire) at approx. 100°C. Leader at each end, no

wrapper. 20min in bath, rewound, 20min in bath. Cooled in water at ambient temperature.

Centrifuge for 6min. Sample dried flat overnight to avoid setting.

Brucker stenter, heated from below, 4 bays each at 120°C. 5% overfeed, 141cm width. No

final moisture content meter.






Figure 4.4 Finishing and Sampling of 2/1 and 3/3 Twill Fabrics: 33 picks per

centimetre


74

4.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TEST METHODS

4.2.1 Measurement Errors

Notes on the accuracy of rules used for measurements were not made for the Pilot

production, and the determination of measurement errors was therefore based on the

conservative assumption that all rules used had 1mm as the smallest divisions, ie an

accuracy of ±0.5mm. For all other sampling the accuracy of rules is given in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Length Measurement Equipment

Test Bulk Plain Weave Twill Weaves

Fabric Width Steel tape: 1mm divisions Steel tape: 1mm divisions

gsm 300mm steel rule: 0.5mm

divisions

Steel rule: 0.5mm divisions

Crimp 300mm steel rule: 0.5mm

divisions

300mm steel rule: 0.5mm

divisions

Ends and Picks 1mm divisions 150mm rule: 1mm

divisions or 300mm rule:

0.5mm divisions. Used

1mm divisions for error

calculation.

Wash Shrinkage 600mm rule: 1mm

divisions

1m steel rule: 0.5mm

divisions, except batch A

initial measure- 1m steel

rule: 1mm divisions

FAST RS and HE 300mm rule: 0.5mm

divisions

300mm rule: 0.5mm

divisions

4.2.2


75

Sample Preparation

The sample conditioning is given in Table 4.4. All samples were preconditioned, and

then treated with the first condition. The initial width measurement was then taken, and

each test specimen was marked. The fabrics were then conditioned again, then finally

measured for width, and the required specimens were cut using scissors. After cutting,

all test samples and specimens were kept in labeled plastic bags and stored in

conditioned rooms. These bags were able to be sealed for transporting between

conditioned labs.

Table 4.4 Sample Conditioning

Pilot Bulk Plain 2x1 Twill 3x3 Twill

Preconditioning:

in preconditioning

cabinet

>4 hours >3.5 hours >3 hours 55

minutes

>3 hours 55

minutes

1st Condition:

20±2°C and

65±2% RH

>3.5 hours >19 hours

(except Cl2

control:17

hours)

>15 hours 20

minutes

>15 hours 20

minutes

2nd Condition:

20±2°C and

65±2% RH

>17 hours >18 hours >65.5 hours >65.5 hours

4.2.2.1 Test Conditions

All physical and objective testing was undertaken in standard conditioned rooms

(20±2°C and 65±2% RH), with the exception of those tests that required wetting of

samples; hygral expansion, relaxation shrinkage, washing shrinkage, and yarn felting.


76

4.2.3 Wash Shrinkage

Aim: These tests were carried out to determine the relaxation shrinkage and felting

shrinkage of the fabrics.

Apparatus: Steel rule, ECE Phosphate Reference Detergent B, quantity given in Table

4.5; polyester ballast: 300x300mm double layer approx. 35g each, Electrolux Wascator,

FOM71; templates: 200x200mm, 200x300mm, 500x500mm.

Table 4.5 Mass of ECE Phosphate Reference Detergent for Each Test

Test Number Mass of Detergent (g)

1x7A 42.5

1x5A 26.0

2x5A 19.5

3x5A- 5x5A 13.0

Note: Amount of detergent calculated by CNL, based on water hardness.

Procedure: All wash tests were based on Woolmark Test Method TM 31: Washing of

Wool Textile Products [151]; as this represents the commercial standard that the fabric

must meet.

i) Relaxation Shrinkage: Woolmark Product Specification W1 [152] specifies

a maximum warp and weft shrinkage of 3% in each direction, following a single 7A

wash test.

ii) Felting Shrinkage: Woolmark Product Specification W1 [152] specifies a

maximum warp and weft shrinkage of 3% in each direction, following five 5A wash

tests. There is also a maximum of 1% allowable in differential cuff edge shrinkage.

It was important that relaxation shrinkage (RS) was measured, in order to separate it

from the total shrinkage results to determine the felting shrinkage (FS) of the fabric.

5x5A wash cycles represent total shrinkage of a fabric, including RS [152]. However,

due to limited sample availability, 1x7A and 5x5A testing cycles were conducted


77

sequentially on the same sample. This meant that the samples were subjected to more

rigorous testing than the Woolmark Company (WMC) specification calls for.

Specimens were cut using templates and marked in eight locations as shown in Figure

4.5, so that three measurements of sample dimensions could be taken in each direction.

Cuff edge shrinkage was carried out on all samples except for the Pilot batch, and cuffs

were prepared on the samples as specified in the test method. The samples used were at

times smaller than required in the standard, due to insufficient fabric. The sizes used

are listed in Table 4.6.

Cuff40mm

x x x

x x

x x x

Cuff40mm

Stitching linex measurement mark

x

x

x x

Figure 4.5 Marking of Wash Samples (adapted from [151])

Table 4.6 Specimen Size for Wash Samples

Pilot Bulk Twill (All)

200x300mm. Except

Loom: 200x200mm

All 500x500mm except:

121/6, 121/6+RP, 121/6+

RP+121/6, 124/2, 124/4,

124/6, 121/6+RP+110C/2+B2,

Crop+110C/2+RP.

All samples 500x500mm.


78

The samples were washed in batches in the Wascator standard washing machine, with

enough ballast to make up a 1kg load, and the amount of detergent as specified in Table

4.5 for each cycle. The samples were dried on a washing rack, or on top of, or in the

preconditioning oven, taking care to keep the pieces as flat as possible, and conditioned

overnight prior to measurement between each cycle. Before the final measurement of

FS, the samples were conditioned at 20±2°C and 65±2% RH according to Table 4.7.

No pre-conditioning was carried out before the final conditioning and measuring.

Note: According to TM 31 [151], the total mass of samples should be not more than

0.5kg, with the balance made up of ballast. This was not adhered to, and for some of

the wash batches, the combined sample mass was greater than 0.5kg.

Table 4.7 Conditioning of Wash Samples Prior to Measurement

Pilot Bulk Twill (All)

RS: minimum of

16.5hours.

FS: minimum of 65hours.

Samples left in

conditioned lab at least

overnight before final RS

and FS measurements.

RS: 16hours 45 min.

FS: 40.5 hours.

Note: The samples were marked with dots in the layout given in Figure 4.5 and

measured between the markers to give three measurements in the warp direction, and

three in the weft direction. The means of the warp measurements and of the weft

measurements were taken and used to calculate the sample area according to:

Area = length x width (1)

However, several samples did not shrink evenly and did not remain “square”.

Therefore, the area calculation does not represent the change in the sample size as well

as the individual warp and weft measurements. In addition, this change in the shape of

the sample resulted in some unusually high error values.


79

4.2.4 Physical Test Methods

4.2.4.1 Fabric Width

Aim: Total fabric width, and width between selvedges provides a simple indication of

physical change in the fabric as a result of the finishing processes. It gives an indication

of changes such as yarn crimp, relaxation, and whether there has been longitudinal

stretching or shrinkage.

Apparatus: Retractable steel tape.

Procedure: This test was based on AS2001.2.12 Determination of Width of Fabrics

[153]. This test was carried out on the full fabric sample and in three locations down

the length of each piece. The fabrics were preconditioned, and given the first

conditioning according to Table 4.4 before being measured for full fabric width (Total)

and width between selvedges (B/n Sel) using the steel tape (Initial width). The samples

were then conditioned according to the second conditioning in Table 4.4 and re-

measured (Final width).

Notes: a) The three locations used for the first and second measurements were not in the

same place down the length of the fabric. For both sets of measurements, the

width was taken at the top, middle and bottom of the sample piece.

b) Fabric length measurements were not made on the samples as this would have

required conditioning, measuring, and marking the fabric before finishing could

be carried out. This was deemed impractical. Also, changes in the lengthwise

properties of the fabrics were able to be determined from the ppcm results.


80

4.2.4.2 Mass Per Unit Area

Aim: Mass per unit area was measured to indicate the changes in the fabric properties.

There were also limits on the mass for the fabric to be suitable for the intended use.

Apparatus: 150x150mm template; steel rule; electronic balance, 0.0001g accuracy.

Procedure: The method used was based on Woolmark Test Method TM 13: Mass per

Unit Area [154]. Specimens were cut using the template and trimmed to remove loose

yarns. The dimensions of each specimen were measured in three places (top, middle

and bottom) in both warp and weft directions. Each piece was then weighed using the

balance and the grams per square metre (gsm) calculated. The number of repeats in

each batch varied with sample availability, these are reported in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 Number of Repeats for gsm Calculation

Pilot Bulk 2x1 Twill 3x3 Twill

Loom: 2, stent: 3,

all others: 4

Varied: 2-5 pieces 3-4 3-4

4.2.4.3 Yarn Crimp

Aim: Crimp was determined as an indication of physical change in the fabric. It is an

important factor in determining fabric hygral expansion [129, 131].

Apparatus: Steel rule; Shirley Crimp Tester, accuracy ±0.5mm; tweezers.

Procedure: This test method was based on Wool Research Organisation Laboratory In

House Test Method: Crimp [155], which in turn was based on ISO7211-3:1984 (E)

Textiles- Woven fabrics- Construction- Methods of analysis Part 3: Determination of

crimp of yarn in fabric [156]. The procedure involved measuring and cutting a flap of

fabric slightly more than 200mm in the direction to be measured, then fraying back to

exactly 200mm and trimming back the excess yarn. The yarns to be measured were

removed with the tweezers from the fabric, taking care not to loose twist and placed in


81

the jaws of the Shirley Crimp Tester. Each yarn was measured under a load of

approximately 8g. Two sets of ten measurements were taken in two different locations

for warp (wp) crimp, and three sets of ten measurements were taken at three different

locations for weft (wf) crimp. The Pilot loomstate fabric was not measured for crimp

due to the small sample available.

4.2.4.4 Ends and Picks

Aim: This test was carried out to determine changes in the thread density to ascertain if

the shrink-resistance of the fabric is a result a tight fabric construction that prevents the

fibre movement required for felting.

Apparatus: Steel rule; 50x50mm template; velvet board.

Procedure: This test method was based on Wool Research Organisation Laboratory In

House Test Method: Ends and Picks [157], which in turn was based on ISO7211-2:1984

(E) Textiles- Woven fabrics- Methods of analysis Part 2: Determination of number of

threads per unit length [158]. The dissection method was used [158]. Specimens were

cut using the template and trimmed and frayed back to 30x30mm. The specimens were

then pulled apart and the yarns laid out on the velvet board for counting. Ends

(Ends/cm) and picks (Picks/cm) were both taken from the same specimens and results

given per centimetre. Five repeats were measured for each fabric.

4.2.4.5 Derived Parameters

A number of fabric properties were calculated using the results from direct

measurements to give “derived parameters”. These were:

Calculated width (calc width b/n sel): Determined from the total number of ends in the

loom (4486) not including selvedges divided by the measured number of ends per

centimetre.


82

Calculated mass per unit area (Mass per unit area Calc): Determined from the ends

and picks, the warp and weft yarn crimp, and the yarn counts according to the formula:

gsm= ((ends/m)) x (1+warp crimp)x (tex/1000)) +

((picks/m) x (1+weft crimp)x (tex/1000)) (2)

Cover Factor (SI formula [159]): Calculated using the results of ends and picks

counts, and the count of the yarn in tex, and is calculated to give Cover Factor, warp

and weft using the formula:

Cover factor = (yarns per cm x √(yarn count, tex))/10 (3)

Cover Factor (Fractional [159]): Also uses the ends and picks result and yarn count,

but also includes the fibre density to give warp, weft, and total cover, using the formula:

Cover factor = 4.44x√(yarn count(tex)/fibre density (1.31))x1000)

xends/cm or picks/cm (4)

“Compactness Ratio”1: Was determined using the method of Bogaty, Lourigan and

Harris [48] and was calculated by the formula:

Compactness Ratio= ((K(L,O)/K(L,T))+(K(S,O)/K(S,T)))/2 (5)

Where, K= cover factor, (L,O)= Largest observed, (S,O)= Smallest observed

Plain 2/1 Twill 3/3 Twill

(L,T)= largest theoretical 28 30.2 32.7

(S,T)= smallest theoretical 14 17.5 23.6

1 Bogaty, H., Lourigan, G.H., and Harris, H.E., Ref [48], p. 736.


83

Theoretical compactness was taken from the charts developed by Love [160] for the

Plain weave and 2x1 Twill fabrics, and was derived from the formulae in Love’s paper

for the 3x3 Twill fabrics. Cover factors were calculated using [48]:

K= 1.073x((ends or picks/inch)/√yarn count in cotton) (6)

Fabric volume density: Density had been suggested as possibly contributing to the

shrink resistance of these fabrics [161]. Calculated from the fabric mass per unit area

(calculated) and the thickness values.

Density(ρ) = mass/volume (7)

Given: Mass per unit area (gsm) and

Thickness (mm) (taken from FAST measurements)

We know: the mass of 1 square metre

Assume: that for 1 square metre, volume = area x thickness (8)

Density simply becomes:

density(ρ), g/cm3 = (gsm/1x104)/( thickness (mm)/10) (9)


84

4.2.5 Objective Testing

Note: KES-F and FAST parameters have been shown to be well correlated with each

other [162] where the same parameters are measured. However, the information that

can be obtained from each set of equipment is slightly different. KES-F gives

information on the recovery of the fabric for the parameter measured [163]. FAST is a

simple system for the gathering of mechanical data [164]. Therefore, although there is

some overlap in the results, both sets of equipment were used.

4.2.5.1 Fabric Assurance by Simple Testing (FAST) Method

Aim: FAST testing was carried out because it allowed for quick results of mechanical

testing and because it included a test method for hygral expansion [164].

Apparatus and Procedure: FAST specimen cutting template.

Fabric specimens were cut using the template and tested using each instrument,

according to the Wool Research Organisation FAST Test Method [165], which was

based on the FAST equipment manual [166] as follows.

• FAST 1: FAST Compression Tester

To prepare specimens for “released” thickness testing, the pieces were steamed

using an open Hoffman Press for 30seconds and conditioned overnight.

Released and unreleased specimens were tested under 2g and 100g loads in the

same place. This was carried out in five different locations on each specimen.

This instrument gave results of thickness under 2g load (T2) and 100g load

(T100), and surface thickness (ST). It also gave released thickness under 2g

load (TR2) and 100g load (TR100), and released surface thickness (STR).

• FAST 2: FAST Bending Tester

Specimens were measured for bending length using the Bending Tester. Three

pieces were measured in each direction, and each piece was measured face up

and face down at each end, giving a total of 12 measurements in each direction.

This instrument gave results of bending rigidity, in warp (wp) and weft (wf).


85

• FAST 3: FAST Extension Tester

Specimens were measured for extensibility using the Extension Tester. Three

pieces were measured in the warp (wp) and weft (wf) direction under loads of

5gf/cm, 20gf/cm and 100gf/cm. Bias measurements were also made, under

5gf/cm load, with three measurements made in each bias direction. The results

of bias extension are used by the software, as part of the equipment, to calculate

shear rigidity (G) and the results of extension at 5gf/cm and 20gf/cm are

combined with bending rigidity to calculate formability (Form).

• FAST 4: Relaxation Shrinkage (RS)/Hygral Expansion (HE)

Apparatus: Water bath, between 25-35°C, containing 0.1% Teric GN9; rule;

ventilated oven at 105°C.

Procedure: The dimensions of the dry fabric were measured before placing in

the ventilated oven for approximately one hour. The dimensions of the dried

fabric were taken. The fabric was then placed in the water bath for

approximately 30minutes, removed, excess water removed and measured again.

Following this, the samples were placed back in the ventilated oven for

approximately one hour and then measured again. The following formulae were

used to calculate RS and HE, in the warp (wp) and weft (wf) direction:

RS(%) = ((D2-D1)/D1) x 100% (10)

HE(%) = ((W- D2)/D2) x 100% (11)

Where, D1= the dimension, warp or weft, after the first drying step

D2= the dimension, warp or weft, after the second drying step

W = the wet dimension, warp or weft, following soaking

The results of thickness measurements were also used to calculate the “Finish

Stability Ratio” (FSR), “Effective Flat Set” (EFS), “Stable Flat Set” (SFS), and

“Temporary Flat Set” 2 (TFS) according to the methods of Le, Ly, Phillips and

De Boos [167]. Permanent set was also determined from surface thickness

measurements using the method of De Boos and Brady [168].

2 Le, C., Ly, N., Phillips, D., and De Boos, A., Ref. [167] p. 3., for FSR, EFS, SFS, and TFS.


86

4.2.5.2 Kawabata Evaluation System- Fabric (KES-F) Method

Aim: KES-F testing was carried out to determine the mechanical properties of the

fabrics.

Apparatus: 200x200mm cutting template; KES-F Surface Tester, Compression Tester,

Bending Tester, and Shear/Tensile Tester.

Procedure: All fabrics were tested, in duplicate for each fabric. This allowed for more

variations in finishing conditions. The same two sample pieces were used for all four

pieces of equipment for a single deformation recovery cycle, with some exceptions, see

note below. Testing was carried out, based on the methods in the equipment manuals

[169-172], with additional assistance in the use of the equipment from CNL staff, in the

following order (compression and bending were interchanged for some batches):

• Surface: Samples were tested for the coefficient of friction (MIU), the mean

deviation of friction (MMD), and the geometric roughness (SMD) in both warp

(wp) and weft (wf) directions.

• Compression: Samples were tested for compression properties: Compression

rate (EMC), compressional energy (WC), compressional resilience (RC),

linearity of compression thickness curve (LC).

• Bending: Samples were tested for bending properties in both warp (wp) and

weft (wf) directions: Bending rigidity (B), bending hysteresis at 1degree bending

(2HB 1°), and 0.5 degree bending (2HB 0.5°) with calculation for residual

bending at 1degree bending (RSB 1°) and 0.5 degree bending (RSB 0.5°).

• Shear: Samples were tested for shear properties in both warp and weft

directions: Shear rigidity (G), shear hysteresis at 0.5° shearing (2HG) and at 5°

shearing (2HG5), with calculation for residual shear (RSG).

• Tensile: Samples were tested for tensile properties in both warp (wp) and weft

(wf) directions: Tensile strain (EMT), tensile energy (WT), tensile resilience

(RT), and linearity of load extension curve (LT).

All charts were scanned, and then read using WinDIG v2.5.


87

Note: Where the result of testing gave an unusual result a third specimen was examined,

if there was sufficient sample available. Where a third specimen was examined, it was

used only for the equipment piece where difficulties were encountered, and for the most

part, only the two results were used in the calculation of the final result, ie the third

specimen was not tested on all pieces of equipment. For those samples where there was

insufficient fabric remaining for a new test piece to be cut, the sample was moved, so

that as far as possible, a new area of the fabric was tested, and a repeat measurement

carried out.

In addition to the parameters that are listed above, residual bending (RSB) [173, 174]

and shear (RSG) [174] were calculated as the hysteresis measurement divided by the

rigidity measurement.

Also, it is possible to remove a component from shear results that results from the

hanging weight [173]. This amount was measured as part of the work, but was not

removed from any of the results.

Note: For the Pilot production, testing of the surface and bending properties were

conducted within weeks of fabric finishing. However, the other equipment required

repair work, and the samples were not tested for compression, shear, or tensile

properties for several months. When the samples were able to be tested, they were

conditioned in the open sample bags overnight, without pre-conditioning. For the other

productions testing of all parameters was conducted within weeks of finishing. It is

possible that there is some variability between the Pilot batch and the other batches as a

result of ageing of the Pilot samples.

Note: When all the testing for this project was completed the KES-F equipment was

moved and recalibrated. It was found in recalibration that the surface tester appeared to

have had a calibration problem which may have affected the results in this project.

Therefore, a number of samples were retested, and the differences that were found were

no greater than what had already been seen between duplicate samples. It is not known

what, if any, effect this may have had on the results.


88

4.2.6 Chemical Testing

Chemical testing was carried out to determine if there were any changes in the

chemistry of the wool that could be associated with the felting shrinkage of the fabric.

In particular, to determine if the chemical changes that are usually associated with fabric

setting lead to a reduction in felting shrinkage. Such changes include the production of

lanthionine [175].

4.2.6.1 Initial Sample Preparation:

Samples for all chemical testing were initially prepared by solvent extraction as per the

solubility test methods [176-179] with the exception that all samples were cleaned in

dichloromethane, in accordance with the IWTO draft test methods [177, 179].

Apparatus: Soxhlet glassware; 200mL distilled dichloromethane per sample; cellulose

extraction thimbles; heating mantle; fumehood.

Procedure: Samples were shredded into yarn and fabric pieces of less than 1cm² then

cleaned by Soxhlet extraction in dichloromethane for 1 hour, and allowed to dry in the

fumehood. The samples were then stored in either plastic or glass specimen jars until

they were transferred to snaplock plastic bags for transportation to CNL for the

remainder of the testing.

Note: Some of the plastic specimen jars that were used for sample storage became

cracked and damaged over time. It is not known why this happened or if it had any

effect on the samples that were used in the solubility and AAA testing.


89

4.2.6.2 Alkali Solubility

Aim: This test was used to determine if damage to the bonding structure of wool fibres

had occurred. In particular, to determine if disulfide bonds were broken, or peptide

chains were hydrolysed, as a result of processing [180, 181]. A reduction in solubility

would indicate an increase in cross linking [180, 181]. All plain weave fabrics were

tested for alkali solubility. Twill weave samples were not tested as the finishing route

used had already been examined in the plain weave productions and it was not expected

that a change in fabric structure would lead to a change in fibre chemistry.

Apparatus: 0.1N sodium hydroxide; acetic acid; water bath (temperature: 66±0.5°C);

stoppered flasks; sintered glass filtering crucibles; filter flask and filter pump; ventilated

oven (temperature: 105±2°C); stoppered weighing bottles; analytical balance;

desiccator; plastic sample bags.

Procedure: This test was based on a CNL Internal Test Method [176], which in turn

was based on IWTO-4-60(E) Method of Test for the Solubility of Wool in Alkali [182].

Samples were prepared according to 4.2.6.1 Initial Sample Preparation above and

weighed out into plastic sample bags, in duplicate for solubility testing and a single

specimen for dry weight determination. Solubility was determined by measuring

100mL of sodium hydroxide into each stoppered flask, which were then placed into the

water bath to warm to 66°C. The wool samples were then added and the flasks held in

the water bath for 1 hour, gently shaking each, every 15 minutes. The flasks were

removed after 1 hour and filtered through the crucibles using the filter flask. Each

sample was neutralized using the acetic acid and rinsed with distilled water, before

drying in the ventilated oven for a minimum of four hours, cooling in the desiccator and

weighing. This drying and weighing was repeated until consistent mass was achieved.

The dry weight for the sample was determined by weighing a cool, dry stoppered

weighing bottle, placing a 1g sample into the bottle and then putting the bottle into the

ventilated oven with the stoppers off for a minimum of four hours. The samples were

removed, cooled in the desiccator and weighed, with the drying and weighing repeated

until a consistent mass was achieved.


90

4.2.6.3 Urea Bisulfite Solubility

Aim: Urea bisulfite solubility is an indicator of the number of disulfide bonds present in

the fibres and the presence of cross linking. Decreases in solubility indicate an increase

in the number of crosslinks in the wool [183]. All plain weave fabrics were tested for

urea bisulfite solubility. The twill weave samples were not tested as the finishing route

used had already been examined in the plain weave productions and it was not expected

that a change in fabric structure would lead to a change in fibre chemistry.

Apparatus: Urea bilsulfite solution: prepared same day as used (one litre of solution

contained 500g urea, 30g sodium metabisulfite, 20mL 5N NaOH in boiling distilled

water); urea solution (containing 25g urea per 100mL distilled water); water bath

(temperature: 66±0.5°C); stoppered flasks; sintered glass filtering crucibles; filter flask

and filter pump; ventilated oven (temperature: 105±2°C); stoppered weighing bottles;

analytical balance; desiccator; plastic sample bags.

Procedure: This test was based on a CNL internal test method [178], which was based

on IWTO 11-65(E) Method of Test for the Solubility of Wool in Urea-Bisulfite Solution

[184]. The process was the same as that used for alkali solubility, but the solvent used

was urea bisulfite solution and rinsing into the filter flask was done with urea solution

as well as distilled water. Dry weights were calculated as for alkali solubility, and there

was no need for pH of a water extract to be determined.

4.2.6.4 pH of Water Extract of Wool

Aim: Solubility testing also required the determination of the pH of a water extract of

wool. An abbreviated version of the Wool Research Organisation Laboratory In House

Method: Method of Determination of the pH Value of a Water Extract of Wool was

used [185], which was based on IWTO-2-96 Method for the Determination the pH of a

Water Extract of Wool [186].


91

Apparatus: Analytical balance; stoppered flasks; boiled distilled water, pH 6.2-6.9

(boiled for five minutes then cooled); mechanical shaker; pH meter and buffer solutions.

Procedure: 2g of prepared wool was weighed into a stoppered flask, and 100mL of

boiled distilled water added. The flask was then placed in a mechanical shaker for 1

hour, then the pH measured.

Notes:

1. For both alkali and urea bisulfite solubility testing, the test methods [176, 178]

define an allowable difference of 3% between duplicates. Several results

obtained in this work had slightly greater than this difference, but were deemed

to be suitable results, as they were only slightly outside the allowable difference.

The two samples that were affected were the urea bisulfite solubility of Pilot

crabbed and Pilot 110/2.

2. There were also two samples for which only a single result was used due to

problems in conducting the experiments. These were the urea bisulfite solubility

result for the Bulk crabbed sample and the alkali solubility result for the Bulk

121/6+RP+110/2+B2 sample.

3. For several of the samples, obtaining the precision of constant weighing that was

required within each test was difficult, and many repeat weighings were carried

out without achieving a constant weigh. For these samples the filtrate was

moved in the crucible in order to attempt to achieve the constant weight

outcome. This was found to be a problem in only a small number of samples.

4.2.6.5 Amino Acid Analysis (AAA)

This test was used to determine the amino acid contents of the fibres, in particular to

determine whether lanthionine had been formed. The work was carried out by staff at

CNL using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), according to CNL in

house test methods, on samples that were prepared according to the Initial Sample

Preparation. Lanthionine residues are thought to form as a result of the breakdown of

cystine under heat and water [181]. When exposed to boiling water lanthionine and


92

lysinoalanine residues have been shown to form and these have been associated with

fabric setting as new inter-chain cross links are formed [181].

Twill weave samples were not tested as the finishing route used had already been

examined in plain weave samples and it was not expected that a change in fabric

structure would lead to a change in fibre chemistry. The samples that were examined by

AAA are listed in Table 4.8.

The Pilot and Bulk productions were treated slightly differently for the reduction and

alkylation step. This allowed for SCMC to be detected in the Bulk samples, but not in

the Pilot samples. The test method used for the Bulk samples was a variation of the

method used for the Pilot production and the results report highlighted several problems

with the Bulk samples results due to the altered method. These were an insoluble white

residue in the digested sample, changes in the amino acid contents of the control

sample, and difficulties in separating some of the amino acids from each other or from

impurities. There was also some concern regarding the levels of glycine and meso

cystine in the Cl2 control sample.


93

Table 4.9 Samples Tested by Amino Acid Analysis

Pilot Bulk

Loom Loom

Crab Crab

No KD Crop

110C 2min 121/6

110C 4min 121/6 blow 1min



114C 4min 121/6+RP

114C 6min 121/6+RP+121/6

121C 2min 121/6+RP+121/6 B2

121C 4min 121/6+RP+B2

121C 6min 124/4

121C 6min+B2* 121/6+RP+110C/2

121/6+RP+110C/2+B2

Crop+110C/2

Crop+110C/2+RP

110C/2+RP+121C/6

110C/2+RP+121C/6+B2

Cl2 Control

*Tested with Bulk samples, therefore, reduction and alkylation same as Bulk.

4.2.6.6 Spectroscopy

Spectroscopy techniques such as Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) and

Photoacoustic Spectroscopy (PAS) were investigated to determine their suitability for

this project, in particular as an alternative to HPLC. The use of spectroscopic

techniques for wool has been used by a number of researchers [eg [187, 189, 188] and

the techniques have been found to be useful for analysis of wool samples. A sample

was trialed using ATR methods with the Brucker IFS66v FTIR Spectrometer, in the


94

Vibrational Spectroscopy Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Sydney. ATR

was used because the sample could be examined in fabric form [187]. This also meant

that only the surface of the fabric could be examined [187] which had the advantage of

being able to examine changes in the surface of the fabric which may reduce felting

shrinkage.

However, the skills required to extract the results from the spectral output and to

determine the changes in the chemistry of the wool; and the time required to interpret

the results were considered to be outside the scope and time limits of this project, and

conventional chemical analysis techniques were retained.

4.2.7 Yarn Testing

Previous work on yarn felting shrinkage conducted at CNL had seen the production of a

yarn felting unit [190]. The original version of this unit had been dismantled, and a new

unit, based on the old design was built for this project. The testing procedure involved

running a wet “hank” of yarn (ie a coil) around a series of rollers which caused enough

agitation to induce felting.

Part of the course of the yarns was between a pair of contacting rollers which had a load

applied to them. Initial trials were conducted to determine the effect of varying the load

and the results suggested that this had little or no impact on the felting of the yarns.

These results are reported in Appendix 2. Variations in time were also trialed, but

samples continued to shrink until they were too short to fit over the rollers and

60minutes testing gave a good indication of the felting properties of the yarns. A 1kg

load was hung on the arm of the unit and used for all samples.

Aim: To determine if the Solospun™ yarns used in the production of the shrink-

resistant fabric are more resistant to felting than conventional two-fold ring spun yarns.

Also to determine if the twist level in Solospun™ yarns has any impact of the felting of

the yarns.


95

Apparatus: CNL developed yarn felting unit (See Figure 4.6); steel rule, accuracy

±0.25mm; wetting solution (containing 4drops Teric GN9 in 3L tap water, pH6.55 (at

end of all testing)); 1metre wrap wheel; stop watch/timer; paper towel.

Samples:

1) Warp yarns used in the Twill fabric production: Solospun™ I, 22tex, 774tpm,

114αm, sample taken prior to size application.

2) Weft yarns used in the Twill fabric production: Solospun™ I, 20tex, 806tpm, 114αm.

3) 22/2tex conventional ring spun yarn. Single: 784tpm, 82αm, spin Z. Ply: 744tpm,

110αm, ply S.

4) Sample yarn: Solospun™ I, 22tex, 554tpm, 82.2αm.

5) Sample yarn: Solospun™ I, 22tex, 853tpm, 126.5αm.

Procedure: Yarn ‘hanks’ were prepared, using the wrap wheel, with 20 wraps of yarn

(ie 20m). Each hank was then measured using the steel rule by placing two pins inside

the hank and holding the hank straight, without excess tension. The length of the hank

was taken from the inside of the loop, ie at the location of the pins. The hank was then

wetted out in the Teric GN9 solution, and patted on the paper towel to remove excess

solution and the length remeasured. The hank was then placed on the felting unit and

felted for two minutes, then taken off and measured. This process of felting and

measuring was repeated for a further three minutes, then in five minute intervals, until

the total time was 60 minutes. Each sample was tested in duplicate.

The speed of the unit was 157rpm for the driving roller A. Roller B was at an offset

angle to roller A.


96

1kg load

B

A

Pivoting arm

Figure 4.6 Yarn Felting Unit

4.2.8 Microscopy

Initial microscopy work involved the use of light microscopy techniques. However,

scanning electron microscopy (SEM) allowed for higher magnification examination of

the fibres to determine if they had undergone any observable physical changes that may

have resulted in reduced felting.

All Pilot production samples were examined using the Hitachi S4500 Field Emission

SEM in the Electron Microscope Unit (EMU) at the University of New South Wales.

Samples were cut with scissors and mounted on stubs using double sided carbon tape,

and a small amount of silver dag added. The first batch of samples examined was

coated using a chrome sputter coater. Further batches were not successful in the chrome

coater and were coated with a gold vacuum coater. It is not known why the chrome

coater was not successful in coating the second batch. All samples from the Pilot

production were examined on the surface of the fabric. However, when the samples

were removed from their stubs, they were found to have marks on the reverse side

consistent with scorching.


97

Two stubs with slits cut at a 45° angle to the surface of the stub were also produced.

These allowed for samples to be mounted at a 45° angle to the surface of the stub so that

they could be manipulated to examine both the surface of the fabric and a cross section.

Very few samples were examined using this stub and the results have not been reported

here.

Following the completion of SEM examination of the Pilot production, the EMU at

UNSW commissioned an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope (ESEM), FEI

Quanta 200. Use of this equipment was investigated to attempt to prevent any damage

to the samples as had been observed using the Hitachi S4500. This microscope was also

capable of manipulating a single sample to examine the surface and also the warp and

weft cross sections.

Trials examining samples under low vacuum at 10kV with a spot size of 3 were found

to be successful. An initial trial, using high vacuum, lead to charging in areas. The

success of this work, meant that the use of the full environmental conditions was not

necessary. Samples were prepared by placing approximately 1cm² on the sample stubs

with double sided carbon dots and gold coating using an Emitech K550 Gold Coater.

The surface, warp and weft cross sections were examined for the following samples:

Bulk production, following only the route and conditions used for the twill weave

productions; twill weave productions, all samples; Bulk loomstate washed; Bulk fully

finished washed; and Bulk Plain no KD.


98

4.2.9 Data Analysis

Several data analysis techniques were used to examine the results.

4.2.9.1 Error Calculation

Measurement errors were calculated for many of the parameters measured. The full set

errors that were calculated are given in the results in Appendix 3. To calculate

measurement errors for each data set, the following method was used:

=(greatest measurement + instrument error)- (smallest measurement-

instrument error)/ (number of measurements). (12)

Or, for the ends and picks calculations:

The error for each individual measurement was made by:

=(%measurement error x gross measurement) (13)

Then for the total error:

=mean (individual errors)/3cm (14)

These were then used as absolute errors or converted to percentage errors. This method

of calculating error allowed for both the measurement error and the sample variation in

the results. Errors were not calculated for FAST and KESF instrument measurements,

or for solubility testing.

4.2.9.2 Plots and Regression

Data was plotted using Microsoft Excel and KaleidaGraph (Synergy Software, USA)

programs and Regression values calculated using Microsoft Excel. Correlation values,

calculated as described below have been quoted instead of regression values. All the

charts used throughout this thesis were produced using KaleidaGraph. Plots for the

Bulk production include the chlorinated control sample and the plain weave sample that

was decatised instead of crabbed, which was woven with the twill samples.


99

4.2.9.3 Correlation Values

Correlation coefficients were determined using Microsoft Excel according to the

following formula [191]:

ρX,Y=(covX,Y)/(σX.σY) (15)

Where:

σ²x=(1/n)Σ(Xi-µx)² (16)

σ²y=(1/n)Σ(Xi-µx)² (17)

These were calculated by correlating each parameter within each individual batch as

well as across all the batches combined. The Bulk production correlation coefficients

were calculated using all samples from the Bulk production, as well as the chlorinated

control sample and the plain weave sample that was decatised instead of crabbed, which

was woven with the twill samples. The use of correlation matrices came about as a

result of an investigation of alternative data analysis techniques that were explored

during a visit to Dr Serge Kokot of the School of Physical and Chemical Sciences,

Queensland University of Technology (QUT).

4.2.9.4 Other Methods

Other data analysis techniques were examined for their usefulness in handling large

amounts of data to determine if there was a method of producing a simple formula or

test for how fabric properties affect the felting shrinkage outcome. Experts in these

areas were consulted and techniques such as Principal Component Analysis, and

Multiple Linear Regression were trialed. Some data was also trialed in Decision Lab

(Visual Decision, Inc., Canada) and Sirius (Pattern Recognition Systems AS, Norway)

during a visit to QUT, and later, in a demonstration version of Sirius. These programs

did not prove to be suitable in achieving the desired outcome of a producing a formula

for the felting shrinkage of the fabric.


100

Multiple Linear Regression, was carried out in MATLAB, The MathWorks, Inc. by

Diako Ebrahimi in association with Professor Brynn Hibbert of the School of Chemistry

at UNSW. This showed some promising results, but there was insufficient time to

experiment with different combinations of this work. The work that was carried out

involved some initial data preparation in Microsoft Excel including the creation of a

correlation matrix, which was normalized and autoscaled, before transferring the data to

Matlab for Multiple Linear Regression. Further work is required in this area to

determine whether each batch should be handled independently or all the batches

together, and also what strength of correlation is sufficient. The work that was carried

out involved the full data set across all the batches. The results that were obtained have

not been reported in the thesis.

101

CHAPTER 5

WASH TESTING

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 WOOLMARK 1X7A RELAXATION SHRINKAGE

The method used for the measurement of relaxation shrinkage (RS) is given in Chapter

4 Materials and Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3, Table 3.1.

The results of RS testing by this method are given in Figures 5.1-5.4. The results show

that RS was reduced by the greatest amount for all productions by the first process in

the finishing route. In the case of the Pilot production (Figure 5.1), this was crabbing;

for the other productions (Figures 5.2-5.4), it was the combination of scouring and

crabbing depending on where the sample was taken. These processes relaxed the

stresses and strains in the fibres and yarns which built up during spinning and weaving,

and, in the case of crabbing, set the fibres in the configuration of the fabric. Following

this, changes were relatively minor. For all productions, except the Bulk, stentering

increased the RS as temporary set was imparted while the fabric was stretched. The

Bulk and 3/3 Twill productions also showed increases in the RS as a result of rotary

pressing, which was reduced again with further finishing. This was not seen in the 2x1

Twill production. The remainder of the finishing processes and conditions had mixed

effects on the RS, and, for most processes, the changes induced by the finishing process

were less than the measurement error and, therefore, of limited significance.

For the twill weave fabrics, the RS of the 2/1 Twill samples was similar for both pick

densities, however, for the 3/3 Twills, the RS is consistently lower in the 33ppcm

samples than the 26ppcm samples.

The effect of stentering on RS depends on the overfeeding of the fabric into the stenter

[70]. The use of different stenters for the two plain weave productions and the different

Chapter 5 Wash Testing Results and Discussion

102

fabric structure of the twill weaves, may account for the differences in RS resulting

from stentering, although overfeed was the same for all productions.

The effect of decatising on the RS of fabrics, depends on how relaxed the fabrics was

before the process, and the conditions used for decatising, including the way the fabric

is cooled [70]. The differences seen between decatised samples may not only be

accounted for by measurement errors in the RS testing, but also by the way the fabric

was processed.

Reductions in RS are also seen as a result of blowing. Blowing is known to relax

fabrics [192].

There were moderate to strong correlations between felting shrinkage and relaxation

shrinkage. This is thought to be a result of the setting of the fabric through finishing.

The effect of setting will be discussed further in relation to other fabric properties.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Loom

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

No

KD

110C

/2

110C

/4

110C

/6

114C

/2

114C

/4

114C

/6

121C

/2

121C

/4

121C

/6

121C

/6 B

2

Figure 5.1 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): Pilot Production

Are

a R

elax

atio

n S

hrin

kage

(%)

Finishing Stage/Process


103

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Loom

Scou

rC

rab

Sten

tC

rop

121/

612

1/6

B112

1/6

B212

1/6

B312

1/6+

RP

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B1

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B3

124/

212

4/4

124/

612

1/6+

RP

+B2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

+B2

Cro

p+11

0/2

Cro

p+11

0/2+

RP

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Cl2

Con

trol

KD n

o C

rab

Figure 5.2 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): Bulk Production

Are

a R

elax

atio

n S

hrin

kage

(%)



104

0

2

4

6

8

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.3 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): 2/1 Twill Production

26ppcm33ppcm

Area

Rel

axat

ion

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Finishing Process


105

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6 +R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.4 Area Relaxation Shrinkage (1x7A): 3/3 Twill Production

26ppcm33ppcm

Are

a R

elax

atio

n S

hrin

kage

(%)

Finishing Process


106

5.2 WOOLMARK 5X5A TOTAL AREA SHRINKAGE

5.2.1 Pilot Production

The total area shrinkage, (FS and RS) results given in Figure 5.5 show that the greatest

reduction was a result of the crabbing process. The results indicate that there was an

increase in the shrinkage as a result of stentering and a decrease as a result of cropping.

However, the measurement error for the stentered sample was very high and the

significance of this result is limited. This also limits the significance of the reduction

seen in the cropped sample.

There were smaller changes in shrinkage following cropping. However, the

measurement error for each sample was greater than the difference between the

samples, so the significance of the changes is limited. The results indicate that the

severity of the conditions used for decatising did not have any significant effect on the

degree of shrinkage measured.


107

0

10

20

30

40

50

Loom

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

No

KD

110/

2

110/

4

110/

6

114/

2

114/

4

114/

6

121/

2

121/

4

121/

6

121/

6 B2

Figure 5.5 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): Pilot Production

Tot

al A

rea

Shrin

kage

(%)


5.2.2 Bulk Production

The total area shrinkage results for the Bulk production are shown in Figure 5.6. The

greatest reduction in total area shrinkage occurred as a result of the crabbing process.

Following crabbing, the changes resulting from each finishing process were much

smaller. However, in general, the more processes involving lateral compression the

fabric was subject to, the lower the shrinkage. The exception to this is in the samples

taken following rotary pressing.

For many of the samples taken after the crabbing process, the measurement error was

greater than the change in the shrinkage value, and so the significance of the change is

limited. There was no indication that more severe conditions of decatising and blowing

had a greater effect on reducing the fabric shrinkage.


108

The lowest overall shrinkage was found in the control sample treated with chlorine and

Basolan MW.

The two plain weave productions, shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6, show similar degrees

of shrinkage in samples taken at the same stages of finishing. The exception to this is

the stentered sample in the Pilot production, which showed a much higher degree of

shrinkage than the Bulk production, however, the Pilot sample had a very high error

value. Both productions showed the most outstanding reductions in shrinkage as a

result of crabbing, with comparatively little change as a result of the rest of the finishing

route, regardless of the conditions or severity of the processes.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Loom

Scou

rC

rab

Sten

tC

rop

121/

612

1/6

B1

121/

6 B2

121/

6 B3

121/

6+R

P12

1/6+

RP

+121

/612

1/6+

RP

+121

/6 B

112

1/6+

RP

+121

/6 B

212

1/6+

RP

+121

/6 B

312

4/2

124/

412

4/6

121/

6+R

P+B

212

1/6+

RP

+110

/212

1/6+

RP

+110

/2+B

2C

rop+

110/

2C

rop+

110/

2+R

P11

0/2+

RP

+121

/611

0/2+

RP

+121

/6+B

2C

l2 C

ontro

lKD

no

Cra

b

Figure 5.6 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): Bulk Production

Tota

l Are

a S

hrin

kage

(%)



109

5.2.3 2/1 Twill Production (26ppcm and 33ppcm)

The reduction seen in the total area shrinkage of the 2/1 Twill fabrics with finishing was

more gradual than seen in the plain weave productions. This can be seen by comparing

Figures 5.5 and 5.6 with Figure 5.7. Crabbing reduced the total area shrinkage, but not

by the same amount as seen in the plain weave productions. The plain weave samples

had less than 5% area shrinkage following crabbing, while the crabbed sample in this

production showed 26% area shrinkage. Further finishing, in particular decatising, had

a greater impact on the shrinkage of the 2/1 Twill fabric than the plain weaves. For this

batch, the processes which are known [60,72] to produce permanent set while the fabric

is held under lateral compression, led to the greatest reductions in the shrinkage, that is,

crabbing and pressure decatising.

For all samples taken from the 33ppcm fabric, the total shrinkage was less than the

comparable 26ppcm samples.


110

0

10

20

30

40

50

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6 +R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.7 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A and 5x5A): 2/1 Twill Production

26ppcm33ppcm

Tota

l Are

a S

hrin

kage

(%)



The total area shrinkage results for the 3/3 Twill are shown in Figure 5.8. As was the

case for the 2/1 Twill (see Figure 5.7), the shrinkage was reduced progressively through

finishing. However, each process lead to smaller reductions than seen in the 2/1 Twill

production. Crabbing produced only a slight reduction in shrinkage, and the greatest

reductions resulted from decatising. The trend is similar to that seen in the 2/1 Twills,

in that those processes known to impart permanent set, while the fabric was held under

lateral compression, produced the greatest reductions in total shrinkage.

For all samples taken from the 33ppcm fabric, the total shrinkage was less than the

comparable 26ppcm samples.


111

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.8 Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A & 5x5A): 3/3 Twill Production

26ppcm33ppcm

Tota

l Are

a S

hrin

kage

(%)


5.3 WOOLMARK 5X5A FELTING SHRINKAGE


Felting shrinkage for area, warp and weft, given in Figure 5.9, show similar trends to

the results from Total Area Shrinkage (1x7A and 5x5A) (Figure 5.5). The greatest

reduction in felting shrinkage occurred as a result of crabbing. The apparent increase in

felting shrinkage resulting from stentering is masked by a very high experimental error

of 8.6% and is therefore considered to be an outlier. The same high result was not

repeated in the Bulk production as is seen in Figure 5.10. Further reductions in felting

shrinkage followed, but were accompanied by errors which were greater than the

change, so the significance of the reduction is limited. Following cropping, all samples

showed felting shrinkage values of less than 5% in area.


112

For the majority of samples, felting shrinkage is greater in the warp direction than in the

weft direction. The difference between warp and weft felting shrinkage was less than

5% for all samples except the stentered sample which had a very high measurement

error.

It is interesting to note that the sample which had gone straight from the cropping

process to the blowing process had felting shrinkage in both warp and weft directions

that were comparable with the decatised samples. This result draws attention to the

crabbing process in the reduction of felting shrinkage for this batch of fabric.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Loom

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

No

KD

110/

2

110/

4

110/

6

114/

2

114/

4

114/

6

121/

2

121/

4

121/

6

121/

6 B2

Figure 5.9 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Pilot Production

Total FSWarp FSWeft FS

Felti

ng S

hrin

kage

(%)



113


These results are shown in Figure 5.10. Felting shrinkage in this batch of fabric was

reduced by the greatest amount (26%) as a result of the crabbing process. Following

this, all samples had a total area felting shrinkage of less than 5% and the changes in the

felting shrinkage values were minimal, often with measurement errors greater than the

change. Neither more severe setting conditions nor a greater number of decatising

processes lead to lower felting shrinkage.

Following crabbing, warp felting shrinkage was consistently greater than weft felting

shrinkage. However, the difference between warp and weft felting shrinkage was less

than 5% for all samples.

It is interesting to observe that the sample that had been pressure decatised instead of

crabbed showed very low felting shrinkage also, with levels comparable to other ‘fully

finished’ samples.


114

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Loom

Scou

rC

rab

Sten

tC

rop

121/

612

1/6

B112

1/6

B212

1/6

B312

1/6+

RP

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B1

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B3

124/

212

4/4

124/

612

1/6+

RP

+B2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

+B2

Cro

p+11

0/2

Cro

p+11

0/2+

RP

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Cl2

Con

trol

KD n

o C

rab

Figure 5.10 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Bulk Production


Felti

ng S

hrin

kage

(%)



Felting shrinkage in the 2/1 Twill fabrics, shown in Figure 5.11, was consistently greater

in the 26ppcm samples than in the 33ppcm samples. The reductions in felting shrinkage

seen through finishing of both structures were more gradual and progressive than seen

in the Plain weave samples, with area shrinkage values of less than 5% not seen until

after the second pressure decatising process.

The 26ppcm fabrics were sampled along the full finishing route and these showed that

the largest reductions in felting shrinkage were seen to follow those processes that

impart permanent set, while the fabric was under lateral compression, ie crabbing and

pressure decatising.


115

The warp and weft felting shrinkage were reduced at different rates through finishing in

this production, although the loomstate felting shrinkage was similar in the warp and

weft directions (24.4% and 25.9%, respectively). Weft felting shrinkage was reduced

between the loomstate and the crabbed sample to 6.2%, while the warp felting shrinkage

was reduced more gradually, and was not less than 10% until after the second pressure

decatising process.

Following crabbing, for all samples, warp felting shrinkage was greater than weft felting

shrinkage.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.11 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): 2/1 Twill Production (26ppcm only)


Felti

ng S

hrin

kage

(%)



116


The changes in the felting shrinkage of the 3/3 Twill samples through finishing are

shown in Figure 5.12. The results show that the reduction was more gradual than in the

2/1 Twills. The first substantial reduction in felting shrinkage of the 26ppcm fabric

followed the first decatising, with another resulting from the second decatising process.

Consistent with the trends observed in the 2/1 Twill, the higher pick count samples were

more resistant to felting than the lower pick count samples, and warp felting shrinkage

was greater than weft felting shrinkage following scouring.

As was seen in the 2/1 Twill fabrics, there were some large differences between the

warp and weft felting shrinkage values. Weft felting shrinkage was reduced by a large

amount as a result of the first pressure decatising process, while warp felting shrinkage

was reduced by a large amount in the second pressure decatising process.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.12 Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): 3/3 Twill Production (26ppcm only)


Felti

ng S

hrin

kage

(%)



117

5.3.5 Felting Shrinkage: Comparisons Across Batches

The changes in felting shrinkage of those samples which were finished with the same

processes and conditions can be seen in Figure 5.13. The results show several trends:

1. Plain fabrics showed the lowest felting shrinkage at all stages of finishing, with

2/1 Twill fabrics showing higher felting shrinkage, and 3/3 Twills the highest

felting shrinkage.

2. In the case of the Twill fabrics, the 33ppcm samples showed lower felting

shrinkage than the 26ppcm samples.

Note: The early stage finishing route is slightly different for the Pilot production to the

rest of the batches, in that crabbing and scouring were swapped. See Figures 4.1 to 4.4

for details.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Figure 5.13 Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Corresponding Samples

PilotBulk2/1 26ppcm2/1 33ppcm3/3 26ppcm3/3 33ppcmA

rea

Felti

ng S

hrin

kage

(%)

Finishing Process


118

5.4 CUFF EDGE FELTING

Cuff edge shrinkage is a specified part of the Woolmark Test Method 13, and has been

carried out in order to determine how the fabric complies with Woolmark specifications.

There is, however, very little literature on the subject of cuff edge shrinkage, and the

reason for why cuff edge is different from fabric felting shrinkage appears to be poorly

understood.

It has been shown that cuff edge felting is related to yarn crimp in a woven fabric, in

that low yarn crimp was associated with high cuff edge felting for treated fabrics [193].


No cuff edge shrinkage measurements were made on this production.


Cuff edge felting shrinkage, shown in Figure 5.14, is greater in the warp direction than

the weft for all samples in this production except the loomstate. When the differential

cuff edge felting shrinkage was calculated, all the samples showed values greater than

1% in the warp direction except the 121/6+ RP sample. In the weft direction, most of

the values of differential cuff edge felting shrinkage were between -1 and +1.

The differences between warp and weft cuff edge shrinkage are consistent with the

results found for treated fabrics discussed above, in that the direction with the lowest

yarn crimp showed the highest cuff edge shrinkage. The results of yarn crimp

measurements are given in Section 6.3.


119

0

5

10

15

Loom

Scou

rC

rab

Sten

tC

rop

121/

612

1/6

B1

121/

6 B2

121/

6 B3

121/

6+R

P12

1/6+

RP

+121

/612

1/6+

RP

+121

/6 B

112

1/6+

RP

+121

/6 B

212

1/6+

RP

+121

/6 B

312

4/2

124/

412

4/6

121/

6+R

P+B

212

1/6+

RP

+110

/212

1/6+

RP

+110

/2+B

2C

rop+

110/

2C

rop+

110/

2+R

P11

0/2+

RP

+121

/611

0/2+

RP

+121

/6+B

2C

l2 C

ontro

lKD

no

Cra

b

Figure 5.14 Cuff Edge Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only): Bulk Production

WarpWeft

Cuf

f Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)


5.4.3 Twill Productions (All Productions)

The 2/1 Twill samples also showed much higher cuff edge felting in the warp direction

than the weft for both the 26 and 33ppcm samples. The differential cuff edge felting

shrinkage was also much higher for the warp measurements than for the weft. Many of

the weft direction measurements showed that the cuff felting was less than the fabric

felting.

The 3/3 Twill samples showed similar results to the 2/1 Twill samples, however, there

were more samples with cuff edge shrinkage greater than fabric shrinkage than seen in

the 2/1 Twill production.


120

The difference between warp and weft cuff edge felting is consistent with the results

discussed above on treated fabrics, in that the samples with the lowest yarn crimp,

showed the highest felting shrinkage. Yarn crimp results will be discussed in Section

6.3.

5.4.4 Correlations with Felting Shrinkage

For some of the fabric structures examined, there is a strong correlation between

differential cuff edge shrinkage and yarn crimp, and between cuff edge felting shrinkage

and yarn crimp. However, the strong correlations do not exist for all the fabrics and

there is no consistency across the batches in either the warp or weft direction.

There is however, a consistent trend that higher cuff edge felting is in the direction with

the lowest yarn crimp.

NOTE: A number of samples throughout this project also showed single thread

shrinkage, however, the study of this was determined to be outside the scope of the

project.

5.5 DISCUSSION

There were several consistent trends in the changes in felting shrinkage results that have

been given in this chapter.

Firstly, following the crabbing process, the warp felting shrinkage was greater than the

weft felting shrinkage for almost all samples across all the batches. This is consistent

across all the fabric structures examined, including both pick densities used in the twill

fabrics. It is difficult to account for this difference between warp and weft felting

shrinkage as it is consistent across all the batches.

It has been suggested [192] that it may be a result of differences in cover factor in

finishing, however, while the weft felting shrinkage is consistently lower than the warp,

the cover factor difference varies for the two pick densities that were measured. For the


121

plain and twill fabrics woven at 26ppcm, the epcm is greater than the ppcm and the

warp cover is greater than the weft cover. However, for the twills woven at 33ppcm, the

ppcm is greater than the epcm and weft cover is greater than warp.

It was thought possible that the difference between warp and weft felting shrinkage is a

result of the difference between warp and weft yarn shrinkage which is demonstrated in

Chapter 10. Although the weft felting shrinkage is greater than the warp in the

loomstate and scoured samples. These samples have been subjected to the same setting

conditions as the yarns used in the yarn felting shrinkage experiments, and so it is

difficult to account for the reasons why the change between warp and weft may occur

following setting. Furthermore, the Pilot production used the same yarns for both warp

and weft and still showed the warp felting shrinkage greater than the weft felting

shrinkage. Therefore, the yarn twist can not account for the difference between warp

and weft felting shrinkage.

The possibility that the difference between the warp and weft felting shrinkage was a

result of abrasive forces in weaving increasing the hairiness of the warp yarns in

comparison with the weft yarns was also explored. If the warp yarns were more hairy

than the weft, there would be an increase in loose fibre material, which may felt more.

To test this possibility the correlation with the surface properties of the fabric were

examined and are reported in Section 7.2.1.4 using the results from KES-F testing, and

although there are some strong correlations for some of the batches, they are not

consistent. Nor are any of the surface properties consistently greater in the warp

direction than the weft.

The reasons why there is a consistent difference between warp and weft felting

shrinkage require further exploration. Other parameters which are reported in the

following chapters also show consistent differences between warp and weft, without

necessarily correlating with measures of felting shrinkage.

The second trend that was seen in the results was that the plain weave fabrics showed

the least felting shrinkage and the 3/3 Twills showed the greatest felting shrinkage, with

the 2/1 Twills falling in between. Furthermore, the fabrics that were constructed with


122

the greatest pick density showed less felting shrinkage than the comparable lower pick

density samples. These results were as expected. It has been shown in previous work

by other researchers that woven wool fabric can have reduced felting shrinkage by

changing the construction of the fabric [44-48], however, these studies do not show

felting shrinkage to be as low as has been found in the fabrics used in the current

project. The structure of the fabric is able to lower felting shrinkage by minimising

movement of fibres [45]. Fabric construction had been suggested as a possible reason

for the shrink-resistance of these fabrics in the early stages of this project [161]. The

increased float length in the twill weave fabrics leads to a reduced number of yarn

interlacings and changes the ability of the yarn to move [192]. Conversely, the increased

pick density increases the number of yarns interlacings and also increases the

compactness of the fabric [192].

The third trend that was seen was a reduction in fabric felting shrinkage as a result of

those finishing processes which set the fabric under lateral compression, that is,

crabbing and pressure decatising. The plain weave fabrics showed large reductions in

felting shrinkage as a result of the crabbing process, as did the weft felting shrinkage in

the 2/1 Twill constructions. The sample which was pressure decatised instead of

crabbed also showed very low overall felting shrinkage, which would seem to suggest

that the set which is achieved in crabbing is not unique and that the same effect could be

achieved by replacing crabbing with decatising. The warp felting shrinkage in the 2/1

Twills and both the warp and weft in the 3/3 Twills showed more gradual reductions in

felting shrinkage occurring after the pressure decatising processes. These results

indicate that changes in the felting shrinkage of the fabric are dependent on the finishing

processes that are undertaken, and that as float lengths increase, the fabrics require more

compressive setting processes, with permanent setting to reduce the felting shrinkage.

These setting processes reduce the fabric thickness by lateral compression (shown in

Chapter 7), but also change the interyarn and interfibre friction properties as will be

discussed in Chapter 7 These processes effectively increase the density of the fabric

(shown in Chapter 6) and this leads to increased compactness of the structure. This, in

turn, adds to the inability of the fibres to move within the fabric structure.

123

CHAPTER 6

PHYSICAL TESTING


6.1 WIDTH

The method used for the measurement of fabric width is given in Chapter 4 Materials

and Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table A3.2.


Fabric width showed the largest reduction as a result of crabbing, as expected from the

lengthwise tension imposed in the process. There were comparatively minor reductions

through the rest of finishing. The pressure decatising or blowing of the fabric lead to a

further minor reduction in the fabric width, but there is no indication that more severe

conditions lead to a greater change in the width than milder conditions.


The width of the samples taken from the Bulk production also showed a large reduction

as a result of crabbing. Further finishing processes lead to further reductions in width,

and, in general, the more processes the fabric was finished with, the greater the

reduction. As was the case for the Pilot production, the severity of the finishing

processes did not have an effect on the amount change seen in the fabric width.

6.1.3 Twill Production

Both twill weave structures also showed a large reduction in width as a result of the

crabbing process. There was a slight increase as a result of stentering, followed by

further reductions through the rest of finishing.

Chapter 6 Physical Testing Results and Discussion

124

6.1.4 Calculated

Fabric width was also determined from the results of the number of ends per centimetre

(epcm) measured for each sample and the number of ends in the loom. This gave a

more accurate measure of the width of the fabric for several reasons:

• More accurate equipment used for epcm than for total width,

• It was not always easy to determine the boundary between the selvedge and the

rest of the fabric for the full width measurements, and,

• The full fabric sample was not “flat” and had creases and folds which made

measurement difficult. Flattening the fabric with ironing was not suitable as this

had the potential to affect the set of the fabric, and interfere with other

measurements.

The Pilot production does not have a value for the loomstate sample, as there was

insufficient sample available for ends to be measured1.

In general, the correlation between the calculated and measured values of fabric width is

strong. The poorest correlation was seen in the Pilot production, and this was expected

as no loomstate calculation was performed.

The results for the calculated width show similar trends to the measured width, with a

large reduction resulting from crabbing, and smaller reductions following later finishing

processes.


The relationship between the area felting shrinkage of the fabric and the fabric width is

shown in Figure 6.1. The chart indicates that a reduction in fabric width is associated

with a reduction in felting shrinkage. That is, the width was reduced in finishing, which

resulted in closer packing of warp yarns, and felting shrinkage was reduced.

1 A loomstate width calculation was not performed for the Pilot production as the small sample that was taken did not allow for ends and picks to be measured.


125

The results show that the point at which a reduction in width had an effect on the fabric

shrinkage was different for each fabric structure. The amount of change required was

greater in the twill weave constructions than in the plain weave fabrics, reflecting the

greater ability of yarns to move due to the long floats. For instance, as shown in Tables

6.1a and 6.1b, the plain weave structures first gave less than 5% area felting shrinkage

with width reductions of 7.8% for the Pilot production and 11.2% for the Bulk

production. However, for the 2/1 Twill fabrics to show less than 5% area felting

shrinkage there were width reductions of 17.4% and 14.9% for the 26ppcm and 33ppcm

respectively. The 3/3 Twills showed width reductions of up to 20%, but felting area

felting shrinkage was not able to be reduced below 10%.

It is not proposed that the width of a fabric has a direct effect on the felting propensity

of the fabric. Rather, the change in width is an indicator of the change in the structure

of the fabric and the packing of the yarns, which may directly affect the felting

propensity. This will be explored further in the following sections, where other

measures of the fabric physical properties are discussed.

The measured fabric width, including selvedges, was reasonably well correlated with

total area felting shrinkage. The correlation coefficients ranged from 0.72-0.95 across

the six batches.

When the measured fabric width was correlated with weft felting shrinkage there were

even stronger correlations which ranged from 0.82-0.99 across the six batches. The

correlations with warp felting shrinkage were slightly weaker, ranging from 0.62 to

0.87.

The calculated fabric width, had slightly weaker correlation coefficients with total area

felting shrinkage for all productions except the 2/1 Twill 33ppcm. The Pilot production

correlations were much lower for the calculated width as a result of the missing

loomstate data point.


126

Table 6.1a Width and Felting Shrinkage Data Pilot Final chg Area Total Wid Felt Shr (cm) % (%) Loom 158.5 36.43Crab 146.0 7.8 2.81Stent 146.8 7.4 17.10Crop 146.1 7.8 4.42121/6 143.1 9.7 1.77121/6 B2 140.4 11 2.65 Table 6.1b Width and Felting Shrinkage Data Bulk 2/1 Twill 26ppcm 2/1 Twill 33ppcm 3/3 Twill 26ppcm 3/3 Twill 33ppcm Final chg Area Final chg Area Final chg Area Final chg Area Final chg Area Total Wid Felt Shr Total Wid Felt Shr Total Wid Felt Shr Total Wid Felt Shr Total Wid Felt Shr (cm) % (%) (cm) % (%) (cm) % (%) (cm) % (%) (cm) % (%) Loom 157.3 29.78 158.5 44.02 155.1 30.18 158.2 71.76 154.2 63.11 Scour 151.4 3.7 29.83 147.6 6.7 69.81 Crab 139.7 11.2 3.75 138.4 12.7 26.00 136.6 12 13.71 135.3 14.5 65.72 135.3 12 57.22Stent 141.5 10.0 4.32 140.0 11.7 23.09 141.4 8.9 10.14 140.0 11.5 65.03 138.9 9.9 56.78Crop 139.3 11.4 3.80 137.5 13.3 26.67 134.7 14.8 67.13 121/6 136.5 13.2 3.47 134.3 15.2 11.22 131.5 16.8 44.86 121/6+RP 133.2 15.3 2.10 134.9 14.9 11.95 131.2 17.0 46.72 121/6+RP+121/6 128.5 18.3 2.40 131.0 17.4 2.97 128.3 18.9 25.32 121/6+RP+121/6 B2 127.3 19.1 2.96 131.7 16.9 2.30 132.1 14.9 2.02 128.5 19 25.69 129.5 16.0 12.20


127

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160

Figure 6.1 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Fabric Total Width (Measured), including selvedges

Pilot PlainBulk Plain2/1 26ppcm2/1 33ppcm3/3 26ppcm3/3 33ppcm

Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Final Total Fabric Width (cm)

6.2 MASS PER UNIT AREA: MEASURED AND CALCULATED

The method used for the measurement of fabric mass per unit area (or gsm) is given in

Chapter 4 Materials and Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table

A3.2.


The gsm of the samples in this batch increased progressively with finishing. The only

reduction occurred as a result of cropping which was expected as the surface fibres were

removed from the fabric.

The results from the different decatising conditions showed no indication that the

severity of the conditions lead to greater changes in the gsm of the fabric.


128


This batch showed similar trends to the Pilot production, in that there was a general

increase through finishing, however, there was no decrease in gsm as a result of

cropping. There was a reduction as a result of rotary pressing, which would be a result

of the lengthwise stretching of the fabric in the process, which is reflected in the ends

and picks results in Section 6.4.2 Ends and Picks: Bulk Production.

In general, the more finishing processes that the fabric was subjected to, the greater the

gsm. However, there is no indication that more severe finishing conditions lead to

greater changes in the gsm.

6.2.3 Twill Productions

The gsm of the Twill fabrics also showed a general trend of increasing with finishing.

As anticipated, the 33ppcm fabrics were of greater gsm than the 26ppcm for all

comparative samples, resulting from the greater number of picks per unit area.

6.2.4 Calculated

The gsm was also determined using the results obtained from ends and picks, crimp, and

yarn count. The measured and calculated gsm for the fabrics were well correlated, with

correlation coefficients ranging from 0.84 to 0.96. The changes resulting from each

finishing process were very similar across the batches, however, the values obtained for

the measured gsm were consistently greater than the calculated values.


The measured gsm correlates reasonably well with warp, weft and area felting

shrinkage, with values ranging from -0.70 to -0.95.

There was a slight variation in the correlation coefficients between felting shrinkage and

the calculated gsm. The correlation coefficients with area felting shrinkage ranged from


-0.64 to -0.94. Correlation coefficients with warp and weft felting shrinkage ranged

from -0.53 to -0.995.

Figure 6.2 shows the relationship between area felting shrinkage and the measured gsm.

As was the case with the fabric width discussed in Section 6.1, it appears that there may

be a “critical gsm/mass” [194] for each fabric structure, above which, felting shrinkage

is reduced. Like the fabric width, the gsm of the fabric does not directly lead to a

change in the fabric feltability, rather, it is a reflection of the changes in the fabric which

do lead to a reduction in felting shrinkage.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

120

Figure 6.2 Fa

Pilot PlainBulk Plain

Area

Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

CP CP
CP
129

130 140 150 160 170 180 190

bric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v gsm (Measured)

2/1 26ppcm2/1 33ppcm3/3 26ppcm3/3 33ppcm

Mass per Unit Area (gsm)

CP

CP= “Critical Point”


130

6.3 YARN CRIMP

The method used for the measurement of yarn crimp is given in Chapter 4 Materials and

Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table A3.2.


There is no yarn crimp data available for the loomstate sample in this batch due to a

shortage of sample.

The results of this batch showed wide variation as a result of finishing, with no overall

trend. The weft crimp was consistently greater than the warp crimp for all samples.


Changes in warp and weft crimp were roughly inverse with each other through

finishing, that is, as one went up the other went down, but the relationship between the

two was not strong. Weft crimp was appreciably greater than warp crimp for all

samples following crabbing. Crabbing lead to a large increase in the weft crimp, while

the rest of the finishing processes also tended to increase the weft crimp, but to a lesser

extent.


The twill weave fabrics showed similar trends in yarn crimp changes through finishing

to the Bulk production in Section 6.3.2 Yarn Crimp: Bulk Production. The 33ppcm

fabrics did not show the inverse relationship to the same extent as was seen in the Bulk

production.


131


Warp yarn crimp had moderate to weak correlations with most measures of felting

shrinkage. When correlated with area felting shrinkage, the coefficients ranged from

-0.70 to +0.43. When correlated with warp felting shrinkage, the coefficients ranged

from -0.60 to +0.31, and when correlated with weft felting shrinkage the coefficients

ranged from -0.84 to +0.63. There were no consistencies in the correlations across the

batches, as some showed positive correlations and others negative. These results

indicate that changes in warp yarn crimp do not have a significant effect on the felting


Weft yarn crimp was better correlated with all measures of felting shrinkage. When

correlated with area felting shrinkage the coefficients ranged from -0.40 to -0.85. When

correlated with warp felting shrinkage, the coefficients ranged from -0.35 to -0.71, and

when correlated with weft felting shrinkage coefficients ranged from -0.56 to -0.97. All

correlations were negative between weft yarn crimp and the measures of fabric felting

shrinkage, however, because there is such a wide range of correlation values, it is

concluded that changes in weft crimp do not lead to reductions in felting shrinkage.

Figures 6.3 and 6.4 show the relationships between felting shrinkage and yarn crimp.

Unlike the fabric width and gsm discussed above, there is no indication of any change in

the fabric felting being associated with the yarn crimp. Along with the correlation

coefficients, it is concluded that changes in yarn crimp through finishing have little

effect on the reduction of fabric felting shrinkage.

It is interesting to note however, that for all fabrics following crabbing, the weft yarn

crimp is greater than the warp yarn crimp. Also, the fabric felting shrinkage results

show that felting is greater in the warp direction than in the weft direction, following

crabbing, in all productions. It is not clear what effect yarn crimp has on felting

shrinkage, however, in a study of cuff-edge felting of treated fabrics [193], a similar

result of greater cuff edge felting shrinkage in the direction of lowest yarn crimp was

also found.


132

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 6.3 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Yarn Crimp


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Yarn Crimp (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 6.4 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Yarn Crimp


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Yarn Crimp (%)


133

6.4 ENDS AND PICKS

The method used for the measurement of fabric ends and picks is given in Chapter 4

Materials and Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table 3.2.


Loomstate data for this batch was not collected due to a sample shortage.

The results for the remainder of the samples measured in this production show that the

number of ends and picks varied through the finishing route, but there was no consistent

pattern through finishing except that the epcm was greater than the number of ppcm.

There was no indication that the severity of the decatising conditions had any effect on

the end or pick density of these fabrics.


This batch of fabrics showed much greater change through finishing than the Pilot

batch. The end density was greater than the pick density for all samples. There was

also a general trend of increasing epcm with finishing; ppcm was more variable. There

was no indication that more severe finishing conditions lead to greater changes in either

ends or pick density, however, the more finishing processes the fabric was put through,

the greater the epcm.


The Twill fabrics showed similar trends to the Bulk production, with general increases in

epcm in finishing, and variable changes in the ppcm. The results also showed that the

epcm is greater than the ppcm for the 26ppcm fabrics, but the reverse is true of the

33ppcm fabrics.


134


The ppcm results correlate poorly with all measures of felting shrinkage and for all

fabric types except the 3/3 33ppcm Twill fabric. This fabric has correlation coefficients

of -0.75 to -0.93 across the three measures of felting shrinkage.

The other fabric structures had correlation coefficients which ranged from -0.59 to 0.16.

There was no greater correlation between ppcm and either warp or weft felting

shrinkage.

The results of felting shrinkage alone (see Figure 5.13) show that the higher pick count

twill fabrics had lower values of felting shrinkage at comparable stages of finishing than

the lower pick count fabrics. The relationship between weft felting shrinkage and ppcm

is shown in Figure 6.5. This indicates that the change in felting shrinkage of the fabric

is not related to the change in the number of ppcm through finishing.

The epcm results showed much stronger correlations with felting shrinkage for all

fabrics except the Pilot production. The Pilot production correlation coefficients with

the three measures of fabric felting shrinkage ranged from -0.09 to -0.27. For the other

fabric productions the correlation coefficients ranged from -0.54 to -0.995. Epcm data

is better correlated with weft felting shrinkage than with warp felting shrinkage.

From the chart of epcm versus warp felting shrinkage shown in Figure 6.6, it appears

that there is a “critical value” [194] for epcm which lead to the reduction in shrinkage,

below this value, felting shrinkage is appreciably greater. This is the case for all the

fabrics except the Pilot production.

Although it is evident in the fabric felting shrinkage results that the ppcm has an effect

on the felting shrinkage of samples taken at comparable stages, the results of the epcm

show that the changes in the felting shrinkage through finishing are more dependent on

the changes in the epcm that result from each finishing process.


135

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Figure 6.5 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Picks per Centimetre


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Picks per Centimetre

0

10

20

30

40

50

26 28 30 32 34 36

Figure 6.6 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Ends per Centimetre


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Ends per Centimetre

CP

CP CP



136

6.5 COVER FACTOR: SI AND FRACTIONAL

For all the structures, the effect of the warp and weft cover factor on felting shrinkage is

the same as the ends and picks discussed above. This is because the warp and weft

cover is directly proportional to the ends or picks, respectively. The discussion below

relates principally to the total cover factor of the fabric.

Also the SI and Fractional measures of cover are directly proportional to each other and

therefore the same changes are seen in both through finishing.

The results of cover factor calculations are given in Appendix 3 Table 3.2.


Loomstate data for this batch was not calculated, as ends and picks were not measured

due to a sample shortage.

The remainder of the results showed that total cover factor changed very little through

finishing, ranging from 0.76 to 0.79. There was also very little variation in the warp and

weft cover factor, however, the warp cover was consistently greater than the weft cover.


Total cover factor showed a general increase over a small range through finishing,

which was principally made up of increases in the warp cover factor; as a result of the

increase in the end density through finishing. There was no indication that more severe

finishing conditions lead to greater changes in the cover factor, however, a greater

number of finishing processes lead to slightly greater cover factor.


137


The cover factor of the Twill production fabrics increased through finishing, with warp

cover factor greater than weft for most 26ppcm samples and weft slightly greater than

warp for 33ppcm samples. The 33ppcm fabrics had appreciably higher cover values

than the 26ppcm fabrics, as expected from the greater number of yarns per unit area.


The total cover factor of the fabrics correlated reasonably well with all felting shrinkage

measures for all fabric structures except the Pilot production. For the other fabric

structures correlation coefficients between area felting shrinkage and total cover factor

ranged from -0.67 to -0.95. The correlation for the Pilot production was -0.17.

The relationship between fabric area felting shrinkage and the total cover factor

calculated using the Fractional method is shown in Figure 6.7. As was the case with the

fabric width, gsm, and epcm, there appears to be a “critical point” [194], where small

changes to the cover factor lead to appreciable changes in the area felting shrinkage.

This further indicates the importance of the packing density of the yarns on the felting


Some researchers [44, 48] have shown that there is a strong relationship between fabric

felting shrinkage and fabric cover factor. The same strong relationship has not been

found for the fabrics in this project, although a downward trend does exist, instead,

there appears to be a “critical point” [194] of cover factor as indicated in the preceding

discussion.


138

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88

Figure 6.7 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vTotal Cover Factor (Fractional)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Cover Factor (Grosberg)

CP

CP

CP

CPCP


6.6 COMPACTNESS RATIO

The results of compactness ratio calculations are given in Appendix 3 Table A3.2.


Loomstate ends and picks measurements were not made, and so compactness ratio was

not able to be calculated for this sample.

The balance of the results showed very little change in the compactness ratio through

finishing ranging from 0.77 to 0.82 with no clear trend in the results through the

processes.


139


Compactness ratio showed a more general trend of increasing with finishing than was

seen in the Pilot production, but also within a narrow range of values. Rotary pressing

and stentering lead to reductions in compactness.


The Twill fabrics also showed the trend that the compactness ratio increased with

finishing for both structures, and at both pick densities, and also showed reductions

resulting from stentering and rotary pressing. These values were also within a narrow

range.


The correlations between felting shrinkage and compactness ratio are similar to those

seen between felting shrinkage and cover factor. All the fabric types showed good

correlations except the Pilot batch. The correlation coefficient between the total felting

shrinkage of the Pilot production and the compactness ratio was -0.11. For the other

productions the correlation coefficients ranged from -0.61 to -0.96.

Figure 6.8 shows the relationship between area felting shrinkage and compactness ratio

for all the fabrics examined. Although the changes in the compactness ratio for each

fabric occur only in a narrow range, it is evident that, for each fabric, an increase in the

compactness ratio of the fabric results in a reduction in the felting shrinkage of that

fabric. This is especially true for the twill weave structures. The Pilot production does

not show this relationship, however, there was no loomstate sample taken for this

production, and so the sample with the highest felting shrinkage in this production is

missing, and the dataset is incomplete.

This result of the relationship between fabric felting shrinkage and compactness ratio, is

somewhat similar to that seen in the results of others [48]. However, other researchers

[48] results have shown a more distinct trend through all the fabrics combined, whereas


140

the results of this project indicate that each fabric batch is distinct from each other. This

may be a result of Figure 6.8 showing results at each stage of finishing, while the result

of other work [48] show only fully finished fabrics.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9

Figure 6.8 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vCompactness Ratio


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Compactness Ratio

6.7 FABRIC VOLUME DENSITY

The results of fabric density calculations are given in Appendix 3 Table A3.2.


Loomstate measurements of FAST thickness were not made due to sample shortage, so

density was not calculated for this sample.

The balance of the results for this production showed that density increased with

finishing, however, there is no indication that the increased severity of the decatising

process had a greater effect on the density of the fabric.


141


This production also showed an overall increase as a result of finishing. The processes

that had the greatest effect on the density were those that produced permanent set while

the fabric was held under lateral compression, that is, crabbing and pressure decatising.

As was the case for the Pilot batch, there was no indication that an increase in the

severity of the finishing processes lead to increased fabric density, however, the more

processes the fabric was subjected to, the greater the density.


The Twill weave fabrics also showed that the density increased as a result of finishing,

however the changes as a result of crabbing were not as large as seen in the plain

productions for the 2/1 Twills and were substantially less in the 3/3 Twills. Large

increases in density were not observed until the first decatising process. The results for

the 33ppcm samples were slightly greater than the 26ppcm samples.


The density of the fabric, when measured at 2g loading correlated well with all

measures of felting shrinkage for all batches, with the exception of the Pilot production.

The twill weave productions showed especially good correlations with felting

shrinkage. Correlations with area felting shrinkage for all fabrics except the Pilot

production ranged from -0.79 to -1.00, with similar values for the warp and weft felting

shrinkage.

When the fabric density was calculated using the thickness at 100g loading, the

correlations with felting shrinkage were generally slightly weaker, but followed the

same trend across the batches, of poor correlations with the Pilot production, and

especially good correlations with the Twill productions.

Figures 6.9 and 6.10 show the relationship between fabric area felting shrinkage and

fabric density. They show that, for each fabric, there is a reduction in the area felting


142

shrinkage as the fabric density is increased as a result of finishing. The density of the

fabric required to cause a reduction in the felting shrinkage to a suitable level is

different for each fabric.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 6.9 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Fabric Density at 2g Load


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Fabric Density (g/cm3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Figure 6.10 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vFabric Density at 100g Load


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Fabric Density (g/cm3)


143

6.8 DISCUSSION

The majority of the parameters measured in this section show no direct relationship with

fabric felting shrinkage, with some parameters appearing to have a “critical point” [194]

at which a large change in felting shrinkage is found.

The changes that took place in the fabric width were as expected for each finishing step,

given the conditions of each. The correlation between width and felting shrinkage

suggests that felting shrinkage reductions are dependent on the structure of the fabric

and that, as finishing progresses, structural change takes place which, in some part,

leads to the reduction in felting shrinkage. The structural change that takes place with

the reduction in width is changes in the ends and picks density and the yarn crimp.

Fabric mass per unit area reflects similar physical changes taking place in the fabric, as

a result of finishing, leading to changes in the felting shrinkage. That is, there is an

increase in the compactness of the fabric as a result of finishing.

Changes in the yarn crimp through finishing also showed poor correlations with fabric

felting shrinkage. However, there is an interesting result of the fabric direction with the

greatest yarn crimp having the lowest felting shrinkage, which is consistent with results

that were found for cuff-edge felting on treated fabrics by others [193].

Changes in the pick and/or end density of a fabric have been shown by other researchers

[44-48, 48] to lead to changes in the felting shrinkage of a fabric, however, not to levels

as low as seen in the current project under the washing conditions used in the current

project. The difference between the 26ppcm and the 33ppcm fabrics has already been

discussed in Chapter 5. The poor to moderate correlations between ends and picks and

felting shrinkage were somewhat surprising, as it was expected that felting shrinkage

may change more in line with end and/or pick density. The “critical” [194] number of

ends that appears to exist suggests that there maybe a point at which the number of ends

can impact on felting shrinkage. It was thought that there may be a combined effect on

felting shrinkage of the ends and picks together, however, cover factor results lend


144

further support to the idea that there is a “critical” [194] number of yarns per centimeter

that will reduce felting shrinkage.

Increased fabric compactness ratio has been shown by others [46-48] to lead to

reductions in fabric felting shrinkage, however, not to the same level as has been found

for the fabrics in this project following the washing conditions used in this project .

This has been shown to be the case here also for all the fabrics except the Pilot

production. The poor correlations for the Pilot production may be a result of there not

being full set of data (the small loomstate sample meant that there were no results to

calculate the compactness ratio). The relationships seen in this work are not as strong as

those seen in the work of others [48], nor is there a strong trend across all the fabric

batches. However, there is a distinct trend to increases in compactness ratio being

associated with reductions in felting shrinkage.

The relationships between fabric felting shrinkage and fabric density show some of the

strongest correlations that were found in this project. Density had been suggested in the

early stages of this project as a possible contributor to the shrink-resist effect [161]. As

was the case for the compactness ratio, the correlations for the Pilot production were

weak, most likely as a result of the missing loomstate sample. This measure differs

from the compactness ratio, in that it takes into account changes in the thickness of the

fabric, rather than just how closely packed the yarns are. It shows the importance of

changes in the thickness of the fabric in achieving the shrink-resistance. This measure

indicates that felting shrinkage is reduced in these samples through finishing as a result

of the fabric becoming more compact not only in terms of the close proximity of the

yarns to each other, but also because the fabric becomes more compressed through

finishing. For the twill weave samples that increase in density to similar levels as seen

in the plain weave fabrics, but which do not show the same levels of felting shrinkage,

the difference would seem to be a result of the float lengths and pick densities. Short

float lengths and/or higher pick densities give lower felting shrinkage at comparable

levels of fabric density.

145

CHAPTER 7

OBJECTIVE TESTING


7.1 FAST TESTING

The methods used to gather FAST results are given in Chapter 4 Materials and Methods

and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table A3.3.

Due to a shortage of sample in the Pilot production, there were no FAST measurements

made on the loomstate sample. The remainder of the Pilot production samples were

measured.

7.1.1 Relaxation Shrinkage (RS)

Figures 7.1 Warp Relaxation Shrinkage, FAST Method: All Productions and 7.2 Weft

Relaxation Shrinkage, FAST Method: All Productions show the changes in RS through

finishing for comparable samples from each production batch, and allow for the

variations across batches to be determined. The effects of various finishing processes

on the RS of fabrics has already been discussed in Section 5.1 in relation to the

Woolmark method of measurement. Although the two methods are not highly

correlated the effects of each process are similar but to different degrees.

Chapter 7 Objective Testing Results and Discussion

146

7.1.1.1 Pilot Production

The measurement errors for these samples were high compared with the results, in many

cases higher than the measurement itself. As a result it is difficult to make conclusions

about the results.

There is no indication of trends through the finishing processes or with changes in the

severity of the decatising conditions. Nor is there any regularity in the difference

between warp and weft RS. The changes observed in these samples were as expected

based on the finishing treatments used. For instance, following stentering, the RS

measurements showed a large width (weft) shrinkage resulting from the stretching in the

stentering process, while the sample increased in length as a result of the testing

process.

7.1.1.2 Bulk Production

This production also showed large sample errors, with many errors larger than the

measurement.

This production of fabric showed a large reduction in RS through scouring and

crabbing. Following this there were many changes in the RS through finishing, with the

biggest change being a large increase in the warp RS as a result of rotary pressing.

For those samples which were finished with the same decatising and/or blowing

conditions as in the Pilot production, values of RS were similar. For the earlier stage

samples, there are greater differences between the two batches, which may be accounted

for by the change in the finishing sequence resulting from the application of warp size

to the Bulk production.


147

7.1.1.3 Twill Productions

Similar to the Pilot and Bulk productions, the measurement errors were high for many

of these samples.

The RS of the twill weave fabrics showed an overall reduction through finishing, similar

to that seen in the Bulk production. The rotary pressed 2/1 Twill did not show the same

large increase in warp RS as was seen in the Bulk. The RS of the 3/3 Twill production

was much greater than the Bulk production or 2/1 Twill 26ppcm production, but for

samples taken after this, there were appreciable differences for some of the samples.

The 26ppcm and 33ppcm showed similar RS in the 2/1 Twill samples, but for most of

the 3/3 Twills samples, the 26ppcm RS was greater than the 33ppcm RS.

7.1.1.4 Correlations with Felting Shrinkage

The relationship between warp RS and warp felting shrinkage is shown in Figure 7.3,

and the relationship between weft RS and weft felting shrinkage is shown in Figure 7.4.

There is little indication of any relationship between the RS measurements and the

felting shrinkage in either chart.

RS showed poor to moderate correlations with felting shrinkage across the batches, with

several exceptions. Warp RS correlations had a large range of coefficients from -0.69 to

0.95 with the warp, weft, and area felting shrinkage. The range for weft RS was 0.39 to

0.88 with warp, weft, and area felting shrinkage. As there were very few good

correlations with any of the measures of felting shrinkage, it is concluded there is no

significant relationship between felting shrinkage and RS.


148

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

Figure 7.1 Warp Relaxation Shrinkage, FAST Method: All Productions, Corresponding Samples

PilotBulk2/1 26ppcm2/1 33ppcm3/3 26ppcm3/3 33ppcm

War

p R

elax

atio

n S

hrin

kage

Finishing Process

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

Figure 7.2 Weft Relaxation Shrinkage, FAST Method: All Productions,Corresponding Samples


Wef

t Rel

axat

ion

Shr

inka

ge

Finishing Process


149

0

10

20

30

40

50

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Figure 7.3 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Relaxation Shrinkage (FAST)

PilotBulk Plain2/1 26ppcm2/1 33ppcm3/3 26ppcm3/3 33ppcm

War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Relaxation Shrinkage (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 7.4 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft FAST Relaxation Shrinkage


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Relaxation Shrinkage (%)


150

7.1.2 Hygral Expansion (HE)

Figures 7.5 Warp Hygral Expansion in Finishing: All Batches and 7.6 Weft Hygral

Expansion in Finishing: All Batches show the changes in HE through finishing for all

the productions, and allow for comparisons to be made across all batches.

It has been reported [132] that fabric hygral expansion increases as setting treatments

become more severe. Although the setting methods are different here to those in the

work of Baird [132] there is no indication that the severity of the treatments has any

effect on the hygral expansion of the fabric. Although the results do show an increase

in HE following the initial setting process of crabbing, but reductions in HE were seen

from other setting processes. It was also reported [125, 132] that yarn crimp was related

to fabric HE. Such a strong correlation was not seen in any of the fabrics examined here

when correlated as individual batches or as all batches combined. The FAST HE

measurement method has been shown to be well correlated with other methods of

measuring HE [124]. Processes which permanently set wool fabrics while they are wet

are known to increase HE [70], therefore, it is no surprise that crabbing processes for all

batches lead to, in most cases, large increases in the HE of the fabric.


Due to a shortage of sample, no HE measurements were made on the Loomstate sample.

Measurements were made on the balance of the samples.

The most consistent trend through finishing was that the weft HE was greater than the

warp HE. Weft HE changed very little in finishing, but warp HE increased slightly

following a reduction resulting from stentering, and the difference between warp and

weft was reduced slightly. There is no evidence that more severe decatising conditions

have a greater effect on the HE than milder conditions.


151


This production of fabric showed the same trend of greater weft HE than warp HE for

all samples taken following crabbing. Crabbing lead to a large increase in the HE in

both directions, as expected based on the discussion in 7.1.2. Unlike the Pilot

production, the warp HE showed a trend of declining with finishing while the weft HE

increased, increasing the difference between them.

Pressure decatising is recognised as a way of setting fabrics without producing high HE,

as an alternative to crabbing [70]. It is interesting to note that the HE of the fully

finished sample that had been decatised instead of crabbed showed lower weft HE, but

higher warp HE when compared with other fully finished, Plain weave samples that had

been crabbed.

Like the Pilot production, there was no indication that the severity of the decatising

conditions had an impact on the degree of HE.


The effect of finishing on the twill fabrics was similar for both the 2/1 and 3/3 Twill

fabrics. The 26ppcm samples showed increases with crabbing and stentering and then

decreased with decatising. The HE of the 3/3 Twill samples in the loomstate and

following scouring was much greater than the 2/1 Twill samples. Further finishing had

mixed effects on the HE. The same trend was seen in the 33ppcm fabrics, but the

results were lower than seen in the corresponding 26ppcm samples.

The 3/3 Twill fabrics had consistently greater HE than the 2/1 Twill fabrics when woven

at 33ppcm.

All samples, at both pick densities, following scouring, showed weft HE greater than

warp HE.


152


The relationship between warp felting shrinkage and warp HE is shown in Figure 7.7

and the relationship between weft felting shrinkage and weft HE is shown in Figure 7.8.

There is no indication in these charts that HE has any effect on the felting shrinkage of

the fabrics.

There is also a wide range in the correlation coefficients with felting shrinkage which

further indicates that the HE of the fabric has no impact on the felting shrinkage of the

fabric. Some of the correlations are reasonably strong, but the lack of consistency

across batches indicates that there is no significant relationship between felting

shrinkage and HE.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Ste

nt

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

Figure 7.5 Warp Hygral Expansion in Finishing: All Batches,Corresponding Samples


War

p H

ygra

l Exp

ansi

on (%

)

Finishing Stage


153

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Loom

Scou

r

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

121/

6

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

Figure 7.6 Weft Hygral Expansion in Finishing: All Batches,Corresponding Samples


Wef

t Hyg

ral E

xpan

sion

(%)

Finishing Stage


154

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 7.7 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Hygral Expansion (FAST)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Hygral Expansion (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 7.8 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Hygral Expansion (FAST)


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Hygral Expansion (%)


155

7.1.3 Formability

7.1.3.1 All Productions

Formability is a derived parameter taken from the results of extensibility at 5gf/cm and

20gf/cm and the bending rigidity [163]. The formability results, for all the productions

of fabric, show no distinct trend through finishing. However, following scouring (or

crabbing in the Pilot production) the weft formability is consistently greater than the

warp formability.


The relationships between felting shrinkage and formability are shown in Figure 7.9 for

warp measurements and Figure 7.10 for weft measurements. These charts show that the

formability of a fabric has no influence on the felting shrinkage.

This is further supported in the correlation coefficient values. There is a wide range of

correlation coefficient values in both the warp and weft correlations, from strong

negative values to moderate positive values.


156

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Figure 7.9 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Formability (FAST)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Formabillity (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 7.10 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Formability (FAST)

PilotBulk Plain2/1 26ppcm2/1 33ppcm3/3 26ppcm3/3 33ppcmW

eft F

eltin

g S

hrin

kage

(%)

Weft Formability (%)


157

7.1.4 Extensibility


For all the extensibility measurements made using the three loads, weft extensibility is

greater than warp extensibility. The 5g results showed only small changes as a result of

each process and no consistent trend in the changes.

The results of the 20g and 100g tests followed similar trends to each other, with the

100g results greater than the 20g results. There were greater differences between the

samples than seen in the 5g results, however, there was still no indication of a trend

resulting from finishing.

Bias extensibility showed a general decrease as a result of blowing or pressure

decatising.

There is no evidence in any of the measures of extensibility that the severity of the

decatising conditions had any effect on the measurement.


Unlike the Pilot production, all three measures of extensibility followed a similar trend

in this production. All three measures showed increases, in both the warp and weft

directions, in the processes up to stentering. Following this, the extensibility did not

appear to follow any trend, and there was no indication that the severity or number of

finishing processes had any effect on the degree of change seen in extensibility.

Bias extensibility increased as a result of scouring and crabbing, and then most

processes following this reduced the bias extensibility.


158


The 5g, 20g, and 100g extensibility showed very similar trends through finishing for

both the warp and weft directions. Both the 2/1 and 3/3 Twills showed similar trends

for both pick densities. Warp extensibility changed very little through finishing. Weft

extensibility showed a large increase between the loomstate and crabbing which was

then reduced by the processes from the first decatising onwards in the 5g and 20g tests,

but changed very little in the 100g results.

As was the case for the Bulk production, bias extensibility increased as a result of early

stage finishing, and then was reduced in decatising, rotary pressing and blowing for the

2/1 Twill and was high in the Loomstate 3/3 Twill and decreased from decatising

onwards.


The relationship between warp felting shrinkage and warp fabric 100g extensibility is

shown in Figure 7.11 and between weft felting shrinkage and weft 100g extensibility in

Figure 7.12. The relationship between fabric area felting shrinkage and bias

extensibility is shown in Figure 7.13.

The figures show that the extensibility of the fabric has very little effect on the felting


This is further supported by the correlation coefficients between all the measures of

fabric extensibility and felting shrinkage which were, in general, moderate to poor for

all the measures of fabric extensibility, with several strong correlations. There was a

wide range of positive and negative correlation coefficient values. There is no evidence

in the results that supports extensibility having any significant effect on the felting



159

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 7.11 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp 100g Extensibility (FAST)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Extensibility (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 7.12 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft 100g Extensibility (FAST)

PilotBulk Plain2x1 26ppcm2x1 33ppcm3x3 26ppcm3x3 33ppcm

Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Extensibility (%)


160

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 7.13 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only)v Bias Extensibility (FAST)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Bias Extensibility (%)

7.1.5 Bending Rigidity (B)


This production showed very little change in the bending rigidity in either the warp or

weft direction through finishing. The warp bending rigidity was consistently greater

than the weft bending rigidity. There was no indication that the severity of the

decatising conditions had any effect on the degree of change in the bending rigidity.


Bending rigidity was reduced by the greatest amount as a result of scouring and

crabbing. Following this, the bending rigidity changed comparatively little through the

rest of finishing. For all samples, except the stentered sample, the warp bending rigidity

was greater than the weft bending rigidity.


161

There was little difference between the samples that were treated with more severe

conditions or more decatising processes.

7.1.5.3 2/1 Twill Production

The bending rigidity of the 2/1 Twill fabrics was reduced greatly in scouring and

crabbing and then changed relatively little through further finishing. The warp bending

rigidity was greater than the weft for all samples and both pick densities.


This production showed much lower bending rigidity in the loomstate sample than the

other structures examined. The two pick densities examined here showed

comparatively minor changes in bending rigidity through finishing. All samples taken

following the loomstate showed the warp bending rigidity to be equal to or greater than

the weft bending rigidity.


The relationship between bending rigidity and felting shrinkage is shown in Figure 7.14

for the warp direction and Figure 7.15 for the weft direction. These charts show no

indication of a relationship between bending rigidity and fabric felting shrinkage.

The correlations between felting shrinkage and bending rigidity were quite varied across

the different batches. The Bulk production showed the strongest correlations with warp,

weft, and total felting shrinkage, with coefficients ranging from 0.77 to 0.90. For the

rest of the structures, the correlation coefficients ranged from -0.76 to 0.97.

The wide variation in the correlations and inconsistencies across batches between

bending rigidity and fabric felting shrinkage indicate that bending rigidity did not affect

the felting shrinkage of the fabrics examined.


162

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 7.14 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Bending Rigidity (FAST)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Bending Rigidity (µNm)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 7.15 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Bending Rigidity (FAST)


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Bending Rigidity (µNm)


163

7.1.6 Shear Rigidity


This production showed that the shear rigidity of the samples changed relatively little in

the early stages of finishing but increased as a result of decatising and/or blowing. The

degree of change caused by decatising does not reflect the severity of the conditions.


Scouring and crabbing lead to a large reduction in the shear rigidity in this production.

Following crabbing, the shear rigidity increased with almost all processes, especially

decatising and rotary pressing. For most samples, blowing either slightly reduced shear

rigidity, or lead to no change. As was the case for the Pilot production, there is no

indication that more severe decatising conditions lead to greater changes in shear

rigidity.


The changes in the 26ppcm fabric with finishing were very similar to those seen in the

Bulk production. The shear rigidity was high in the loomstate sample and reduced in

scouring and crabbing, then increased in later finishing. The shear rigidity was lower in

the 26ppcm samples than the comparable 33ppcm samples. The loomstate 33ppcm

sample had a shear rigidity value that was substantially greater than the loomstate

26ppcm sample.


Both pick densities had low shear rigidity in the loomstate samples, which remained low

through the finishing route up to the first decatising process. Following the first

decatising process, the shear rigidity increased with further finishing. The shear rigidity

was lower in the 26ppcm samples than the comparable 33ppcm samples.


164


Figure 7.16 shows the relationship between the fabric felting shrinkage and shear

rigidity. The 3/3 Twill structures shown on this chart suggest that the shear rigidity of

the fabric affects the felting shrinkage. However, the other fabric structures examined

do not show this same effect.

The correlation coefficients between fabric felting shrinkage and shear rigidity also

varied widely across the batches. The Pilot production showed weak negative

correlations with felting shrinkage, while the Bulk production showed moderate positive

correlations. The 2/1 Twills had a mixture of positive and negative and strong and weak

correlations. The 3/3 Twills had strong negative correlations with all measures of

felting shrinkage.

The wide variety and inconsistency of the correlation coefficients along with the

relationships shown in Figure 7.16 lead to the conclusion that there is no significant

relationship between felting fabric shrinkage and fabric shear rigidity.


165

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 230 240 250 260

Figure 7.16 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vShear Rigidity (FAST)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Shear Rigidity (N/m)

7.1.7 Compression


When measured under 2g load, the fabric thickness values were very similar for the

crabbed, stentered, and cropped samples. Decatising and/or blowing processes reduced

the fabric thickness. When measured under 100g load, there was relatively little change

in the thickness through finishing. The surface thickness followed the same trend as the

thickness measured under 2g.

The released thickness and surface thickness results showed very little change from the

unreleased results and unexpectedly, the released thickness measures were not always

greater than the unreleased thickness measures.


166

There was no indication that the changes in the severity of the decatising conditions had

any greater effect on the thickness or surface thickness of the fabric in either the

released or unreleased results.


The results obtained under 2g load showed there was large reduction in fabric thickness

as a result of scouring and crabbing. Following this, there was a gradual reduction in

the fabric thickness. The more finishing processes the fabric was subjected to, the

thinner it became.

When measured under the 100g load, the reduction in the fabric thickness was much

more gradual, with the first large reduction seen following the first decatising process.

Rotary pressing had very little effect, but there were more reductions in the thickness

with further decatising and blowing.

There was a large reduction in the surface thickness of the samples as a result of

scouring and crabbing, with more gradual reductions resulting from further finishing.

The surface thickness of the loomstate and scoured samples was much greater in the

released state than the unreleased state. For all other samples the released thickness was

slightly greater than the unreleased thickness.

The released thickness and surface thickness values were consistently greater than the

unreleased thickness and surface thickness. There was one exception to this being the

sample which was decatised at 121°C for 6min, rotary pressed, then blown for 2

minutes, when measured under 100g load.


When measured under both the 2g load and the 100g load, the changes in the thickness

and surface thickness values followed a very similar trend to the results of the Bulk

production. The values were similar for both the 26ppcm and 33ppcm samples. The


167

released surface thickness values were consistently greater than the unreleased surface

thickness values.


The released and unreleased thickness measured at both 2g and 100g load of the 3/3

twill fabric reduced more gradually with finishing than the Plain or 2/1 Twill fabrics.

There was very little change in the thickness between the loomstate and cropped

samples. Following this, decatising lead to a large reduction in thickness, and thickness

continued to reduce through the rest of the finishing route.

The changes in the surface thickness were more gradual than the changes seen in the

fabric thickness. The released thickness values were consistently greater than the

unreleased thickness values for all the samples in this batch.


Figures 7.17 to 7.20 show the relationships between fabric felting shrinkage and some

of the thickness measurements. The released thickness at 2g and 100g is not shown as

the changes were very similar to the unreleased values for most samples. It is clear

from these figures that the thickness of the fabric, or the changes in the thickness of the

fabric have an effect on the felting shrinkage of the fabric. The charts indicate that a

reduction in the thickness of the fabric either causes a reduction in the felting shrinkage,

or the changes in thickness reflect some other change in the fabric which leads to the

reduction in felting shrinkage.

The thickness measures were generally well correlated with warp, weft, and area felting

shrinkage measures for all samples with the exception of the Pilot production which had

poor to moderate correlations. Values for all productions, except the Pilot, ranged from

0.50 to 1.00, with the majority of correlation coefficients greater than 0.80. The Pilot

production, however, had correlation coefficients which ranged from 0.33 to 0.51.


168

The strong correlations seen in these results suggest that fabric thickness is an indicator

of the felting shrinkage of the fabric and that thickness, in some part, contributes to the

felting resistance. See also density discussion in Chapter 6 Physical Results.

The results of thickness measurements were also used to determine the “Finish Stability

Ratio”, “Effective Flat Set”, “Stable Flat Set”, “Temporary Flat Set”1 [167] and the

Permanent Set [168]. This was carried out in order to determine if there was any

correlation between any of the measures of set and the felting shrinkage of the fabric.

Each of these measures of the set in the fabric show a wide range of correlation

coefficient values across the batches, with most of the correlations being weak. The

lack of consistency in correlations for any of the measures of set has led to the

conclusion that none of these measures of set reflect the changes in the felting shrinkage

of the fabric, and are therefore not associated with the shrink-resist effect seen in the

fabric.

1 Le, C., Ly, N., Phillips, D., and De Boos, A., Ref. [167] p. 3., for FSR, EFS, SFS, and TFS.


169

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Figure 7.17 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v2g Unreleased Thickness (FAST)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Unreleased Thickness (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

Figure 7.18 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v100g Unreleased Thickness (FAST)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Fabric Thickness (mm)


170

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 7.19 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vUnreleased Surface Thickness (FAST)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Unreleased Surface Thickness (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Figure 7.20 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vReleased Surface Thickness (FAST)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Released Surface Thickness (mm)


171

7.2 KES-F TESTING

The methods used to gather KES-F results are given in Chapter 4 Materials and

Methods and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table A3.4.

7.2.1 Surface Properties MIU, MMD, and SMD


The coefficient of friction (MIU) of this production increased in the warp direction as a

result of stentering, but apart from this, the overall trend was a reduction in surface

friction through finishing. There was very little difference in the results for the samples

which were decatised using different conditions. Furthermore, there was no indication

that the more severe conditions lead to lower surface friction.

The mean deviation of friction (MMD) was greatly reduced in crabbing, increased

slightly in stentering and then changed very little after this. The warp MMD was

greater than the weft for almost all samples.

There was no clear trend in the changes to the geometric roughness (SMD) with

finishing, however, the warp was consistently rougher than the weft for all the samples.


MIU increased with each finishing process between the loomstate sample and cropping.

It was then reduced by the first decatising process while further processing had mixed

effects on the friction. There was no consistency in the results following the first

decatising process that would suggest that the number or severity of the finishing

processes lead to greater changes in the MIU.

The mean deviation of friction appears to show no trends through finishing in this

production.


172

There was no clear trend in the measures of SMD for this fabric production. However,

the measurements showed that the warp was consistently more rough than the weft.


As was the case with the plain weave fabrics, all the twill weave fabrics showed a

reduction in the MIU as finishing progressed.

The mean deviation of friction was reduced in the weft direction for the 2/1 Twills

between loomstate crabbing, but the rest of the samples show very little change. The

3/3 Twill fabrics showed an overall downward trend in the warp MMD and a large

reduction in the weft direction from crabbing and very little change following this.

The geometric roughness of the fabrics was different for the 2/1 and 3/3 Twill

productions. The 2/1 Twill, 26ppcm showed very little change in the warp geometric

roughness results, while the weft measurements showed a reduction in roughness

through finishing. The 2/1 Twill, 33ppcm showed very little change through finishing,

with the results for warp and weft almost identical.

The 3/3 Twill, 26ppcm showed an increase in the warp geometric roughness through

scouring and crabbing, and then a reduction through the rest of the finishing processes.

The weft geometric roughness was reduced through finishing. The 33ppcm fabrics

followed the same trends as the 26ppcm fabrics.


Figures 7.21 to 7.24 show the relationships between felting shrinkage in the warp and

weft directions and the coefficients of friction (MIU) and the geometric roughness

(SMD). These charts show, that although there is some indication of a relationship

between felting shrinkage and the surface measurements for some of the fabric types, it

is not consistent, and therefore, unlikely that the surface properties have any effect on

the felting shrinkage of the fabrics.


173

The results shown in the figures are further supported by the correlation coefficient

values. The different measures of the surface properties of the fabrics showed a wide

range in the values of their correlation coefficients with felting shrinkage measures.

However, there was no measure of surface properties that showed good correlations

with all the batches of fabric that were produced. In particular, there were very few

strong correlations between the surface properties and the felting shrinkage of the plain

weave productions.

As a result of the wide range of correlation coefficients and the lack of consistent

correlations across all the fabric batches, it has been concluded that there is no

significant relationship between the surface properties measured by the KES-F system

and fabric felting shrinkage properties.


174

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Figure 7.21 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Coefficient of Friction (MIU)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Coefficient of Friction (MIU)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Figure 7.22 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Coefficient of Friction (MIU)


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Coefficient of Friction (MIU)


175

0

10

20

30

40

50

4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 7.23 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Geometric Roughness (SMD)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Geometric Roughness (SMD)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 7.24 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Geometric Roughness (SMD)


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Geometric Roughness (SMD)


176

7.2.2 Bending Properties


The bending rigidity (B) of this production was considerably reduced by crabbing, and

increased slightly in stentering. Cropping lead to a small reduction in bending rigidity.

Following this, there was very little difference between the different decatising

conditions used. For all the samples taken from crabbing onwards, the warp bending

rigidity was greater than the weft.

The bending hysteresis and the residual bending at 1cm-1 and 0.5cm-1 were reduced

appreciably by crabbing and then changed comparatively little as a result of further

finishing processes, with the one exception being that the sample decatised at 114°C for

4min showed an increase in the residual bending. There was also a small increase seen

in the samples which had been blown but not pressure decatised (No KD) when

measured at 1cm-1 bending

There was no indication that the severity of the decatising conditions had any effect on

any of the bending properties of these fabrics.


For this production, scouring lead to a slight increase in the warp bending rigidity (B),

and a substantial reduction in the weft bending rigidity. Crabbing reduced both the

warp and weft B, and there was very little change resulting from stentering and

cropping. From decatising onwards, the rest of the finishing route generally lead to

small increases in the bending rigidity. For the samples taken from scouring onwards,

the warp B was greater than the weft.

Bending hysteresis and residual bending rigidity at 1cm-1 and 0.5cm-1 were all reduced

substantially a result of scouring and crabbing. Following this there was comparatively

little change in the residual bending values, and very slight increases seen in the

hysteresis as the fabric was finished further.


177

There was no indication in any of the samples that the severity of the conditions had any

effect on the bending properties.


The bending rigidity for samples in this production, at both pick densities was reduced

in early finishing (scouring and crabbing) and then changed very little through the rest

of finishing. For all the samples, except the loomstate 33ppcm sample, the warp

bending rigidity was greater than the weft.

The bending hysteresis and residual bending at both 1cm-1 and 0.5cm-1 showed the same

trend as the bending rigidity. There was a large reduction resulting from scouring and

crabbing, followed by very little change through the rest of finishing. Warp bending

hysteresis was greater than weft bending hysteresis for the majority of samples. Warp

and weft residual bending were very similar to each other.


The bending rigidity of these fabrics changed very little in finishing, with the exception

that the 3/3 Twill 26ppcm sample showed a reduction in the weft bending rigidity, and

then very little further change.

The bending hysteresis and residual bending of the 3/3 Twill fabrics at 1cm-1 and

0.5cm-1 were reduced by scouring, and then changed very little through the rest of

finishing.


178


Figures 7.25 and 7.26 show the relationship between warp and weft felting shrinkage

with warp and weft bending rigidity, respectively. There is no indication in either of the

charts that changes in the bending rigidity of the fabric have any effect on fabric felting

shrinkage. Figures 7.27 and 7.28 show the relationship between warp and weft felting

shrinkage and warp and weft bending hysteresis at 1degree bending, respectively.

There is no indication in these charts that the bending hysteresis of the fabric has any

effect on the felting shrinkage of the fabric.

There was a wide range of values of correlation coefficients between felting shrinkage

and the bending properties of the samples ranging from strong negative to strong

positive values. The correlations were stronger for almost all bending properties, across

all the fabric structures, with weft felting shrinkage than with warp. Some of bending

properties, when correlated with weft felting shrinkage showed very strong correlations,

but the isolation of this to the weft direction only indicates that the felting shrinkage of

the fabric is not related to the bending properties.

Given the wide range of values of correlation coefficients, and the lack of trends in

correlation coefficients across the batches, it is concluded that the bending properties of

the fabric are not related to the felting shrinkage properties.


179

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Figure 7.25 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Bending Rigidity


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Bending Rigidity (gf.cm²/cm)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Figure 7.26 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Bending Rigidity


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Bending Rigidity (gf.cm²/cm)


180

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

Figure 7.27 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v

Warp Bending Hysteresis at 1cm-1


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Bending Hysteresis (gf.cm/cm)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

Figure 7.28 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v

Weft Bending Hysteresis at 1cm-1


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Bending Hysteresis (gf.cm/cm)


181

7.2.3 Shear Properties


The shear properties (rigidity, hysteresis at 0.5 and 5degrees shear angle, and residual

shear) of the Pilot production were all reduced considerably as a result of crabbing.

Following this, there were slight increases in the shear rigidity and shear hysteresis at

5degrees from finishing, however both remained much lower than the loomstate sample.

Shear hysteresis at 0.5degrees and residual shear showed very little change through the

rest of finishing. The results did not show any indication that the severity of the

decatising treatment had any effect on the shear properties of the fabric.


The shear rigidity and shear hysteresis at both 0.5 and 5degrees shear angle were

reduced appreciably as a result of scouring and crabbing. Following this, the shear

rigidity and hysteresis increased with further finishing. Decatising, in particular, had a

large effect on the results. Blowing tended to reduce the shear rigidity and hysteresis

values. The shear rigidity, following crabbing, was consistently greater in the warp than

the weft. This was also the case for hysteresis at 0.5degrees, and residual shear, but

hysteresis at 5degress showed no consistent trend in the difference between warp and

weft.

Residual shear strain was reduced appreciably by scouring and crabbing and then

changed relatively little as a result of further finishing.


The shear rigidity of these two fabric structures changed in a very similar way to each

other and to the Bulk production. The notable exception is that the 3/3 Twill fabrics had

much lower loomstate shear rigidity than seen in the other productions. The 33ppcm

fabrics had consistently greater values of shear rigidity than the 26ppcm fabrics for both

structures.


182

For the 2/1 Twills, the shear hysteresis at both 0.5 and 5degrees shear angle was reduced

between the loomstate and crabbed samples. At 0.5degrees shear angle there were

minor increases resulting from decatising. At 5degrees shear angle, decatising lead to

larger increases in the hysteresis.

For the 3/3 Twills, the shear hysteresis at 0.5 and 5degrees shear angle was reduced in

finishing up to stentering. Cropping had very little effect on shear hysteresis. As was

seen in the Bulk and 2/1 Twill productions, decatising lead to large increases in the shear

hysteresis.

For the 2/1 Twills, the residual shear was greatly reduced between the loomstate and the

crabbed sample. Following this, there was relatively little change.

For the 3/3 Twills, the residual shear showed a progressive reduction between the

loomstate and the cropped sample. The first pressure decatising process increased it

slightly. Rotary pressing slightly increased the warp residual shear, and had little effect

on the weft. The final decatising reduced the residual shear slightly and blowing lead to

minor increases.



and warp and weft shear rigidity, respectively. These charts indicate that although some

of the fabric structures show a relationship between fabric felting shrinkage and the

shear rigidity, this is not consistent across all the fabric structures.


and warp and weft shear hysteresis, measured at 0.5degrees shear angle. These charts

also show that there is no consistent relationship between fabric felting shrinkage and

shear hysteresis across all the fabric structures.


183

There was a wide range of values for the correlation coefficients between fabric felting

shrinkage and the fabric shear properties. Some of the properties show positive

correlations, while others show negative, and there is no consistency across the different

batches which would suggest that changes in the shear properties contribute to the

reduction in fabric felting shrinkage.

It is therefore concluded that the shear properties of the fabrics have no influence on the

felting shrinkage properties of the fabric.


184

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 7.29 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Shear Rigidity


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Shear Rigidity (g/cm.degree)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 7.30 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Shear Rigidity


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Shear Rigidity (g/cm.degree)


185

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 7.31 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Shear Hysteresis (at 0.5degrees shear angle)


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Shear Hysteresis (g/cm)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 7.32 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Shear Hysteresis (at 0.5degrees shear angle)


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Shear Hysteresis (g/cm)


186

7.2.4 Tensile Properties

Examples of typical tensile testing charts are shown in Appendix 4.


The tensile strain and tensile energy followed very similar trends through finishing.

Crabbing lead to a large increase in the weft tensile strain and tensile energy. Stentering

lead to slight reductions in both directions, while cropping lead to slight increases. The

effect of decatising and/or blowing was mixed. Some samples showed increases in the

tensile strain and/or energy, while others showed a reduction.

The tensile resilience of the samples increased between the loomstate sample and the

cropped sample and was then reduced as a result of the blowing or decatising processes.

The linearity of the load extension curve was reduced as a result of crabbing and then

changed relatively little through the rest of the finishing processes.

There was no indication that the degree of change seen in any of the tensile properties

was related to the severity of the decatising conditions.


The tensile strain and tensile resilience of this production followed the same trend as

each other through finishing. The weft measurements increased through finishing,

while warp measurements gave more mixed results. Following scouring, the weft

measurements were consistently greater than the warp.

The tensile resilience showed increases in the warp resilience and decreases in the weft

as a general result of finishing. For all the samples except the stentered, the warp tensile

resilience is greater than the weft and the difference between warp and weft increased as

finishing progressed.


187

The linearity of the load extension curve was reduced in scouring and crabbing, and

then increased progressively with the rest of the finishing processes, but not to the same

level as the loomstate sample. Warp and weft values were very similar to each other.


Note: Difficulties in fabric singeing meant that some of these samples were difficult to

get a test result from, especially the 3/3 twill fabrics. Consequently, some of the results

used in this section are from only one piece.

The tensile strain of the 2/1 Twill fabric fabrics increased greatly in the weft direction

between the loomstate and crabbed samples, and then changed very little as a result of

further finishing. The warp tensile strain changed very little through finishing. The

33ppcm fabrics had similar values except for a reduction in the weft direction resulting

from stentering. The 3/3 Twills showed similar trends to the 2/1 Twills, with a more

gradual increase in the weft direction.

The tensile energy followed a similar trend to the tensile strain of increases in the weft

direction resulting from finishing and very little change in the warp direction. The weft

direction increases were slightly more gradual than seen in the tensile strain results.

The tensile resilience changed very little between the loomstate and the cropped

samples. Decatising then lead to large reductions in the weft direction, but there was

almost no change in the warp direction. The warp resilience was consistently greater

than the weft for all samples, except the loomstate.

The linearity of the load extension curve was similar for all the twill weave fabrics. It

was reduced in both directions as a result of scouring and crabbing, then changed very

little until decatising. The first decatising treatment lead to a large increase in the

linearity of the load extension curve in both warp and weft direction and there was very

little change following this.


188


Figures 7.33 and 7.34 show the relationships between warp felting shrinkage and warp

tensile strain, and weft felting shrinkage and weft tensile strain, respectively. There is

no indication, from the charts, that changes in the tensile strain of the fabric have any

effect on the felting shrinkage of the fabric.

Figures 7.35 and 7.36 show the relationships between warp felting shrinkage and warp

tensile resilience, and weft felting shrinkage and weft tensile resilience, respectively.

The charts show that for some of the fabric structures, there is a relationship between

felting shrinkage and tensile resilience, however, this is not consistent across all the

fabric structures. As was the case with the tensile strain, there is no indication that a

change in the tensile resilience has any effect on the felting shrinkage of the fabric.

There is a wide range of correlation coefficients for the relationships between the fabric

tensile properties and fabric felting shrinkage. There was no consistency in the

correlations that were seen and although the felting shrinkage of some batches of fabric

showed strong correlations with tensile properties, there was no consistency across all

the fabric structures examined. This lack of consistency in the correlations leads to the

conclusion that tensile properties have no significant effect on fabric felting shrinkage.


189

0

10

20

30

40

50

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 7.33 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Warp Tensile Strain


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Tensile Strain (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 7.34 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) v Weft Tensile Strain


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Tensile Strain (%)


190

0

10

20

30

40

50

55 60 65 70 75 80

Figure 7.35 Warp Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWarp Tensile Resilience


War

p Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Warp Tensile Resilience (%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 7.36 Weft Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vWeft Tensile Resilience


Wef

t Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Weft Tensile Resilience (%)


191

7.2.5 Compression Properties

Examples of typical compression charts are shown in Appendix 4.


The compressional rate and the compressional energy of the samples taken from this

production were progressively reduced in finishing with the largest reduction seen to

result from crabbing. There was no indication that the severity of the decatising had any

impact on the compressional rate or energy.

The results of compressional resilience did not show any consistent trends through

finishing. There was very little change in early finishing, decatising lead to a reduction,

but the amount of reduction was highly variable and did not appear to correspond to the

severity of the decatising treatment. Blowing in one instance reduced the resilience

slightly, and in the other, lead to a large increase.

The linearity of the compression curve did not show any distinct trends through

finishing.


The compressional rate and compressional energy showed similar trends through

finishing. The largest reduction occurred as a result of the crabbing process, and each

combination of finishing conditions lead, overall, to reduced values of compressional

rate and energy.

As was the case with the Pilot production, the compressional resilience did not show

any trends through finishing.

The linearity of the compression curve showed little change through finishing, however

in this production decatising tended to increase the linearity value, rotary pressing

decreased it, and blowing had mixed effects.


192


The compressional rate and compressional energy for all the twill weave fabrics were

reduced through finishing. The compression rate values in the 2/1 Twill loomstate

samples were much greater than the 3/3 loomstate samples. The compressional rate and

compressional energy were greatly reduced in the 2/1 Twill by scouring/crabbing and

then further slightly reduced in decatising. The 3/3 Twill did not show large reductions

until the first pressure decatising process.

The compressional resilience and linearity of the compression thickness curve showed

no distinct trends resulting from the finishing processes.


Figures 7.37, 7.38 and 7.39 show the relationships between fabric area shrinkage and

the compressional results obtained. The charts show that changes in the felting

shrinkage of the fabric may be a result of changes in the compressional properties of the

fabric.

There were some consistently strong correlations between fabric felting shrinkage and

the compressional properties across all the batches of fabric. Compressional rate and

compressional energy both show strong positive correlations. The compressional rate

had several exceptions with slightly lower values in the 3/3 Twill structures, but the

compressional energy had correlation coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.9875. These

strong correlations with compression properties compare well with the strong

correlations seen between fabric felting shrinkage and FAST compression results.

There was a much wider range of correlation coefficients in the compressional

resilience and the linearity of the load compression curve, ranging from strong negative

correlations to moderate positive correlations. This wide range of correlations, and the

lack of consistency across the different batches of fabrics, indicate that compressional

resilience and linearity of the load compression curve are not related to the felting

shrinkage of these fabrics.


193

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 7.37 Fabric Area Shrinkage (5x5A only) vCompression (%)


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Compression (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 7.38 Fabric Area Shrinkage (5x5A only) vCompressional Energy


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Compressional Energy (gf.cm/cm²)


194

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 7.39 Fabric Area Shrinkage (5x5A only) vCompressional Resilience


Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Compressional Resilience (%)


195

7.3 DISCUSSION

Many of the properties measured in this section have been associated with changes in

the interyarn and/or interfibre frictional properties of the fabrics as finishing takes place.

For instance, residual bending has been associated with interfibre friction in fabric and

the better the fabric is set, the more effect it will have on bending properties [139].

Other bending properties, in particular bending hysteresis have also been associated

with interfibre friction, which is also affected by the twist properties of the yarn [195].

Extension properties are also determined by interfibre friction [195]. Where both warp

and weft extensibility increase, the change has been shown to be a result of the fabric

having relaxed during processing [196]. For example, as was seen in the Bulk

production, in the processes up to stentering.

Fabric shear properties have been associated with interyarn friction [195] [197]).

Mahar, Dhingra, and Postle [174] found that warp and weft shear properties were well

correlated with each other. This was also found in the current project.

Bending and shear properties are reduced as a result of setting of wool fabrics [57], with

the first setting operation giving the largest change. This has also, been shown to be the

case in the current results.

Le, Tester, Ly and De Jong [198] also found that decatising lead to a number of changes

in the mechanical properties of the fabric when measured using FAST equipment

resulting from changes in the interactions between fibres and yarns. They also found

that the regain, temperature, and prior rotary pressing all had an effect on the final

decatised fabric. It has been shown that decatising relaxes the fabric; increased

decatising temperature increases the level of permanent set [198]. Pressure decatising,

and other setting processes have been shown in this project to change the mechanical

properties of the fabrics, however, this does not appear to have any influence over the

felting shrinkage properties of the fabric. Rather, the changes are seen to be reflected in

properties such as relaxation shrinkage and hygral expansion.


196

As fibre friction is also a major factor in determining the felting properties of fibres as a

result of the scales on the surface and the difference in friction with direction of rubbing

[eg 2, 4], it was anticipated that measures which indicate changes in fibre friction within

the fabric may also reflect changes in the felting shrinkage of the fabric. As discussed

above, mechanical properties have been shown to reflect changes in the frictional

properties of fibres and yarns within fabrics. The low stress mechanical properties of

fabrics may have been able to demonstrate changes in the frictional properties of the

fibres and therefore, indicate changes in the felting propensity.

However, in this study, there was a lack of distinct trends in the data or in the

correlations with felting shrinkage across all the batches of fabric, which would indicate

that changes in the frictional properties of the fibres, yarns, or fabric did not have a

significant impact on the reduction of the felting shrinkage that was observed. Although

some trends were observed between felting shrinkage and mechanical properties for

some of the fabrics, there were no consistent trends across all the productions. The only

exception to this was the compression results which, for both the FAST and KES-F

results, show that the fabric felting shrinkage is related to the compression properties of

the fabrics for all the fabric structures examined. The reasons for this are discussed in

Chapter 6, as thickness contributes the fabric density calculations.

The results of the mechanical testing indicate that changes in the frictional properties of

the fibres have occurred as a result of the finishing processes that were used. However,

the lack of consistent trends through all the fabrics indicates that changes in the

frictional properties of the fibres, reflected in the mechanical properties of the fabric, are

unable to directly explain the shrink-resist effect that has been found in these fabrics.

197

CHAPTER 8

CHEMICAL TESTING


8.1 SOLUBILITY TESTING

Solubility testing was carried out according to the methods given in Chapter 4 Materials

and Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3, Table 3.5.

Crosslinking has been attributed to imparting some shrink-resistance to wool fabrics

but, it is not understood how the process works, as not all agents capable of producing a

crosslinking effect produce resistance to felting [181]. The following tests are a

measure of the degree of bonding, of certain types of bonds, in wool fibres.

8.1.1 Alkali Solubility

The alkali solubility test is able to determine whether there was an increase in

crosslinking in the fabric, and if disulfide bonds have been broken or peptide chains

have been hydrolysed [180, 181].


Figure 8.1 shows the results of alkali solubility testing for the Pilot production. There

was an overall downward trend through the finishing processes.

The increased solubility for the stentered sample was a likely result of the dry heating of

the fabric prolonged dry treatments above 140°C increase alkali solubility, although

short treatments at 120°C have little effect [181]. For this production, the stenter used

was made up of 4 bays each at 120°C.

Chapter 8 Chemical Testing Results and Discussion

198

It is interesting to note from the findings of other research that oxidative treatments

which are most effective in preventing felting shrinkage, are those which break peptide

bonds as well as disulfide bonds [181]. However, from the solubility testing in this

Pilot stage of the project, the three samples with the greatest felting shrinkage, also had

the greatest alkali solubility. These results suggest the reverse, that is, that decreased

felting shrinkage was associated with increased crosslinking in the fibres. It should be

noted, however, that there was no direct relationship between felting shrinkage and

alkali solubility for these results, as shown in Figure 8.2.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Loom

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

No

KD

110/

2

110/

4

110/

6

114/

2

114/

4

114/

6

121/

2

121/

4

121/

6

121/

6+B2

Figure 8.1 Alkali Solubility in Finishing: Pilot Production

Alk

ali S

olub

ility

(%)

Finishing Stage/Conditions


199

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 8.2 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vAlkali Solubility: Pilot Production

Area

Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Alkali Solubility (%)13


Alkali solubility results showed a similar downward trend through the finishing

processes as found for the Pilot production samples, as shown in Figure 8.3.

It was observed in the Pilot samples that, as decatising times were increased for each

temperature, there was a decrease in alkali solubility, followed by an increase. Such a

distinct trend was not observed for the Bulk samples for either the variations in

decatising or blowing conditions.

Where the same finishing routines were used with different conditions (temperature

and/or time), there was no trend in the change in alkali solubility. As was the case for

the Pilot samples there is no direct relationship between alkali solubility and felting

shrinkage. This is shown in Figure 8.4.


200

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Loom

Scou

rC

rab

Sten

tC

rop

121/

612

1/6

B112

1/6

B212

1/6

B312

1/6+

RP

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B1

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B3

124/

212

4/4

124/

612

1/6+

RP

+B2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

+B2

Cro

p+11

0/2

Cro

p+11

0/2+

RP

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Cl2

Con

trol

Figure 8.3 Alkali Solubility in Finishing: Bulk Production

Ure

a Bi

sulfi

te S

olub

ility

(%)



201

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 8.4 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vAlkali Solubility: Bulk Production

Area

Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Alkali Solubility (%)13

8.1.2 UREA BISULFITE SOLUBILITY

Urea bilsulfite testing was carried out to determine if there was any change in the

crosslinking in the wool [181, 183]. Urea bilsulfite solubility is known to decrease by

heating wool in water [181].


Urea bilsulfite solubility testing showed a much greater trend to decreased solubility

with more severe setting conditions than alkali solubility, as shown in Figure 8.5. This

indicated an increase in the number of crosslinks in the wool as a result of the finishing

processes. It has been shown by others [181] that these crosslinks are considered to be a

result of the formation of lanthionine. The amino acid analysis results for these fabrics

do not support such a suggestion (see Section 8.2 below). Urea bisulfite solubility

decreased with the number and severity of the finishing processes with the greatest

change as a result of the crabbing process. The lanthionine content of the wool

increased from zero to 15.38µM/g as a result of crabbing, but the rest of the finishing


202

processes did not cause changes in lanthionine content that corresponded with urea

bisulfite solubility.

Figure 8.6 shows the relationship between felting shrinkage and urea bisulfite solubility

and indicates that there was a stronger relationship than seen in Figure 8.2 for alkali

solubility, and that felting reduction may be related to the formation of crosslinks in the

fibres. However, it should be noted that felting shrinkage changed very little as a result

of the finishing process after crabbing, whereas urea bisulfite solubility continued to

decrease with further finishing, and with more severe decatising conditions, as shown in

Figure 8.5.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Loom

Cra

b

Sten

t

Cro

p

No

KD

110/

2

110/

4

110/

6

114/

2

114/

4

114/

6

121/

2

121/

4

121/

6

121/

6+B2

Figure 8.5 Urea Bisulfite Solubility in Finishing: Pilot Production

Ure

a Bi

sulfi

te S

olub

ility

(%)



203

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 8.6 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage (5x5A only) vUrea Bisulfite Solubility: Pilot Production

Area

Fel

ting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Urea Bisulfite Solubility (%)


As was the case for the Pilot samples, an overall downward trend in urea bisulfite

solubility was observed through finishing, as shown in Figure 8.7.

Urea bisulfite solubility has been associated with the formation of lanthionine through

crosslinking [181]. Solubility results indicate an increase in the production of crosslinks

as finishing progresses through the routine and as the processes become more severe.

However, changes in lanthionine content do not directly relate to changes in the

solubility of the fabric. This was also the case for the Pilot production.

Furthermore, there is no indication that the urea bisulfite solubility of the fabric is

related to the felting shrinkage of the fabric, as shown in Figure 8.8.

The reduction in urea bisulfite solubility with increased decatising temperature was

expected based on the findings of Elliott, Stevens and Whewell [199] in their study of

the effect of steaming temperature and time on wool fabrics as a result of changes in the

bonding in the fibres.


204

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Loom

Scou

rC

rab

Sten

tC

rop

121/

612

1/6

B112

1/6

B212

1/6

B312

1/6+

RP

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B1

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B3

124/

212

4/4

124/

612

1/6+

RP

+B2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

+B2

Cro

p+11

0/2

Cro

p+11

0/2+

RP

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Cl2

Con

trol

Figure 8.7 Urea Bisulfite Solubility in Finishing: Bulk Production

Ure

a Bi

sulfi

te S

olub

ility

(%)



205

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 8.8 Fabric Area Felting Shrinkage v Urea Bisulfite Solubility:Bulk Production

Area

Fel

ting

Shrin

kage

(%)

Urea Bisulfite Solubility (%)

8.2 AMINO ACID ANALYSIS

Amino acid analysis was carried out according to the methods given in Chapter 4

Materials and Methods, and the full data set is given in Appendix 3, Tables 3.6 and 3.7.

Setting of wool has been associated with increased levels of lanthionine and

lysinoalanine [181, 200]. Lysinoalanine forms from lysine residues [200].

Note: The Pilot sample 121/6 B2 was tested for amino acid content with the Bulk

production samples and was, therefore, prepared differently to the other samples in the

Pilot production. The sample is therefore not directly comparable with the other results

in the Pilot production. It has been included in the charts showing the change in the

amino acid content through finishing, but has not been included in the charts of amino

acid content and felting shrinkage, nor in the calculation of correlation coefficients.


There are no distinct trends in the data from amino acid analysis, either in terms of

relationship to finishing conditions, or felting shrinkage. This was unexpected


206

especially in the case of lanthionine (shown in Figure 8.9), which is associated with

both the formation of set in fabrics and the reduced solubility of treated fabrics [181].

The results of solubility testing do not correlate well with the lanthionine content.

Lanthionine and lysinoalanine have been shown to form in wool in boiling water [181,

200]. The concentration of lanthionine in these samples increased as a result of the

crabbing process, but for finishing processes beyond this point, the concentration was

variable and in some cases less than that found in the crabbed sample. Also, lysine

content increased in crabbing and showed no real trend as a result of decatising. It

would be expected, based on the association of lanthionine and lysinoalanine in set that

the lanthionine content would have increased, and lysine content decreased, as it formed

lysinoalanine.

An increase in cysteic acid content would indicate a complete oxidation of cystine

residues [181], but there was very little change in the levels of cysteic acid throughout

finishing.

The majority of the 20 amino acids measured show very little change as a result of

finishing. The full set of results are shown in Appendix 3 Table A3.6.

The correlations between the warp, weft, and area felting shrinkage and the amino acid

contents ranged from -0.79 to 0.75, with the majority in the range -0.50 to 0.50 and are,

therefore, considered to be poor. The relationship between area felting shrinkage and

lanthionine content is shown in Figure 8.10. The lack of relationship between the

measures of fabric felting shrinkage and amino acid analysis leads to the conclusion that

changes in the amino acid content does not significantly effect the felting shrinkage of

the fabric.


207

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40150

155

160

Loom

stat

e

Cra

bbed

Cro

p/Bl

ow

110C

2m

in

110C

4m

in

110C

6m

in

114C

2m

in

114C

4m

in

114C

6m

in

121C

2m

in

121C

4m

in

121C

6m

in

121/

6+B2

Figure 8.9 Lanthionine in Finishing: Pilot Production

Lant

hion

ine

Con

tent

(µM

/g)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 8.10 Fabric Felting Shrinkage(5x5A only) v Lanthionine Content: Pilot Production

Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Lanthionine Content (µM/g)


208


As was the case for the Pilot production, most of the 21 amino acids which were tested

for, did not show any distinct trends through finishing, and for some of the samples

there was very high variability between duplicates. There were also a few amino acids

which showed almost no change through the finishing routes examined, and others still

which showed almost similar changes across the three finishing routes examined.

Interestingly, although there were no distinct trends in the changes that occurred in the

lanthionine or the meso cystine, the two are well correlated with each other (correlation

coefficient 0.88) This is as expected, as cystine transforms into lanthionine under

conditions of heat and moisture [181].

As was seen in the Pilot production results there is no direct relationship between fabric

area felting shrinkage and any of the amino acids measured for. Correlation coefficients

between the amino acids and the three measures of felting shrinkage ranged from -0.54

to 0.38.

Figure 8.11 shows the changes in lanthionine levels through finishing for the Bulk

production. Figure 8.12 shows the relationship between fabric area felting shrinkage

and lanthionine content. There is no indication that the lanthionine content has any

significant effect on the felting shrinkage of the fabric. It would be expected that there

would be an increase in the lanthionine content as the fabric was set [200, 181].

Lysine content reduced slightly as a result of crabbing, as would be expected as it

converts to lysinoalanine in setting [200] but following this, there were no distinct

trends in the lysine content.


209

0

50

100

150

200

Loom

Cra

bC

rop

121/

6

121/

6 B1

121/

6 B2

121/

6 B3

121/

6+R

P

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

121/

6+R

P+1

21/6

B2

124/

4

121/

6+R

P+B

2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

121/

6+R

P+1

10/2

+B2

Cro

p+11

0/2

Cro

p+11

0/2+

RP

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

110/

2+R

P+1

21/6

+B2

Cl2

Con

trol

Figure 8.11 Lanthionine in Finishing: Bulk Production

Lant

hion

ine

Con

tent

(µM

/g)



210

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Figure 8.12 Lanthionine Content v Fabric Felting Shrinkage:Bulk Production

Are

a Fe

lting

Shr

inka

ge (%

)

Lanthionine Content (µM/g)

8.3 DISCUSSION

The results of chemical testing do not indicate that there is any change in the chemical

composition of the fibres which can be associated with the felting resistance

demonstrated by the fabrics in this project. Although it is clear there are chemical

changes taking place in the fabrics, there are no significant correlations with the felting


The reduced alkali solubility indicates that there was an increase in the cross linking

within the fibres as a result of finishing [180, 181]. Likewise, the urea bisulfite

solubility results indicate an increase in the cross linking in the fibres [181, 183]. The

nature of these cross links should be indicated in the amino acid analysis results,

however, the change in the cross links that are normally associated with set are not able

to be explained by the amino acid analysis results. It is clear, though, that the wool is

increasing in the cross linking levels, which would indicate an increase in permanent


211

set. However, there are strong correlations between fabric felting shrinkage and

solubility, and, therefore, this measure of fabric set is unable to explain the reduction in

felting shrinkage that was observed.

It is of some concern that the results of amino acid analyses do not show the changes

that have been shown by others [181, 200] to occur as a result of setting of wool. It was

expected that increases in lanthionine would be seen [181, 200] as the fabric was set as

well as reductions in lysine content as it formed lysinoalanine which has also been

associated with set [200]. It is not clear why these changes in the amino acid content

did not take place.

The high variances between some of the duplicates, are also of concern. Some of the

amino acid analyses may require repeating as the differences between the two batches

were vastly different for some of the amino acids detected. This may be a result of the

different hydrolysis method that reduced and alkylated the cystine. Repeat testing of

these samples was not possible as part of this project as a result of funding limits.

212

CHAPTER 9

MICROSCOPY


9.1 FIELD EMISSION SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY

This work was carried out to determine if there were any physical changes taking place

in the fabrics that could be observed, which may have lead to the reduction in felting

shrinkage as a result of fabric finishing. The Pilot production samples that were used

for this work were all examined using the Hitachi S4500 Field Emission SEM.


The Pilot production SEM images Figures 9.1-9.7c, distinctly show changes in the

packing of the yarns and the distance between adjacent yarns through the finishing

processes. It is evident in the pictures that the gaps between the yarns were reduced

through finishing, especially between the loomstate sample in Figure 9.1 and the

crabbed sample in Figure 9.2.

From the surface examination of the samples, it appears as though the diameters of the

yarns are increasing. However, this is most likely a result of the yarns becoming

‘squashed’ through lateral compression in finishing and more elliptical in cross section.

This suggestion is supported in the results of cross sectional examination of the Bulk

production in Section 9.2 below.

Closer examination of individual fibres as shown in Figures 9.8a and 9.8b also showed

that the surface of the fibres had sustained some damage, and that scales had been

damaged, and in some instances removed from the surface of the fibres. However, this

was found to be consistent with the findings of others [201-203] and occurs as a result

of fibre processing. As this finding is not unique to this project, it has been concluded

Chapter 9 Microscopy Results and Discussion

213

that fibre damage does not have a significant effect on the reduction in felting shrinkage

of these fabrics.

Figure 9.1 Loom Sample, Pilot

Figure 9.2 Crab Sample, Pilot

Figure 9.3 Stent Sample, Pilot

Figure 9.4 Crop Sample, Pilot


214

Figure 9.5a Decatised at

110°C for 2min, Pilot

Figure 9.5b Decatised at


Figure 9.5c Decatised at















215

Figure 9.8a Loomstate: damaged

fibres, Pilot

Figure 9.8b 121°C 6min: damaged

fibres, Pilot

9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (ESEM)

During the course of the examination of Pilot samples, it was found that the side of the

samples in contact with the sample stub exhibited signs of damage consistent with

scorching. This meant that alternative methods of examination were sought, and the

rest of the samples from further fabric productions were examined using the ESEM

equipment in low vacuum mode.


As was the case for the Pilot production, there was a change in the packing of the yarns

as a result of crabbing. This is shown in both the surface images and the cross sectional

images in Figures 9.9a to 9.17c.

As the fabric is subjected to more finishing processes that impose lateral pressure on the

fabrics, the yarns become “flatter” than seen in the loomstate sample.

By the final processes of decatising and blowing, the fabric appears much smoother, the

yarns appear much flatter, and there is a greater degree of contact between fibres and

yarns.


216

Figure 9.9a Loom:

Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.9b Loom: Warp

Cross Section, Bulk

Figure 9.9c Loom: Weft

Cross Section, Bulk

Figure 9.10a Scour:

Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.10b Scour: Warp

Cross Section, Bulk

Figure 9.10c Scour: Weft

Cross Section, Bulk

Figure 9.11a Crab:

Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.11b Crab: Warp

Cross Section, Bulk

Figure 9.11c Crabbed:

Weft Cross Section, Bulk


217

Figure 9.12a Stentered:

Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.12b Stentered:

Warp Cross Section, Bulk

Figure 9.12c Stentered:


Figure 9.13a Cropped:

Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.13b Cropped:


Figure 9.13c Cropped:


Figure 9.14a Dec 121°C

6m: Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.14b Dec 121°C:


Figure 9.14c Dec 121°C:



218


6m+RP: Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.15b Dec

121°C+RP: Warp Cross

Section, Bulk

Figure 9.15c Dec

121°C+RP: Weft Cross

Section, Bulk


6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m:

Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.16b Dec

121°C+RP+ 121°C6m:


Figure 9.16c Dec

121°C+RP+121°C6m:



6m+RP+Dec 121°C6m

+BL2: Surface, Bulk

Figure 9.17b Dec

121°C+RP+121°C6m

+BL2: Warp Cross

Section, Bulk

Figure 9.17c Dec

121°C+RP+121°C6m

+BL2: Weft Cross Section,

Bulk


219


The Twill fabric productions as shown in Figures 9.18a to 9.43c showed similar trends

to those seen in the Pilot and Bulk productions. That is, there were increases in the

compactness of the fabric and closing the “gaps” between the yarns through finishing,

as well as changes in the cross sectional shape of the yarns.

The surface of the fabrics also appeared to become smoother and flatter, with less

protruding surface fibres, as a result of the finishing processes. In the case of the 2/1

Twill samples the fabric structure remained fairly clear through finishing. However, for

the 3/3 Twill samples, the flattening of the fabric lead to distortion of the yarns on the

surface of the fabric, and the structure appeared slightly obscured.

9.1.3.1 2/1 Twill Production: 26ppcm

Figure 9.18a 2/1 26ppcm

Loom: Surface

Figure 9.18b 2/1 26ppcm

Loom: Warp Cross

Section

Figure 9.18c 2/1 26ppcm

Loom: Weft Cross

Section


220


Scour: Surface


Scour: Warp Cross

Section


Scour: Weft Cross Section


Crab: Surface


Crab: Warp Cross Section


Crab: Weft Cross Section


Stentered: Surface


Stentered: Warp Cross

Section


Stentered: Weft Cross

Section


221


Cropped: Surface


Cropped: Warp Cross

Section


Cropped: Weft Cross

Section


Dec 121°C 6min:

Surface


Dec121°C 6m: Warp

Cross Section


Dec121°C 6m: Weft Cross

Section


Dec 121°C 6min+ RP:

Surface


Dec121°C 6m+RP: Warp

Cross Section


Dec121°C 6m+RP: Weft

Cross Section


222


Dec 121°C 6min+

RP+121°C 6m: Surface


Dec121°C 6m+RP+121°C

6m: Warp Cross Section



6m: Weft Cross Section


Dec 121°C 6min+

RP+121°C 6m+BL2:

Surface



6m+ BL2: Warp Cross

Section


Dec121°C 6m+RP+ 121°C

6m+BL2: Weft Cross

Section



Loom: Surface


Loom: Warp Cross

Section


Loom: Weft Cross Section


223


Crab: Surface






Stentered: Surface



Section



Section


Finished: Surface


Finished: Warp Cross

Section


Finished: Weft Cross

Section


224



Loomstate: Surface


Loomstate: Warp Cross

Section


Loomstate: Weft Cross

Section


Scoured: Surface


Scoured: Warp Cross

Section


Scoured: Weft Cross

Section


Crabbed: Surface


Crabbed: Warp Cross

Section


Crabbed: Weft Cross

Section


225


Stentered: Surface



Section



Section


Cropped: Surface


Cropped: Warp Cross

Section


Cropped: Weft Cross

Section


Dec 121°C 6min:

Surface


Dec121°C 6m: Warp

Cross Section


Dec121°C 6m: Weft Cross

Section


226


Dec 121°C 6min+ RP:

Surface


Dec121°C 6m+RP: Warp

Cross Section


Dec121°C 6m+RP: Weft

Cross Section


Dec 121°C 6min+

RP+121°C 6m: Surface



6m: Warp Cross Section


Dec121°C 6m+RP+ 121°C

6m: Weft Cross Section


Dec 121°C 6min+

RP+121°C 6m+BL2:

Surface



6m+ BL2: Warp Cross

Section


Dec121°C 6m+RP+ 121°C

6m+BL2: Weft Cross

Section


227



Loom: Surface


Loom: Warp Cross

Section


Loom: Weft Cross Section


Crab: Surface






Stentered: Surface



Section



Section


228


Finished: Surface


Finished: Warp Cross

Section


Finished: Weft Cross

Section


229

9.1.3.5 Washed Samples

Figure 9.44a Plain Loom

Bulk Washed: Surface

Figure 9.44b Plain Loom

Bulk Washed: Warp Cross

Section

Figure 9.44c Plain Loom

Bulk Washed: Weft Cross

Section

Figure 9.45a Plain Dec

121°C 6m+RP+Dec

121°C6m+BL2 Bulk

Washed: Surface

Figure 9.45b Plain Dec

121°C 6m+RP+Dec

121°C6m+BL2 Bulk

Washed: Warp Cross

Section

Figure 9.45c Plain Dec

121°C 6m+RP+Dec

121°C6m+BL2 Bulk

Washed: Weft Cross

Section

The washed fabric samples shown in Figures 9.44 and 9.45 show the effect of washing

on the Bulk production loomstate and fully finished fabric samples, respectively. These

images compare with Figures 9.9 and 9.17 as the unwashed samples from the same

stage of finishing. The loomstate sample shows a loss of clarity of the weave structure

compared with the fully finished sample. The cross sections of the loomstate sample

also show the lack of clarity in the fabric structure, and also that there is some indication

that the fabric has thickened, although this is difficult to measure as a result of the rough

surface.


230

The differences in the washing performance of these two samples makes it quite clear

from these images that the finishing route has a very large impact on the prevention of

felting shrinkage of the fabrics. The fully finished sample remained smooth and flat,

and with a clearly defined structure following washing, while the loomstate sample

became very badly distorted as a result of washing.

9.3 DISCUSSION

The results of the microscopy examination of the fabrics support the results in Chapter 6

Physical Testing and the Thickness Testing in Chapter 7 Objective Testing that the

fabric becomes thinner and more dense as a result of the finishing processes. There is

an observable change in the cross sectional shape of the yarns as they became flatter and

more elliptical through finishing. It can also be seen that the number of picks and ends

per unit area increased through finishing.

It is also clear that finishing has a profound effect on the behaviour of these fabrics in

washing. The fully finished fabric that had been washed according to 5x5A cycles was

similar in appearance to the unwashed sample. The loomstate sample, on the other

hand, was severely affected by the washing process and distorted badly.

Although some evidence of fibre surface damage has been found, it appears to be

consistent with levels of damage that normally occur in fibre processing [201-203] and

is not unique to these fabrics

The results which are shown here present a visual verification of the changes in

compactness and density through finishing which have been measured and which

appear to be responsible for the shrink-resistance. They do not, unfortunately allow for

any quantitative results to be obtained.

231

CHAPTER 10

YARN TESTING


In order to determine whether the Solospun™ yarn structure and the twist level of the

yarn had any effect on the felting shrinkage of the fabric, yarn felting shrinkage tests

were conducted. The results of the five test samples examined are following.

10.1 RESULTS

The methods used to conduct this test are given in Chapter 4 Materials and Methods,

and the full data set is given in Appendix 3 Table 3.8.

Yarn felting shrinkage test results indicate that yarns with higher twist factor values

felted less than yarns with lower twist factors during the 60 minute period over which

they were tested. The results show that the yarns with the highest twist factor

demonstrated the lowest values of felting shrinkage at each time interval, as shown in

Figure 10.1.

Note: The yarn relaxation shrinkage was not measured separately from the felting

shrinkage. Therefore, the shrinkage measured over this full test time period includes

both relaxation shrinkage and felting shrinkage.

Chapter 10 Yarn Testing Results and Discussion

232

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Figure 10.1 Yarn Felting Shrinkage v Time of Felting

Warp yarn 114αm

,

22tex, 774tpm

Weft yarn 114αm

,

20tex, 806tpm

22/2, 82αm

spin,

110αm

ply

Sample 82αm

,

22tex 554tpm

Sample 127αm

,

22tex 853tpm

Yarn

Fel

ting

(%)

Felting Time (min.)

10.2 DISCUSSION

The fabrics which have been tested in this project have been constructed using yarns

with the same αm value (114) but with a greater number of turns per meter for the weft

yarns than for the warp yarns for all fabrics except the Pilot production. The Pilot

production used the same yarn construction for both warp and weft. The yarns with the

greater number of turns per meter demonstrated the lowest values of felting shrinkage.

The conventional two-fold yarn used in this examination showed one of the highest

felting shrinkage results. Ali [49] found that, in hand washing conditions, yarn felting

shrinkage was lower in plied yarns than in singles. It is difficult to make comparisons

between the singles and two-fold yarns in this work, as the singles yarns were produced

using Solospun™ attachments, and the two-fold yarns without. Furthermore, the

method used to determine the ply twist in Ali’s work was not carried out here.

However, the results obtained in this study appear to contradict this result.

In all productions, the loomstate samples showed greater felting shrinkage in the weft

direction than the warp, which is opposite to what might be expected from the yarn


233

shrinkage results. The majority of the samples taken from scouring/crabbing onwards

have greater felting shrinkage in the warp direction than the weft direction.

This is slightly unusual in that it would be expected that the loomstate samples would

show felting shrinkage values to be more in line with the results obtained for yarn

shrinkage. The yarns have been subjected to minimal setting in autoclaving in order to

reduce twist liveliness (see Table 4.1 in Materials and Methods for conditions) prior to

weaving and the loomstate fabrics were not subjected to any more setting.

The reasons why the loomstate samples do not reflect the results of yarn felting

shrinkage work are not understood. It is expected, though, that it is a result of the fabric

construction, in that the thread density and the yarn intersections restrict yarn and fibre

movement which, in turn, prevents felting. Fabric structural factors also impact on the

felting shrinkage of the other fabric samples, and the degree to which the yarn felting

propensity impacts on the fabric felting shrinkage has not been assessed, although it

appears that the yarn felting properties do contribute to the fabric felting properties.

The structure of Solospun™ yarns is such that fibres are held more securely within the

yarn than in other yarn structures [1]. This may account, somewhat, for the reduction in

shrinkage, as the fibres within the yarns are less able to move and migrate in washing.

Furthermore, it has been shown [204] that the hairiness of Solospun™ yarns was related

to the twist factor of the yarns. This would suggest that the reduction in felting

shrinkage of the yarns seen in this project is not a result of a reduction in the hairiness of

the yarns.

The reduction in felting shrinkage of yarns with increases in yarn twist is consistent

with results which had previously been obtained at CNL [205].

Researchers [44, 47] have also found that for fabrics made from yarns of higher twist,

the felting shrinkage was lower than for fabrics made from yarns of lower twist.

Although only one twist factor was used for the fabrics in the current project, the results

of comparative yarn testing, combined with the results from other researchers [44, 47],


234

would suggest that the high twist factor yarns that were used for the fabrics in this

project contribute to the shrink-resist effect.

The effect of the yarn structure on the felting shrinkage of the fabric requires further

investigation. It is not clear, at this stage, what contribution the yarn structure makes to

the shrink-resistance of the fabric, although the yarn felting results indicate that the

structure and the twist factor have some influence on the fabric felting properties.

235

CHAPTER 11

CONCLUSIONS

The felting shrinkage of fabrics in this project has been measured at various stages of

finishing, when constructed and finished according to the specifications that were

developed by Canesis Network, Limited, during product development work. In order to

determine the reasons for the observed shrink-resistance, testing of samples finished

under varied conditions was also conducted. Furthermore, fabrics that were woven with

different constructions were also examined after finishing with a single set of finishing

conditions. This meant that the effect of the finishing processes and the effect some of

the fabric construction parameters were able to be studied.

Fabric testing included a wide range of tests. Most importantly, wash testing was

carried out according to Woolmark standards [151, 152] to examine the shrink-

resistance of the fabric samples in detail. This involved an examination of both

relaxation shrinkage and felting shrinkage. The results of felting tests were then able to

be compared with the results of other testing to determine the reasons for the shrink-

resistance. Wash testing showed that the fabrics with the lowest felting shrinkage

throughout finishing were the plain weave constructions, followed by the 2x1 twills,

while the 3x3 twills showed the highest degrees of felting shrinkage through finishing.

This result highlighted the importance of float length in achieving shrink-resistance.

Furthermore, in the twill weave samples, those constructed at 26ppcm were shown to

felt more than those constructed at 33ppcm, and this provided evidence of the

importance of the end and pick density in shrink-resistance.

From the results of the plain weave productions, it appeared that the crabbing process

was responsible for the changes that were leading to a reduction in felting shrinkage.

However, when the twill weave fabrics were investigated, they showed a more gradual

reduction in felting shrinkage, with reductions not only occurring from crabbing, but

also as a result of the pressure decatising processes. This result pointed to the

possibility that the lateral compression taking place in these processes was responsible

Chapter 11 Conclusion

236

for the reduced felting shrinkage. This theory was confirmed by the results obtained in

thickness testing, which were then used to determine fabric volume density.

Furthermore, when a plain weave sample was pressure decatised instead of crabbed, the

final ‘fully finished’ sample showed felting shrinkage results that were comparable with

those obtained for ‘fully finished’ samples that had been crabbed. All these factors

indicate that setting of the fabric under lateral compression is the essential element in

the finishing routine, and that crabbing does not lead to a unique outcome that could not

also be achieved in pressure decatising.

To attempt to understand the reasons why the shrink-resist effect occurred in the fabrics,

other testing included the physical properties of the fabrics to determine if there was

some basic physical change taking place during finishing that may have lead to the

shrink-resistance. For the most part these results showed the greatest correlations with

felting shrinkage, especially when used in conjunction with other results from

mechanical testing. Several parameters displayed a “critical point” [194] where change

in the parameter was associated with large reductions in felting shrinkage. The

parameters that showed the strongest correlations were compactness ratio and density

(calculated using data from mechanical testing). These results showed that the

construction of the fabric, and the changes in the structure that took place in finishing,

were major factors in the prevention of felting. Although reductions of felting

shrinkage through construction have been found by other researchers in previous work

[44-48], levels as low as have been found in the current project resulting from the

washing conditions used in this testing, were not observed in these previous studies.

The observation that fabrics with different float lengths can have similar densities but

very different levels of felting shrinkage gives further demonstration that the increased

float length provides extra ability for the fibres to move and therefore, felt.

The observation that felting shrinkage is reduced through the fabric construction is not

new. It has been found previously by several researchers [44-48] however, the ability to

produce a fabric with felting shrinkage levels as low as seen in this project, without

conventional shrink-resist treatments, is unusual. The levels seen here, in many of the

samples meet the standards of the Woolmark Company for machine washability [152].

It has been suggested that this is a result of the Solospun™ yarn structure allowing for


237

more compact fabrics than had previously been achievable with conventional spinning

technology [206].

Mechanical testing, using objective test methods, was carried out to determine if there

was a change in the mechanical properties of the fabric which would reduce felting

shrinkage. In particular, a number of mechanical properties of fabrics reflect the inter-

yarn and inter-fibre friction within the fabric. In general, the correlations of these

results with measures of felting shrinkage were poor. There is no indication that the

changes in the mechanical properties can be used to explain the reduction in felting

shrinkage. From these results, it was determined that there is no indication that changes

in the frictional properties are responsible for the reduction in felting shrinkage.

Chemical testing was carried out to determine if the finishing of the fabric was causing

some chemical change that reduced felting shrinkage. Chemical methods have

traditionally been used to reduce felting shrinkage, and although there was no evidence

that chemical change through processes involving steam, water or water with teric

would reduce felting shrinkage, the traditional importance of chemical change in shrink-

resistance made this an important area of investigation. The results of this work showed

some strong trends as a result of finishing and the severity of the conditions used in the

solubility of the wool. However, overall, for both solubility testing and amino acid

analysis, there were no strong correlations with felting shrinkage. It was therefore,

concluded, that although there were chemical changes taking place in the fibres as a

result of finishing, they were not the cause of the shrink-resistance. They do, however,

indicate an increase in setting of the fabric.

Microscopy was used to determine if there had been any observable changes to the

surface of the fibres and also to observe changes in the fabric structure through

finishing. Damage to the surface of wool fibres has also been used as a method of

preventing felting shrinkage, due to the importance of the scales in the occurrence of

felting. Although there was some damage to fibres found in the samples used in this

project, in that scales were damaged and in some cases removed, this was found to be

no more severe than that which might normally be associated with the processing of

wool [201-203]. Microscopy results did show that, as finishing progressed, the fabrics


238

became thinner and flatter, and the individual yarns become less rounded. Surface

examination of the fabrics showed that the yarns were closer together. Overall,

microscopy gave a visual demonstration of the compaction of the fabric in all directions

through finishing.

Finally yarn testing was used to determine if the unique structure of the Solospun™

yarn lead to an inherently greater degree of shrink-resistance than conventional yarns.

Yarn testing demonstrated that high levels of yarn twist in Solospun™ yarns resulted in

yarns that felted less. The results of yarn shrinkage testing suggest that Solospun™

yarns bring an inherent level of shrink-resistance to the fabric, however, a final

conclusion on this is difficult to make with only a single conventional yarn structure

examined, and without comparable fabrics produced from conventional yarn structures.

Overall, it appears that the shrink-resistance of these fabrics is the result of a number of

factors. Firstly, the high twist yarns, of unique structure appear to have inherently lower

felting shrinkage. Secondly, the construction of the fabric is an important factor,

through the pick density and the float length, in that high pick density fabrics, with

shorter float lengths show lower felting shrinkage. Thirdly, the finishing of the fabric is

important in compacting the fabric and making it more dense. In short, the fabrics have

been constructed and finished in such a way that it is not possible, under the wash

testing conditions, for the fibres to move relative to one another and result in felting

shrinkage.

Further work is required to understand the role that the yarn structure plays in the

shrink-resistance of these fabrics. The results given in Chapter 10 indicate that the yarn

felting propensity is low in the yarns used for the fabric, but the contribution that this

makes to the fabrics themselves is, at this stage, not well understood. It would also be

of benefit to determine whether a comparable conventional 2 fold ring spun yarn can be

used to achieve the same shrink-resist effect if woven and finished to the same

specifications. For commercialisation, an understanding of the performance of these

fabrics in tumble driers would also be important. It would also be useful to determine

how, or if, these findings might apply to other fabric structures. For instance, would it

be possible to produce a knitted structure that had inherent shrink-resist properties as


239

demonstrated here? Further work on the crabbing process and its contribution to shrink-

resistance is also required. Comparable felting shrinkage results were seen in the

sample that had been pressure decatised instead of crabbed, but a full study of this route

was not conducted. The reason for the consistent difference between the warp and weft

felting shrinkage also requires further exploration.

The hypothesis “that shrink-resistance is imparted as a combination of physical

properties imposed by a unique yarn structure, the setting of yarn and fabric by various

finishing processes, and changes in the frictional properties of the fibres through

finishing the fabric” has been tested. The results that were obtained do indeed indicate

that shrink-resistance is the result of a combination of factors. Firstly, the physical

properties of the yarns have been examined and the results show that the Solospun™

structure is more resistant to felting shrinkage than conventional two-fold structures.

Furthermore, the high twist factor yarns that was used was found to be more resistant to

felting shrinkage in yarn testing than lower twist yarns. Secondly, the finishing

processes that set the fabric under lateral compression have been shown to have a large

effect on the reduction in felting shrinkage, through the increased density of the fabric,

rather than through chemical changes as may have been anticipated. Thirdly, there is no

indication from the results of mechanical testing of the fabrics that felting shrinkage has

been reduced by changes to the frictional properties of the fibres.

Furthermore, it was also found that the structure of the fabric, in terms of end and pick

density, and float length, contributes to producing the shrink-resist effect. The

‘tightness’ of the fabric prevents the fibres from moving when subjected to felting

conditions.

240

REFERENCES

[1] Prins, M., Lamb, P., and Finn, N., “Solospun™- The Long Staple Weavable Singles

Yarn”, Text. Inst. 81st World Conf., WS17B, 1-19 (2001).

[2] Makinson, K.R., Shrinkproofing of Wool. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1979.

[3] Moncrieff, R.W., Wool Shrinkage and Its Prevention. The National Trade Press Ltd,

London, 1953.

[4] Makinson, K.R., “Surface Properties of Wool Fibers” pp. 109-164 in Surface

Characteristics of Fibers and Textiles (in Two Parts), Part I. Edited by M.J. Schick.

Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1975.

[5] Mercer, E.H., and Makinson, K.R., “The Frictional Properties of Wool and Other

Textile Fibres”, J. Text. Inst., 38, T227-T240 (1947).

[6] Scholfield, J., “Researches on Wool Felting- Part III”, J. Text. Inst., 33, T181-T194

(1942).

[7] Lewis, J., “Superwash Wool- Part I: A Review of The Development of Superwash

Technology”, Wool Sci. Rev., 55, 2-29 (1977).

[8] Makinson, K.R., “Mechanisms Involved In Shrinkproofing By Degradative

Treatments”, App, Polymer Symp., [18], Part II, 1083-1096 (1971).

[9] Bona, M., An Introduction to Wool Fabric Finishing. Paravia -Textilia, Biella, 1993.

[10] Makinson, K.R., “On The Cause of the Frictional Difference of the Wool Fibre”,

Trans. Faraday Soc., 44, 279-282 (1948).

[11] Makinson, K.R., “The Use of a Diffraction Grating as the Rubbing Surface in the

Study of the Frictional Properties of Wool Fibres”, Text. Res. J., 37[9] 763-771 (1967).

References

241

[12] Sherman, J.B., Balasubramaniam, E., and Whiteley, K.J., “The Effect of

Temperature on the Felting Properties of Loose Wool”, J. Text. Inst., 59[1] 1-9 (1968).

[13] Mercer, E.H., “The Felting of Wool”, J. Counc. Sci. Ind. Res., 15[4] 285-294

(1942).

[14] Schofield, J., “Researches on Wool Felting- Part I and Part II”, J. Text. Inst., 29,

T239-T252 (1938).

[15] Speakman, J.B., “Researches on Wool Felting”, J. Text. Inst., 29, T280-T282

(1938).

[16] Speakman, J.B., “Researches on Wool Felting”, J. Text. Inst., 29, T305-T306

(1938).

[17] Speakman, J.B., Stott, E., and Chang, H., “A Contribution To The Theory Of

Milling- Part 2”, J. Text. Inst., 24, T273-T292 (1933).

[18] Menkart, J., and Speakman, J.B., “The Felting of Animal Fibres”, J. Soc. Dyers

Colour., 64[1] 14-19 (1948).

[19] Menkart, J., and Speakman, J.B., “The Felting of Animal Fibres”, J. Soc. Dyers

Colour., 64[1] 14-19 (1948).

[20] Bearpark, I., Marriott, F.W., and Park, J., A Practical Introduction to the Dyeing

and Finishing of Wool Fabrics. Society of Dyers and Colourists, Bradford, 1986.

[21] Rouette, H.K., and Kittan, G., Wool Fabric Finishing. Wool Development

International Ltd, Ilkley, 1991 (English Edition).

[22] Bohm, L., “The Frictional Properties of Wool Fibres in Relation to Felting”, J. Soc.

Dyers Colour., 61[11] 278-283 (1945).

References

242

[23] Speakman, J.B., Chamberlain, N.H., and Menkart, J., “The Lepidometer- An

Instrument For Measuring The Scaliness of Animal Fibres”, J. Text. Inst., 36, T91-T106

(1945).

[24] Feldtman, H.D., and McPhee, J.R., “The Effect of Temperature on the Felting Of

Shrink-Resistant Wool”, Text. Res. J., 34[3] 199-206 (1964).

[25] Chaudri, M.A., and Whiteley, K.J., “Frictional and Felting Properties of Wool

Fibres Treated With Benzoquinone”, J. Text. Inst., 60[2] 37-45 (1969).

[26] Chaudri, M.A., and Whiteley, K.J., “The Influence of Natural Variations in Fiber

Properties on the Felting Characteristics of Loose Wool”, Text. Res. J., 40[4] 297-303

(1970).

[27] Hunter, L., Shiloh, M., and Smuts, S., “The Inter-Relationship Between Fibre

Properties, Loose Wool Felting and Fabric Felting”, SAWTRI Technical Report, No.

463, South African Wool and Textile Research Institute of the CSRI, Port Elizabeth

(February 1981).

[28] Bogaty, H., Sookne, A.M., Weiner, L.I., and Harris, M., “The Felting in

Laundering of Wool Blends”, Text. Res. J., 23[2] 114-118 (1953).

[29] Sookne, A.M., Bogaty, H., and Harris, M., “Some Felting Properties of Wools of

Different Geographical Origins”, Text. Res. J., 20[9] 637-642 (1950).

[30] Speakman, J.B., and Sun, T., “The Influence of Fibre Length on the Milling

Properties of Merino Wool”, J. Text. Inst., 27 T171-T176 (1936).

[31] Hunter. L., Robinson, G.A., and Smuts, S., “The Effect of Wool Staple Crimp,

Resistance to Compression and Other Fibre Properties on Certain Woven Fabric

Properties”, SAWTRI Technical Report, No. 439, South African Wool and Textile

Research Institute of the CSRI, Port Elizabeth (January 1979).

References

243

[32] Johnson, A., “Influence of Fiber Length on the Milling Shrinkage of Wool Cloths”,

Text. Res. J., 23[12] 937 (1953).

[33] Van Rensburg, N.J.J., and Barkhuysen, F.A., “A Study of Some Factors Which

Affect the Felting Shrinkage of Wool”, Proc. 7th Int’l. Wool Text. Res. Conf., III 138-

147 (1985).

[34] Speakman, J.B., and Stott, E., “A Contribution to the Theory of Milling- Part I: A

Method for Measuring the Scaliness of Wool Fibres”, J. Text. Inst., 22, T339-T348

(1931).

[35] Scheepers, G.E. and Slinger, R.I., “The Influence of Fibre Crimp Form on the

Felting and Compressional Properties of Wool”, SAWTRI Technical Report, No. 103,

South African Wool and Textile Research Institute of the CSRI, Port Elizabeth

(February, 1968).

[36] De Wet, P.J., “Environmental Influences on the Felting of Merino Wool” Proc. 3rd

Int’l. Wool Text. Res. Conf., III 481-488 (1965).

[37] Hunter, L., Smuts, S., and Gee,E., “The Effect of Staple Crimp, Resistance to

Compression and Other Fibre Properties on the Physical Properties of Knitted and

Woven Fabrics”, Proc. 6th Quinquennial Int’l Wool Text. Res. Conf., IV 1-15 (1980).

[38] Veldsman, D.P. and Kritzinger, C.C. “Studies on the Felting Properties of South

African Merino Wools”, J. Text Inst., 51[12 part II] T1257-T1273 (1960).

[39] Turpie, D.W.F. and Shiloh, M., “The Processing Characteristics of South Africa

Wools, Part V: Properties of Merino Wool Types Varying in Staple Crimp”, SAWTRI

Technical Report, No 189, South African Wool and Textile Research Institute of the

CSRI, Port Elizabeth, (April, 1973).

References

244

[40] Menkart, J., and Detenbeck, J.C., “The Significance of Wool Fiber Crimp- Part I:

A Study on the Worsted System”, Text. Res. J., 27[9] 665-689 (1957).

[41] Menkart, J., and Joseph, B., “The Significance of Wool Fiber Crimp- Part II: A

Study on the Woolen System”, Text. Res. J., 28[11] 940-945 (1958).

[42] Bogaty, H., Sookne, A.M., and Harris, M., “The Felting of Wool As Related to the

Elastic and Swelling Behavior of the Fiber”, Text. Res. J., 29[11] 822-826 (1951).

[43] Szucht, E., “Some Relations of Between the Resilience of Wool Fibres and Their

Felting Properties”, Proc. 3rd Int’l Wool Text. Res. Conf., III 495-502 (1965).

[44] Bogaty, H., Weiner, L.I., Sookne, A.M., and Harris, M., “Effect of Construction on

the Laundering Shrinkage of Knitted Woolens”, Text. Res. J., 21[2] 102-109 (1951).

[45] Brown, A.E., and Krasny, J.F., “The Development of Wash-and-Wear Wool

Fabrics for Modern Home Laundering”, J. Text. Inst., 51 Part II [12] T1414-T1437

(1960)

[46] Farnworth, A.J., Lipson, M., and McPhee, J.R., “Washable Non-Iron Fabrics From

Wool”, 51 Part II [12] T1504-T1516 (1960).

[47] Feldtman, H.D., and McPhee, J.R., “Machine Washing and Tumble Drying of

Wool Fabrics”, Am. Dyestuff Reporter, 53[6] 199-209 (1964).

[48] Bogaty, H., Lourigan, G.H., and Harris, H.E., “Structural Compactness Of Woven

Wool Fabrics and Their Behaviour in Modern Washing Machines”, Test. R.es. J., 28[9]

733-737 (1958).

[49] Ali, M.A., “Ply Effect on Yarn Shrinkage Due to Relaxation and Felting”, Pakistan

Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 13[4] 471-476 (1970).

References

245

[50] Phillips, H., “Recents Trend in The Production of Non-felting Wool”, The Dyer,

96[5] 201-203 (1946).

[51] Kärrholm, E.M., Cednäs, U.M., and Nordhammar, P.G., “An Experimental

Investigation of Relationships Between Construction, Finishing and End Properties of

Worsted Fabrics”, Proc. 3rd Int’l. Wool Text. Res. Conf., IV 449-461 (1965).

[52] Sherman, J.B., and Whiteley, K.J., “Comparison of the Felting Properties of Loose

Wool Fibres, Worsted-Spun Yarn, and Knitted Fabric”, J. Text. Inst., 60[5] 171-180

(1969).

[53] Shorter, S.A., “The Moisture Content of Wool- Its Relation to Scientific Theory

and Commercial Practice”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour., 39[9] 270-276 (1923).

[54] Martin, A.J.P., “Observations on the Theory of Felting”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour.,

60[12] 325-328 (1944).

[55] Harris, M., “Some Factors Contributing to the Felting of Wool”, Am. Dyestuff

Reporter, 34[4] P73-P76 (1945).

[56] Schofield, J., “Observations on the Theory of Felting”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour., 61[3]

77 (1945).

[57] De Boos, A.G., and Wemyss, A.M., “Objective Evaluation of Wool Fabric

Finishing”, J. Text. Inst., 84[4] 506-519 (1993).

[58] Shaw, T., and White, M.A., “The Chemical Technology of Wool Finishing”, pp.

317-442 in Handbook of Fibre Science and Technology: Vol II, Chemical Processing of

Fibers and Fabrics. Functional Finishes: Part B. Edited by Lewin, M., and Sello, S.B.

Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1984.

[59] Brearley, A., and Iredale, J., The Worsted Industry, 2nd Edition, WIRA, Leeds,

1980.

References

246

[60] Brady, P.R., “An Overview of Wool Fabric Finishing”, pp. 6-43 in Finishing and

Wool Fabric Properties: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Finishing Wool

Fabrics. Edited by Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool Technology, Geelong, 1997.

[61] McPhee, J.R., and Shaw, T., “The Chemical Technology of Wool Processing”,

Rev. Prog. Coloration, 14, 58-68 (1984).

[62] Smuts, S., Slinger, R.I., van der Merwe, J.P., “The Effect of Certain Finishing

Variables on the Mechanical Properties of Wool Worsted Fabrics”, SAWTRI Technical

Report, No. 149, South African Wool and Textile Research Institute of the CSRI, Port

Elizabeth (August 1971).

[63] Shaw, T., and Lewis, J., “The Finishing of Wool Fabrics” Textile Progress, 4[3]

(1972).

[64] White, M.A., “Wool-Finishing: Machinery Developments and Processing Trends”,

Textile Progress 13[2] 1-38 (1983).

[65] Parker, B., “Finishing Techniques for Woollen and Worsted Fabrics”, J. Soc. Dyers

Colour., 109[12] 382-384 (1993).

[66] De Boos, A.G., “The Effect of Finishing on the Mechanical and Thermal Properties

of Wool Fabrics. Part 2-Milling and Interactions in Piece Dyeing”, J. Soc. Dyers

Colour., 104[9] 338-343 (1988).

[67] Nilon, J.P., and Wemyss, A.M., “Using Milling to Control The Hygral Expansion

of Piece-Dyed Worsted Fabrics”, J. Text. Inst., 79[3] 511-516 (1988).

[68] Pailthorpe, M., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, 2003.

References

247

[69] Tester, D., and Slevin, P., “The Role Of Stenter Settings in Determining the

Dimensional and Mechanical Properties of Wool Fabric”, J. Text Inst., 84[4] 659-668

(1993).

[70] De Boos, A.G., “How to Obtain Desired Values of Fabric Properties in Finishing”,

pp. 72-79 in Finishing and Wool Fabric Properties: A Guide to the Theory and Practice

of Finishing Wool Fabrics. Edited by Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool Technology, Geelong,

1997.

[71] Bona, M., “Wool Fabric Decatizing and Related Setting Treatments: The Influence

of Process Parameters and New Trends in Machinery Design”, DWI Reports 123 37-48

(2000).

[72] Tester, D.H., “Pressure Decatising” pp. 89-99 in Finishing and Wool Fabric

Properties: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Finishing Wool Fabrics. Edited by

Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool Technology, Geelong, 1997.

[73] Bissett, I.S., Medley., Pullin, J.S., and Wrennall, L.M., “A Novel and

Comprehensive Final Finishing Process for Worsted and Related Fabrics”, J. Soc. Dyers

Colour., 89[12] 466-473 and 522 (1973).

[74] Medley, J.A., “High Temperature Decatizing” Interim Report, WIRA Report 65,

July 1969.

[75] Jeong, Y.J., and Phillips, D.G., “Effect of Pressure Decatizing on Fabric Drape”,

Text. Res. J., 71[5] 415-419 (2001).

[76] Cook, J.R., and Fleischfresser, B.E., “Dimensional Changes Resulting From

Pressure-decatizing of Wool Fabric”, J. Text. Inst., 80[1] 120-128 (1989).

[77] De Boos, A.G., “The Effect of Finishing on the Mechanical and Thermal Properties

of Wool Fabrics. Part 1- The Properties of Piece-Dyed Fabrics”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour.,

103[10] 350-355 (1987).

References

248

[78] Garcia, J., Postle, R., and Pailthorpe, M.T., “Changes in the Chemical Composition

of Wool During Dyeing and Finishing and Their Effects On Fabric Properties”, Text.

Res. J., 65[8] 477-485 (1995).

[79] Lees, K., and Elsworth, F.F. “The Decatising Process, With Special Reference to

Its Influence on the Dimensional Stability of Woven Cloth”, Proc. 3rd Int’l. Wool Text.

Res. Conf., III 555-564 (1965).

[80] Das, U.K., “Influence of Wrapper Moisture Content on Wool Fabric Mechanical

Properties After Pressure Decatizing”, Text, Res. J., 63[1] 59-60 (1993).

[81] Hall, A.J., Textile Finishing. Heywood Press, London, 1966.

[82] McPhee, J.R., “Reaction of Wool With Oxidising Agents in Concentrated Salt

Solutions”, Text. Res. J., 30[5] 349-357 (1960).

[83] Bradbury, J.H., “Application of the Descaling Technique to the Theory of

Shrinkproofing of Wool”, J. Text. Inst., 51[12] T1226-T1236 (1960).

[84] McPhee, J.R., “Rate of Felting of Untreated and Shrink-Resistant Wool Fabrics”,

Text. Res. J., 31[9] 770-778 (1961).

[85] Bradbury, J.H., Rogers, G.E., and Filshie, B.K., “The Theory of Shrinkproofing of

Wool- Part V: Electron and Light Microscopy of Wool Fibers After Chemical

Treatments”, Text. Res. J., 33[8] 617-630 (1963).

[86] Mehta, R.D., “Shrinkproofing Treatments Have a Profound Effect on Soiling

Characteristics of Wool”, Text. Chemist Colorist, 16[5] 106-108 (1984).

[87] De Boos, A.G., “Finishing Wool Fabrics To Improve Their End-use Performance”,

Textile Progress, 20[1]1989.

References

249

[88] Meichelbeck, H., and Knittel, H., “The Influence of Charged Groups and of

Detergent Sorption on the Felting Behavior of Wool”, App. Polymer Symp., [18], Part I,

507-512 (1971).

[89] Alexander, P., “Recent Developments in Non-shrink Processes for Wool”, J. Soc.

Dyers Colour., 66[7] 349-357 (1950).

[90] Swanepoel, O.A., and Becker, J., “Aspects of the Shrinkproofing and Bleaching of

Wool”, SAWTRI Technical Report, No. 105, South African Wool and Textile Research

Institute of the CSRI, Port Elizabeth (April 1968).

[91] Makinson, K.R., “Some New Observations on the Effects of Mild Shrinkproofing

Treatments on Wool Fibres”, Text. Res. J., 38[8] 831-842 (1968).

[92] Makinson, K.R., “Effects of the KMnO4/Salt Shrinkproofing Treatment on the

Frictional Properties of Wool Fibers- Part I: Correlation Between the Static Coefficients

of Friction and Measurements on the Intrados and Extrados of the Crimp”, Text. Res. J.,

39[8] 710-721 (1969).

[93] Makinson, K.R., “Effects of the KMnO4/Salt Shrinkproofing Treatment on the

Frictional Properties of Wool Fibers- Part II: Dependence on the Nature of the Rubbing

Surface”, Text. Res. J., 39[11] 1072-1074 (1969).

[94] Andrews, M.W., Inglis, A.S., Rothery, F.E., and Williams, V.A, “Wool

Shrinkproofing Studies- Part III: Fiber Modification in Neutral Potassium

Permanganate-Salt Treatments”, Text. Res. J., 33[9] 705-711 (1963).

[95] Williams, V.A., “Wool Shrinkproofing Studies- Part II: The Felting Shrinkage of

Permanganate Treated Wool”, Text. Res. J., 33[6] 444-452 (1963).

[96] Williams, V.A., “Wool Shrinkproofing Studies- Part I: The Influence of Inorganic

Salts on the Reaction of Potassium Permanganate with Wool in Neutral Solution”, Text.

Res. J., 32[12] 977-985 (1962).

References

250

[97] Kantouch, A., Bendak, A., and Sadek, M., “Studies on the Shrink-Resist Treatment

of Wool With Potassium Permanganate”, Text. Res. J., 48[11] 619-624 (1978).

[98] Davidson, A.N., and Preston, R., “Shrink-Resisting Wool: Some Novel Features

and the Description of a New Process”, J. Text. Inst., 47[8] P685-P707 (1956).

[99] Cardamone, J.M., Yao, J., and Nun ̀ez, A., “Controlling Shrinkage in Wool Fabrics:

Effective Hydrogen Peroxide Systems”, Text. Res. J., 74[10] 887-898 (2004).

[100] Rakowski, W., “Plasma Treatment of Wool Today. Part 1- Fibre Properties,

Spinning and Shrinkproofing”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour., 113[9] 250-255 (1997).

[101] Erra, P., Molina, R., Jocic, D., Julia, M.R., Cuesta, A., and Tascon, J.M.D,

“Shrinkage Properties of Wool Treated with Low Temperature Plasma and Chitosan

Biopolymer”, Text. Res. J., 69[11] 811-815 (1999).

[102] Kan, C.W., Chan, K., and Yuen, C.W.M., “Low Temperature Plasma on Wool

Substrates: The Effect of the Nature of the Gas”, Text. Res. J., 69[6] 407-416 (1999).

[103] Kan, C.W., Chan, K., Yuen, C.W.M., and Miao, M.H., “Effect Of Low

Temperature Plasma, Chlorination, and Polymer Treatments and Their Combinations on

the Properties of Wool Fibres”, Text. Res. J., 68[11] 814-820 (1998).

[104] Ganssauge, D., and Thomas, H., “Finishing of Fabrics- Influence of a Plasma

Treatment on The Finishing Processes and the Fabric Properties”, Wool Tech. Sheep

Breed., 49[4] 302-310 (2001).

[105] Ueda, M., and Tokino, S., “Physico-Chemical Modifications of Fibres and Their

Effect on Coloration and Finishing”, Rev. Prog. Coloration, 26, 9-19, (1996).

[106] Thorsen, W.J., and Kodani, R.Y., “A Corona Discharge Method of Producing

Shrink-Resistant Wool and Mohair”, Text. Res. J., 36[7] 651-661 (1966).

References

251

[107] Landwehr, R.C., “Electrostatic Properties of Corona-Treated Wool and Mohair”,

Text. Res. J., 39[8] 792-793 (1969).

[108] Pardeshi, P.D., Paul, R., and Manjrekar, S.G., “Wool Processing: Challenges and

Prospects”, Asian Text. J., 11[4] 52-57 (2002).

[109] Nolte, H., Bishop, D.P., and Höcker, H., “Effects of Proteolytic and Lipolytic

Enzymes on Untreated and Shrink-resist-treated Wool”, J. Text. Inst., 87 Part 1[1] 212-

226 (1996).

[110] Singh, M., and Goel, A., “A Comparative Study Of Enzymatic Treatment on

Woollen Fabrics”, Asian Text. J., 11[4] 33-38 (2002).

[111] Kershaw, A., and Lewis, J., “The Role Of Polymer Treatments in The Shrink-

Proofing of Wool”, Textile Month, April 1976, 40-44.

[112] De Boos, A.G., “Effect of Shrinkresist Polymers on the Mechanical Properties of

Woven Wool Fabrics”, pp285-300 in Proceedings of the Japan-Australia Joint

Symposium on Objective Specification of Fabric Quality, Mechanical Properties and

Performance, Edited by S. Kawabata, R. Postle, and Masako Niwa, Textile Machinery

Society of Japan, Kyoto, Japan, 1982.

[113] Lewis, J., “Superwash Wool- Part II: Continuous Shinkproofing Processes”, Wool

Sci. Rev., 55, 23-42 (1978).


[115] Cegarra, J., and Riva, A., “A Comparative Dyeing Kinetic Study of Untreated,

Chlorinated and Hercosett Wool With Acid and Reactive Dyes”, Proc. 6th Quinquennial

Int’l Wool Text. Res. Conf., V 545-558 (1980).

References

252

[116] Aulbach, M., Kettlewell, R., and Jackson, J., “Shrink-Resist Wool Process”,

International Dyer, 186[6] 23-29 (2001).

[117] Cockett, K.R.F., Jackson, J., Kettlewell, R., Lewis, J., Smart, R., Smith, P.,

“Developments in the Shrinkproofing of Wool to the Superwash Standard”, Proc. 6th

Quinquennial Int’l Wool Text. Res. Conf., V 1-17 (1980).

[118] De Boos, A.G., “Non-Cross-Linking Cationic Polymers For the Shrink Resist

Treatment of Wool”, J. Text. Inst., 75[3] 184-190 (1984).

[119] Greef, J.C., and Schlink, A.C., “The Inheritance of Felting of Merino Wool”,

Wool Tech. Sheep Breed., 50[1] 6-10 (2002).

[120] De Boos, A.G., “The Dimensional Stability of Wool Fabrics”, pp. 57-71 in

Finishing and Wool Fabric Properties: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Finishing

Wool Fabrics. Edited by Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool Technology, Geelong, 1997.

[121] Smith, L.J. and Baird, K., “Relaxation Shrinkage of Worsted Yarns. Part III: The

Dependence of Relaxation Shrinkage in Worsted Yarns on Processing Factors”, Text.

Res. J., 46[2] 104-112 (1976).

[122] Shaw, T., “Dimensional Stability of Woven Wool Fabrics: Part I- Its Effects on

Garment Making”, American Dyestuff Reporter, 76[6] 34-41 (1987).

[123] Bissitt, I.S., and Medley, J.A., “Optimum Conditions in Autoclave Setting” App.

Polymer Symp., [18] Part II, 955-961 (1971).

[124] Baird, K., “Hygral Expansion in Wool Fabrics”, Wool Sc. Rev., [31] 12-31 (1967).

[125] Baird, M., and Shahkarami, S., “Hygral Expansion”, Textile Month, 30-32, March

(1999).

References

253

[126] Lindberg, J., “Hygral Expansion of Wool Fabrics”, Proc. 3rd Int’l. Wool Text.

Res. Conf., III 53-63 (1965).

[127] Allen, C.F., De Boos, A.G., Ly, N.G., and Shaw, T., “Improving The Quality of

Wool Fabrics Using FAST”,Aachen Textile Conference, Schriftenreihe des Deutshen

Wollforschunginstitutes (DWI Reports) 105 287-299 (1990).

[128] Baird, K., “The Contribution Of The Bilateral Structure Of Wool To Hygral

Expansion”, J. Text. Inst., 64[9] 509-514 (1973).

[129] Dhingra, R.C., Postle, R., Mahar, T.J., “Hygral Expansion in Woven Wool

Fabrics”, J. Text. Inst., 55[1] 28-40 (1985).

[130] Cednas, M., “Dimensional Stability of Wool Fabrics”, J. Text. Inst., 52[6] T251-

T271 (1961).

[131] Garcia, J., Pailthorpe, M.T., Postle, R., “Effects of Dyeing and Finishing on

Hygral Expansion and Other Crimp-Dependent Physical Properties of Wool Fabrics”,

Text. Res. J., 64[8] 466-475 (1994).

[132] Baird, K., “Dimensional Stability of Woven Wool Fabrics: Hygral Expansion”,

Text. Res. J., 33[12] 973-984 (1963).

[133] Shiloh, M., Hunter, L., and Smuts, S., “The Effect of Fibre Properties and Weave

Crimp on The Hygral Expansion of Woven Wool Fabrics”, J. Text. Inst., 73[5] 238-245

(1982).

[134] Mahar, T.J., Dhingra, R.C., and Postle, R., “Interactions Between the Mechanical

Properties and Dimensional Stability of Wool Fabrics”, pp. 489-500 in Objective

Measurement: Applications to Product Design and Process Control. Proceedings of the

Third Australia-Japan Bilateral Science and Technology Symposium on Objective

Evaluation of Apparel Fabrics Edited by S. Kawabata, R. Postle, and Masako Niwa,

Textile Machinery Society of Japan, Kyoto, Japan, 1985.

References

254

[135] Shaw, T., “Dimensional Stability of Woven Wool Fabrics: Part II- Its Effects on

Garment Making”, American Dyestuff Reporter, 76[7] 26-32 (1987).

[136] Shaw, T., “Thermal Expansion of Woven Wool Fabrics at Constant Moisture

Regain”, Proc. 7th Int’l. Wool Text. Res. Conf., III 158-167 (1985).

[137] Baird, M., “The Hygral/Thermal Dimensional Behaviour of Worsted Fabrics

Under Autoclave Conditions. Part I”, J. Text. Inst., 83[1] 156-162 (1992).

[138] Baird, M., Laird, B., and Weedall, P., “Hygral Expansion”, Textile Horizons,

14[4] 31-32 (1994).

[139] De Boos, A.G., Harrigan, F.J., and White, M.A., “Objective Assessment of the

Effect of Setting Processes in the Properties of Wool-Containing Fabrics”, pp311-319 in

Objective Evaluation of Apparel Fabric. Proceedings of the Second Australia-Japan

Bilateral Science and Technology Symposium, Edited by R. Postle, S. Kawabata, and

Masako Niwa. Textile Machinery Society of Japan, Osaka, Japan, 1983.

[140] Rouette, H.K., “Age-Old Decatizing Chemistry Makes Surface Finish Possible”,

Int’l. Text. Bull.- Dyeing/Printing Finishing, 41[3] 5-12 (1995).

[141] Brady, P.R., “The Theory of Practical Wool Setting”, pp. 100-120 in Finishing

and Wool Fabric Properties: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Finishing Wool

Fabrics. Edited by Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool Technology, Geelong, 1997.

[142] Farnworth, A.J., “A Hydrogen Bonding Mechanism for the Permanent Setting of

Wool Fibers”, Text. Res. J., 27[8] 632-640 (1957).

[143] Speakman, J.B., “The Reactivity of the Sulphur Linkage in Animal Fibres- Part I:

The Chemical Mechanism of Permanent Set”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour., 52[9] 335-346

(1936).

References

255

[144] Speakman, J.B., Whewell, C.S., “The Reactivity of the Sulphur Linkage in

Animal Fibres- Part II: The Action of Baryta and Caustic Soda on Human Hair”, J. Soc.

Dyers Colour., 52[10] 380-387 (1936).

[145] Milligan, B., Caldwell, J.B., and Leach, S.J., “The Role of Thiol Groups in

Setting and Release of Set”, Proc. 3rd Int’l. Wool Text. Res. Conf., II 309-317 (1965).

[146] Tester, D., Michie, N., and de Jong, S., “The Effect of Regain Variation on Fabric

Finishing and Mechanical Properties”, Proc. 8th Int’l. Wool Text. Res. Conf., V 139-148

(1990).

[147] Kopke, V., “The Role of Water in the Setting of Wool: A Study of Setting At

Temperatures Above 100°C- Part I: Degree of Set”, J. Text Inst., 61[8] 361-387 (1970).

[148] Kopke, V., “The Role of Water in the Setting of Wool: A Study of Setting At

Temperatures Above 100°C- Part II: Fabric Properties”, J. Text Inst., 61[8] 388-407

(1970).

[149] Bona, M., “The Relaxation of Wool Cloth”, Int’l Text. Bull.- Dyeing/Printing/

Finishing, 40[1] 38-44 (1994).


[151] The Woolmark Company, Woolmark Test Method: Washing of Wool Textile

Products, TM 31, August, 2002.

[152] The Woolmark Company, Product Specification: Flat Woven, Pile Woven and

Pressed Felt Apparel Products, W1, August, 2000.

[153] Standards Association of Australia, Methods of Test for Textiles, Part 2- Physical

Tests AS2001.2.12 Determination of Width of Fabrics, 1987.

References

256

[154] The Woolmark Company, Woolmark Test Method: Mass per Unit Area (Fabrics,

Wool Fillings or Pillows), TM 13, May, 2000.

[155] Canesis Network Limited, Wool Research Organisation Testing Laboratory,

Laboratory In House Test Method: Crimp, Version 2, Issued 26/05/1994.

[156] International Organization for Standardization, Textiles- Woven Fabrics-

Construction- Methods of analysis- Part 3: Determination of crimp of yarn in fabric,

ISO 7211/3-1984(E).


Laboratory In House Test Method: Ends and Picks, Version 2, Issued 21/06/1994.

[158] International Organization for Standardization, Textiles- Woven Fabrics-

Construction- Methods of analysis- Part 2: Determination of number of threads per unit

length, ISO 9211/2-1984(E).

[159] Booth, J.E., Textile Mathematics. Volume Three. The Textile Institute,

Manchester, 1977.

[160] Love, L., “Graphical Relationships in Cloth for Plain, Twill, and Sateen Weaves”,

Text. Res. J., 24[12] 1073-1083 (1954).

[161] Watt, J., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, February, 2003.

[162] Ly, N.G., Tester, D.H., Buckenham, P., Roczniok, A.F., Adriaansen, A.L.,

Scaysbrook, F., and De Jong, S., “Simple Instruments for Quality Control by Finishers

and Tailors”, Text. Res. J., 61[7] 402-406 (1991).

[163] De Boos, A.G., “The Objective Measurement of Finished Fabric”, pp. 44-56 in

Finishing and Wool Fabric Properties: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Finishing

Wool Fabrics. Edited by Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool Technology, Geelong, 1997.

References

257

[164] De Boos, A., and Tester, D., “SiroFAST: Fabric Assurance By Simple Testing”

CSIRO Report No. WT 92.02, January 1994, (from www.tft.csiro.au February 2003).


Laboratory In House Test Method: FAST Test, Issued 17/07/1998.

[166] CSIRO Division of Wool Technology, FAST Fabric Assurance by Simple

Testing, Instruction Manual, CSIRO Division of Wool Technology, Sydney Laboratory,

Ryde, Sydney.

[167] Le, C., Ly, N., Phillips, D., De Boos, A., “Characterising the Stability of The

Surface Finish on Wool Fabrics”,10th Int’l Wool Text. Res. Conf., FI-1 1-9 (2000).

[168] De Boos, A.G., and Brady, P.R., “Objective Evaluation of Processes and

Machinery”, pp. 80-88 in Finishing and Wool Fabric Properties: A Guide to the Theory

and Practice of Finishing Wool Fabrics. Edited by Brady, P.R. CSIRO Wool

Technology, Geelong, 1997.

[169] KES Kato Tech Co., Ltd., Manual for Tensile and Shear Tester KES-FB-1.

[170] KES Kato Tech Co., Ltd., Manual for Pure Bending Tester KES-FB-2.

[171] KES Kato Tech Co., Ltd., Manual for Compression Tester KES-FB-3.

[172] KES Kato Tech Co., Ltd., Manual for Surface Tester KES-FB-4.

[173] De Boos, A.G., Australian Wool Innovation Ltd, personal communication, July,

2003.

[174] Mahar, T.J., Dhingra, R.C., and Postle, R., “Measuring and Interpreting Low-

Stress Fabric Mechanical and Surface Properties. Part I: Precision and Measurement”,

Text. Res. J., 57[6] 357-369 (1987).

References

258


[176] Canesis Network Limited, Internal Test Method based on IWTO-4-60(E) Method

of Test for Solubility of Wool in Alkali, October, 1991.

[177] International Wool Textile Organisation, Method of Test For the Solubility of

Wool in Alkali, Draft TM-4-00.

[178] Canesis Network Limited, Internal Test Method based on IWTO-4-65(E) Method

of Test for Solubility of Wool in Urea-Bisulphite Solution, October, 1991.

[179] International Wool Textile Organisation, Method of Test For the Solubility of

Wool in Urea Bisulfite Solution, Draft TM-11-99.

[180] Lees, K., and Elsworth, F.F., “A Study of the Alkali Solubility Test for

Determining the Degree of Fibre Damage in Wool”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour., 68[6] 207-

213 (1952).

[181] Maclaren, J.A., and Milligan, B., Wool Science: The Chemical Reactivity of the

Wool Fibre. Science Press, Marrickville, 1981.

[182] International Wool Textile Organisation, Method of Test for the Solubility of

Wool in Alkali, IWTO-4-60(E).

[183] Lees, K., and Elsworth, F.F., “The Solubility of Wool in Urea Bisulphite

Solutions and its Use As A Measure of Fibre Modification”, Proc. Int’l Wool Text. Res.

Conf., C 363-373 (1955).

[184] International Wool Textile Organisation, Method of Test for the Solubility of

Wool in Urea- Bisulfite Solution, IWTO-11-65(E).

References

259


Laboratory In House Test Method, Method for the Determination of the pH Value of a

Water Extract of Wool, Version 3, 04/03/1999.

[186] International Wool Textile Organisation, Method for the Determination the pH of

a Water Extract of Wool, IWTO-2-96.

[187] Carter, E.A., Fredericks, P.M., and Church, J.S., “Fourier Transform Infrared

Photoacoustic Spectroscopy of Surface-Treated Wool”, Text. Res. J., 66[12] 787-794

(1996).

[188] Carter, E.A., Fredericks, P.M., Church, J.S, and Denning, R.J., “FT-Raman

Spectroscopy of Wool- I. Preliminary Studies”, Spectrochimica Acta. Part A: Molecular

Spectroscopy, 50A[11] 1927-1936 (1994).

[189] Hogg, L.J., Edwards, H.G.M., Farwell, D.W., and Peters, A.T., “FT Raman

Spectroscopic Studies of Wool”, J. Soc. Dyers Colour., 110[5/6] 196-199 (1994).

[190] Lappage, J., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, 2003.

[191] Microsoft Excel 2002, Microsoft Excel Help, About Statistical Analysis Tools,

Correlation.

[192] Tandon, S., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, January, 2006.

[193] Cookson, P.G., and DeBoos, A.G., “Effects of Synthappret BAP-Based

Treatments on the Cuff-Edge Felting and Mechanical Properties of a Lightweight

Woven Wool Fabric”, Text. Res. J., 62[10] 595-602 (1992).

[194] Pailthorpe, M., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, August,

2005.

References

260

[195] Grosberg, P., “The Role of Friction in the Mechanical Behaviour of Fabrics”, pp.

563-575 in Surface Characteristics of Fibres and Textiles. Part II. Edited by

Schick,M.J.. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1977.

[196] Dhingra, R.C., Lui, D., and Postle, R., “Measuring and Interpreting Low-Stress

Fabric Mechanical and Surface Properties. Part II: Application to Finishing,

Drycleaning and Photodegradation of Wool Fabrics”, Text. Res. J., 59[6] 357-368

(1989).

[197] Grosberg, P., and Park, B.J., “The Mechanical Properties of Woven Fabrics. Part

V: The Initial Modulus and the Frictional Restraint in Shearing of Plain Weave

Fabrics”, Text. Res. J., 36[5] 420-431 (1966).

[198] Le, C.V., Tester, D.H., Ly, N.G., de Jong, S., “Changes in Fabric Mechanical

Properties After Pressure Decatizing as Measured by FAST”, Text. Res. J., 64[2] 61-69

(1994).

[199] Elliott, J., Stevens, C.B., and Whewell, C.S., “The Effect of Some High

Temperature Treatments on Wool”, Proc. 3rd Int’l Wool Text. Res. Conf, III 581-594

(1965).

[200] Robson, A., Williams, M.J., and Woodhouse, J.M., “The Formation of

Lysinoalanine and Lanthionine in Wool Fibres Stretched in Boiling Water, and Their

Relation to Permanent Set”, J. Text. Inst., 60[4] 140-151 (1969).

[201] Brack, N., Lamb, R.N., Pham, D., Phillips, T., and Turner, P., “Effect of Physical

Processing on the Wool Fiber Surface”, Text. Res. J., 71[10] 911-915 (2001).

[202] Gharehaghaji, A.A., and Johnson, N.A.G., “Wool-fibre Microdamage Caused by

Opening Processes. Part I: Sliver Opening”, J. Text. Inst., 84[3] 336-347 (1993).

References

261

[203] Gharehaghaji, A.A., and Johnson, N.A.G., “Wool-fibre Microdamage Caused by

Opening Processes. Part I: A Study of the Contact Between Opening Elements and

Wool Fibre in Controlled Extension”, J. Text. Inst., 86[3] 402-414 (1995).

[204] Fukuhara, S., Endo, S., and Hori, M., “Effects of Spinning Conditions and Yarn

Composition in Solospun (Weavable Single Yarn) Spinning”, 10th Int’l Wool Text. Res.

Conf., YA-7 1-9 (2000).

[205] Lappage, J., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, August, 2004.

[206] Watt, J., Canesis Network Limited, personal communication, February, 2006.

262

APPENDIX 1

SAMPLE NAMES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Table A1.1 Pilot Plain Weave Sampling

Sample Abbreviation

Loomstate Loom

Crabbed Crab

Stentered Stent

Cropped Crop

Cropping to Blowing without decatising No KD

Cropped and decatised at 110°C for 2 min 110C/2









Cropped, decatised: 121°C for 6min and blown for 2min 121/6+B2

Table A1.2 Bulk Plain Weave Sampling

Sample Abbreviation

Loomstate Loom

Scoured Scour

Crabbed Crab

Stentered Stent

Cropped Crop

Decatised: 121°C for 6min 121/6

Decatised: 121°C for 6min then blown for 1min 121/6 B1

Appendix 1

263



Decatised: 121°C for 6min then rotary pressed 121/6+RP

Decatised: 121°C for 6min, rotary pressed then decatised:

121°C for 6min

121/6+RP+121/6

Decatised: 121°C for 6min, rotary pressed, decatised:

121°C for 6min, then blown: 1min

121/6+RP+121/6 B1



121/6+RP+121/6 B2



121/6+RP+121/6 B3




Decatised: 121°C for 6min, rotary pressed then blown for 2

min

121/6+RP+B2

Decatised: 121°C for 6min, rotary pressed then decatised:

110°C for 2min

121/6+RP+110/2


110°C for 2min then blown for 2 min

121/6+RP+110/2+B2

Cropped then decatised at 110°C for 2min Crop+110/2

Cropped, decatised: 110°C for 2min, then rotary pressed Crop+110/2+RP

Cropped, decatised: 110°C for 2min, then rotary pressed 110/2+RP+121/6

Cropped, decatised: 110°C for 2min, rotary pressed, then

blown for 2min

110/2+RP+121/6+B2

Control Sample, treated with chlorination+resin treatment

and finished

Cl2 Control

Plain weave, Pressure decatised instead of crabbed,

produced with Twills

KD no Crab

Appendix 1

264

Table A1.3 2/1 and 3/3 Twill Weave Sampling

Sample Abbreviation

2/1 Twill Loomstate 26ppcm 2/1 Loom 26ppcm




2/1 Twill Scoured 26ppcm 2/1 Scour 26ppcm

3/3 Twill Scoured 26ppcm 3/3 Scour 26ppcm

2/1 Twill Crabbed 26ppcm 2/1 Crab 26ppcm



3/3 Twill Crabbed 33pcm 3/3 Crab 33ppcm

2/1 Twill Stentered 26ppcm 2/1 Stent 26ppcm



3/3 Twill Stentered 33pcm 3/3 Stent 33ppcm

2/1 Twill Cropped 26ppcm 2/1 Crop 26ppcm

3/3 Twill Cropped 26ppcm 3/3 Crop 26ppcm

2/1 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min 26ppcm 2/1 121/6 26ppcm

3/3 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min 26ppcm 3/3 121/6 26ppcm

2/1 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min then rotary press

26ppcm

2/1 121/6+RP 26ppcm

3/3 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min then rotary press

26ppcm

3/3 121/6+RP 26ppcm

2/1 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min 26ppcm, rotary press,

then decatised 121°C for 6min

2/1 121/6+RP+121/6

26ppcm

3/3 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min 26ppcm, rotary press,

then decatised 121°C for 6min

3/3 121/6+RP+121/6

26ppcm

2/1 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min, rotary press, then

decatised 121°C for 6min 26ppcm

2/1 121/6+RP+121/6

26ppcm

3/3 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min, rotary press, then

decatised 121°C for 6min 26ppcm

3/3 121/6+RP+121/6

26ppcm

Appendix 1

265

2/1 Twill Decatised 121°C for 6min, rotary press, decatised

121°C for 6min, then blow for 2min 26ppcm

2/1 26ppcm Finished



3/3 26ppcm Finished



2/1 33ppcm Finished


121°C, for 6min, then blow for 2min 33ppcm

3/3 33ppcm Finished

266

APPENDIX 2

YARN SHRINKAGE TRIALS

Table A2.1 Results of Yarn Shrinkage Trial

Length of Hank (mm)

Time (min) Trial 1

1kg Load

22 tex warp

yarn

Trial 2

1kg Load

22 tex warp

yarn

Trial 3

240g Load

22 tex warp

yarn

Trial 4

240g Load

22 tex warp

yarn

Initial dry 497 495 495 495

Initial wet 492 492 490 490

2 490.5 488 488 488

5 486* 488* 487* 487#

10 477 479 479 479

15 469* 470.5* 468* 468*

20 456 468 461.5 461.5

25 445* 455* 451* 451*

30 436 432 433 433

35 418* 415* 425* 425*

40 396 411 408 408

45 381* 391.5 391* 391*

50 355 366 366

55 353* 346* 346*

60 338 326 326

65 328* 309.5* 309.5*

70 307 287 287

75 295 261 261

* indicates sample was wet following measurement

# indicates sample was wet before measurement

267

APPENDIX 3

TEST RESULTS

Appendix 3

1X7A Cuff Cuff 5x5A Cuff Cuff Diff Cuff Diff Cuff Warp Weft Felting Cuff Cuff Diff DiffArea Er Edge Edge Area Er Edge Edge Edge Edge FS% FS% Area Er Edge Edge Cuff Cuff (%) % (wp) (wt) (%) % (wp) (wf) (5x5A) (5x5A) (%) % Wp Wf Felt Felt

(%) (%) % % (wp) (Wf) (%) (%) Wp WfPilotLoom 11.1 2.4 − − 43.5 3.8 − − − − 19.0 21.5 36.4 4.0 − − − −

Crab 1.6 1.6 − − 4.3 2.1 − − − − 1.9 0.9 2.8 2.2 − − − −

Stent 3.3 1.5 − − 19.8 8.4 − − − − 14.7 2.8 17.1 8.6 − − − −

Crop 2.4 1.4 − − 6.7 2.5 − − − − 2.9 1.6 4.4 2.5 − − − −

No KD 0.3 2.2 − − 3.7 2.2 − − − − 1.4 2.0 3.4 2.1 − − − −

110C/2 1.7 1.8 − − 7.6 3.4 − − − − 5.2 0.8 5.9 3.7 − − − −

110C/4 2.5 1.7 − − 6.7 3.6 − − − − 3.2 1.3 4.4 3.6 − − − −

110C/6 2.6 1.8 − − 6.6 2.4 − − − − 3.2 1.0 4.1 2.3 − − − −

114C/2 3.1 2.0 − − 5.4 2.4 − − − − 1.7 0.8 2.4 2.3 − − − −

114C/4 3.2 1.8 − − 7.1 2.8 − − − − 2.3 1.8 4.0 2.6 − − − −

114C/6 2.6 1.5 − − 5.0 2.2 − − − − 2.0 0.5 2.5 2.3 − − − −

121C/2 2.3 2.0 − − 6.2 2.6 − − − − 2.4 1.6 4.0 2.7 − − − −

121C/4 3.2 1.6 − − 6.5 2.3 − − − − 2.1 1.3 3.4 2.4 − − − −

121C/6 3.1 2.3 − − 4.8 2.6 − − − − 0.8 0.9 1.8 2.8 − − − −

121C/6 2bl 1.5 2.0 − − 4.1 1.9 − − − − 1.2 1.4 2.7 2.0 − − − −

Wash ShrinkageTable A3.1 Wash Testing Results

268

Appendix 3


(%) (%) % % (wp) (Wf) (%) (%) Wp Wf


BulkLoom 8.5 1.7 4.0 3.9 35.8 3.5 14.1 18.0 -4.0 -3.6 14.5 17.9 29.8 3.5 10.5 14.7 -4.0 -3.1

Scour 3.5 1.5 2.3 0.9 32.3 2.7 14.1 12.9 -3.5 -4.9 15.9 16.6 29.8 2.7 12.1 12.1 -3.8 -4.5

Crab 1.4 1.9 0.5 0.3 5.1 2.8 7.7 1.8 4.8 -0.5 2.5 1.3 3.8 2.7 7.2 1.5 4.7 0.2

Stent 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 5.1 3.2 13.0 2.4 10.8 -0.6 2.9 1.5 4.3 3.0 12.5 2.2 9.7 0.7

Crop 2.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 6.3 2.1 9.2 1.5 5.1 -0.8 3.5 0.4 3.8 1.7 7.7 -0.3 4.3 -0.6

121/6 3.5 1.8 1.7 1.3 6.9 2.0 7.1 1.5 3.4 -1.7 2.0 1.4 3.5 2.1 5.5 0.3 3.5 -1.2

121/6 B1 1.6 1.7 0.8 0.5 4.2 2.2 7.2 0.7 4.1 -0.5 2.3 0.4 2.7 2.1 6.5 0.1 4.2 -0.3

121/6 B2 2.3 1.8 1.3 0.9 6.0 1.8 7.3 1.8 3.9 -0.9 2.3 1.5 3.8 2.1 6.1 0.8 3.7 -0.7

121/6 B3 1.0 2.1 0.5 0.3 4.7 2.3 6.6 1.1 4.1 -1.1 2.2 1.5 3.7 2.3 6.1 0.8 3.9 -0.7

121/6+RP 5.4 2.8 6.6 -1.5 7.4 2.7 8.7 -1.5 -0.2 0.2 1.2 0.9 2.1 3.3 2.2 0.0 1.0 -0.9

2.7 2.3 1.5 1.3 5.1 2.4 7.7 1.0 4.2 -0.6 2.0 0.4 2.4 2.6 6.3 -0.3 4.3 -0.7

1.3 1.7 0.8 -0.5 3.7 1.8 3.8 -0.3 1.2 -1.3 1.7 0.7 2.4 1.8 3.1 0.3 1.4 -0.4

0.6 1.7 0.9 -1.1 3.5 2.3 5.1 -0.5 1.6 -0.6 2.5 0.5 3.0 2.5 4.2 0.5 1.7 0.0

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2

269

Appendix 3


(%) (%) % % (wp) (Wf) (%) (%) Wp Wf


1.3 1.3 2.1 0.3 3.7 1.4 5.5 0.0 2.5 -0.8 1.5 -0.1 1.4 1.3 3.4 -0.3 1.9 -0.2

124/2 2.4 1.4 1.2 0.5 5.0 1.7 5.7 1.0 2.5 -0.8 1.9 0.8 2.6 1.6 4.6 0.5 2.7 -0.3

124/4 3.1 2.5 1.4 1.0 6.4 2.6 5.7 1.5 1.8 -1.1 2.7 0.8 3.5 2.6 4.5 0.5 1.7 -0.3

124/6 2.8 1.9 1.3 1.5 5.1 1.9 4.0 1.5 1.4 -1.0 1.5 0.8 2.3 1.8 2.7 0.0 1.2 -0.8

Dec+RP+B2 2.7 1.9 4.0 -1.1 7.2 3.1 11.0 -0.5 3.4 -0.2 4.4 0.3 4.7 3.0 7.2 0.5 2.8 0.3

3.4 1.6 2.5 0.5 7.6 2.3 10.7 0.7 4.6 -1.0 3.5 0.9 4.4 2.3 8.3 0.1 4.8 -0.8

1.2 1.9 1.7 -0.5 4.6 2.4 10.2 -1.3 6.0 -1.6 2.6 0.9 3.4 2.6 8.7 -0.7 6.1 -1.7

Crop+110/2 2.3 1.6 1.9 0.5 5.0 2.0 8.3 0.4 4.8 -1.2 1.9 0.9 2.7 2.1 6.5 -0.1 4.6 -1.0

5.7 1.5 5.2 0.3 7.6 2.0 14.3 -1.0 7.3 -1.6 1.5 0.4 1.9 2.2 9.6 -1.3 8.1 -1.7

4.1 1.9 2.1 0.4 4.3 1.5 6.3 0.4 2.8 -0.4 1.9 -1.9 0.1 2.1 4.2 0.0 2.3 1.9

1.8 1.9 0.7 0.7 3.4 1.9 4.4 0.8 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.0 1.6 2.1 3.8 0.1 2.1 0.1

Cl2 Control 1.3 1.8 0.3 0.3 2.1 2.6 0.7 0.4 -0.7 -0.4 0.9 0.0 0.9 2.3 0.4 0.1 -0.5 0.2

KD No Crab 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.8 3.4 1.2 1.6 1.1 -0.5 -0.3 0.9 0.4 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.3 -0.4 -0.1

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2

Crop+Mild +RP110/2+RP+ 121/6110/2+RP+ 121/6+B2

270

Appendix 3


(%) (%) % % (wp) (Wf) (%) (%) Wp Wf


2/1 TwillLoom 26 6.8 1.8 3.2 3.4 47.8 3.2 36.4 25.2 9.4 -3.3 24.4 25.9 44.0 3.2 34.3 22.6 9.9 -3.3

Crab 26 2.1 2.0 0.9 0.8 27.5 3.1 31.2 7.1 8.9 0.3 21.1 6.2 26.0 3.0 30.6 6.4 9.4 0.2

Stent 26 3.8 1.5 0.4 1.8 26.0 2.1 31.1 5.5 10.7 -1.5 19.7 4.2 23.1 2.2 30.9 3.9 11.1 -0.4

Crop 26 3.5 1.5 2.3 -0.4 29.3 2.5 38.2 3.9 13.0 -1.5 23.1 4.7 26.7 2.6 36.8 4.3 13.7 -0.4

121/6 26 2.7 2.0 0.4 0.8 13.6 3.2 21.7 1.1 9.5 -0.5 10.7 0.6 11.2 3.3 21.4 0.3 10.7 -0.4

2.3 1.5 0.1 0.7 13.9 2.4 28.5 1.7 16.9 -0.8 10.5 1.6 11.9 2.4 27.7 1.1 17.1 -0.5

1.6 1.7 0.7 0.8 4.5 1.5 14.2 0.5 10.2 0.0 2.8 0.2 3.0 1.8 13.6 -0.3 10.8 -0.4

1.5 1.9 0.7 0.7 3.7 2.6 14.2 0.1 10.7 -0.2 2.3 0.0 2.3 2.8 13.6 -0.5 11.3 -0.5

Loom 33 5.7 1.3 2.0 3.1 34.2 4.6 22.4 16.7 4.6 -3.2 16.2 16.7 30.2 4.3 20.8 14.0 4.7 -2.7

Crab 33 1.9 1.7 0.8 0.8 15.4 2.3 27.2 1.6 15.4 -2.4 11.2 2.8 13.7 1.8 26.6 0.8 15.4 -2.0

Stent 33 4.0 1.1 1.1 3.1 13.7 1.7 26.4 5.3 16.9 0.6 9.1 1.1 10.1 1.7 25.6 2.2 16.5 1.1

Finished 33 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.4 3.5 1.8 9.7 -0.3 7.0 -1.2 1.9 0.1 2.0 1.8 9.5 -0.7 7.6 -0.8

121/6+RP 26121/6+RP+ 121/6 26Fully Finished 26

271

Appendix 3


(%) (%) % % (wp) (Wf) (%) (%) Wp Wf


3/3 TwillLoom 26 12.9 1.7 5.9 5.4 75.4 3.9 52.8 53.2 3.5 1.8 45.0 48.6 71.8 3.3 49.9 50.5 4.8 1.9

Scour 26 8.2 2.1 4.0 3.2 72.3 4.5 54.3 43.5 4.3 -1.1 47.5 42.5 69.8 4.6 52.4 41.6 4.9 -0.9

Crab 26 5.8 1.2 3.1 1.7 67.7 3.2 50.1 37.8 2.7 -0.8 45.7 36.9 65.7 3.3 48.6 36.7 2.9 -0.2

Stent 26 8.9 3.1 4.2 3.8 68.1 4.5 50.0 40.5 2.0 1.8 45.7 35.6 65.0 4.7 47.8 38.1 2.1 2.6

Crop 26 5.8 3.0 3.8 1.6 69.0 4.9 51.9 43.2 3.4 3.3 45.9 39.3 67.1 6.1 50.0 42.3 4.1 3.0

121/6 26 3.7 1.8 0.1 2.0 46.9 2.2 39.8 11.9 2.2 -3.1 36.0 13.8 44.9 2.7 39.7 10.1 3.6 -3.7

121/6+RP26 4.6 2.2 2.8 0.3 49.2 4.1 44.1 18.4 6.6 -0.4 34.7 18.4 46.7 4.5 42.5 18.1 7.8 -0.3

2.3 1.6 1.5 0.3 27.1 4.7 19.3 7.1 -2.9 0.8 20.4 6.2 25.3 4.8 18.1 6.9 -2.3 0.7

3.2 1.0 2.1 0.7 28.1 2.4 21.4 9.7 0.2 1.0 19.2 8.0 25.7 2.6 19.6 9.1 0.5 1.0

Loom 33 9.2 2.0 5.0 4.5 66.5 4.0 46.4 44.0 3.0 3.2 40.3 38.2 63.1 3.7 43.6 41.3 3.3 3.1

Crab 33 4.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 59.0 4.3 48.6 29.8 6.5 0.7 40.9 27.7 57.2 4.8 47.8 28.8 7.0 1.2

Stent 33 6.6 2.1 2.4 3.0 59.6 4.4 48.1 31.8 6.1 1.5 40.3 27.6 56.8 3.7 46.8 29.7 6.5 2.2

Finished 33 1.6 2.1 1.1 0.5 13.6 1.7 19.7 1.9 19.7 1.9 9.3 3.2 12.2 1.8 18.8 1.4 9.5 -1.9

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26

272

Appendix 3

PilotLoom

Crab

Stent

Crop

No KD

110C/2

110C/4

110C/6

114C/2

114C/4

114C/6

121C/2

121C/4

121C/6

121C/6 2bl

CalcInitial Er Initial Er Final Er Final Er Width Meas Er Calc Picks Er Ends ErB/n Sel Total B/n Sel Total b/n sel (gsm) (gsm) Wp Er Wf Er /cm /cm(cm) cm (cm) cm (cm) cm (cm) cm (cm) % %

155.6 0.5 158.5 0.3 155.5 0.2 158.5 0.2 − 124.7 1.1 − − − − − − − − −

143.2 0.3 146.1 0.2 143.6 0.5 146.0 0.4 144.7 135.8 1.1 129.4 9.3 0.6 11.2 0.7 27.7 0.9 31.0 1.0

144.3 0.1 147.2 0.2 143.6 0.2 146.8 0.4 143.2 136.7 1.3 130.6 7.3 0.8 9.9 0.8 28.8 1.0 31.3 1.0

143.2 0.1 146.1 0.1 143.4 0.2 146.1 0.2 144.1 132.5 1.4 129.8 6.5 0.7 12.8 0.8 28.1 0.9 31.1 1.0

140.9 0.1 143.5 0.2 141.4 0.1 144.1 0.2 141.1 138.8 1.3 133.4 8.2 0.7 11.5 0.8 29.0 1.0 31.8 1.1

138.7 0.2 141.2 0.2 138.9 0.1 141.5 0.3 139.0 138.7 1.2 135.8 9.2 0.7 16.4 0.8 28.1 0.9 32.3 1.1

139.6 0.2 142.2 0.1 140.2 0.2 143.0 0.2 143.5 136.0 1.1 131.8 9.3 0.8 12.5 0.8 28.2 0.9 31.3 1.0

141.4 0.2 144.0 0.1 141.7 0.1 144.5 0.1 143.2 135.4 1.3 131.3 9.1 0.8 12.7 0.8 27.9 0.9 31.3 1.0

141.3 0.2 143.9 0.3 141.1 0.2 143.9 0.2 138.5 141.7 1.5 135.0 8.5 0.8 13.5 0.7 28.5 1.0 32.4 1.1

141.3 0.1 143.9 0.1 141.2 0.1 143.9 0.1 142.0 137.8 1.2 135.9 10.4 0.7 15.0 0.8 28.7 1.0 31.6 1.1

139.3 0.4 141.9 0.3 139.3 0.3 142.3 0.5 142.0 140.8 1.2 138.0 11.5 0.8 16.1 0.9 29.1 1.0 31.6 1.1

139.8 0.7 142.9 0.3 140.3 0.6 142.9 0.6 143.8 137.7 1.2 133.2 7.7 0.8 14.0 0.8 28.9 1.0 31.2 1.0

140.5 0.3 142.7 0.2 140.8 0.3 143.2 0.3 146.6 135.9 1.4 133.7 8.8 0.8 14.4 0.7 29.3 1.0 30.6 1.0

140.4 0.3 142.4 0.6 140.6 0.2 143.1 0.3 140.5 140.1 1.5 136.0 9.0 0.7 12.2 0.7 29.6 1.0 31.9 1.1

137.0 0.2 139.9 0.2 137.2 0.4 140.4 0.3 141.4 140.6 1.4 133.4 8.3 0.6 12.3 0.5 28.8 1.0 31.7 1.1

epcm

Ends and Picks

gsm

Crimp %Width Mass per unit

ppcm

Table A3.2 Physical Test Results

273

Appendix 3

BulkLoom

Scour

Crab

Stent

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2


epcm

Ends and Picks

gsm


ppcm


153.7 0.2 157.4 0.1 153.7 0.4 157.3 0.3 156.1 130.5 0.8 129.6 9.8 0.4 6.5 0.4 28.3 0.9 28.7 1.0

147.9 0.2 151.9 0.1 148.1 0.3 151.4 0.2 149.5 135.4 0.8 131.5 9.0 0.4 8.4 0.5 27.5 0.9 30.0 1.0

137.9 0.2 140.5 0.6 136.6 0.2 139.7 0.2 141.1 145.0 0.9 139.1 6.8 0.4 16.1 0.6 27.7 0.9 31.8 1.1

138.4 1.1 141.3 0.7 138.3 0.6 141.5 0.6 143.2 142.6 0.8 136.8 7.6 0.4 13.2 0.5 27.7 0.9 31.3 1.0

135.7 0.2 138.8 0.1 135.8 0.1 139.3 0.2 139.3 144.5 0.9 138.5 6.6 0.4 15.2 0.5 27.3 0.9 32.2 1.1

133.2 0.1 136.4 0.1 133.4 0.1 136.5 0.1 133.8 148.6 0.7 142.4 6.7 0.4 16.2 0.5 27.4 0.9 33.5 1.1

132.0 0.4 135.1 0.4 132.0 0.3 135.1 0.3 134.3 152.4 1.0 145.9 6.7 0.5 16.9 0.6 28.9 1.0 33.4 1.1

133.6 0.4 136.6 0.4 133.8 0.4 136.9 0.3 133.5 152.8 0.9 145.6 6.9 0.4 17.9 0.6 28.3 0.9 33.6 1.1

131.9 0.3 134.8 0.3 132.0 0.2 134.8 0.2 134.6 153.4 0.7 145.2 7.0 0.5 17.0 0.5 28.5 1.0 33.3 1.1

129.6 1.0 132.6 1.1 130.1 0.9 133.2 0.9 133.8 143.4 1.0 139.5 3.3 0.5 16.9 0.5 27.1 0.9 33.5 1.1

125.6 0.3 128.4 0.3 125.6 0.3 128.5 0.4 126.7 154.8 0.8 144.4 3.5 0.4 21.5 0.7 26.3 0.9 35.4 1.2

127.6 0.6 130.1 0.3 127.3 0.2 130.2 0.2 129.4 153.9 0.7 144.4 4.9 0.5 18.6 0.7 27.1 0.9 34.7 1.2

125.2 0.4 127.1 0.2 124.3 0.2 127.3 0.3 126.7 158.2 1.0 146.1 4.3 0.7 21.1 0.6 26.8 0.9 35.4 1.2

274

Appendix 3

124/2

124/4

124/6

Dec+RP+B2

Crop+110/2

Cl2 Control

KD No Crab

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2



epcm

Ends and Picks

gsm


ppcm


125.3 0.4 128.2 0.5 125.3 0.5 128.4 0.4 127.9 157.7 0.8 145.3 4.8 0.4 20.9 0.7 26.7 0.9 35.1 1.2

134.4 0.4 137.0 0.6 134.2 0.6 137.3 0.7 135.4 152.0 0.7 143.6 7.1 0.4 16.8 0.6 28.1 0.9 33.1 1.1

132.9 0.6 136.1 0.6 133.0 0.6 136.2 0.6 133.2 151.8 0.4 144.0 6.3 0.4 17.1 0.6 27.9 0.9 33.7 1.1

133.0 0.2 136.0 0.1 133.1 0.2 136.3 0.3 136.8 151.3 0.9 141.0 7.0 0.4 14.7 0.5 27.8 0.9 32.8 1.1

128.3 0.4 131.3 0.4 128.4 0.3 131.6 0.3 130.4 148.5 0.8 142.9 3.9 3.9 20.2 0.7 26.7 0.9 34.4 1.1

128.4 0.2 131.3 0.3 128.4 0.4 131.6 0.3 129.4 150.7 1.0 142.8 3.3 0.4 18.5 0.5 27.0 0.9 34.7 1.2

127.2 0.5 130.1 0.4 127.1 0.6 130.1 0.4 127.0 152.7 0.9 148.4 4.3 0.4 22.6 0.6 27.5 0.9 35.3 1.2

135.3 0.1 138.5 0.1 135.2 0.1 138.5 0.1 135.1 150.1 0.9 140.4 5.8 0.4 15.3 0.5 27.3 0.9 33.2 1.1

131.8 0.5 135.0 0.4 132.0 0.3 135.0 0.4 136.2 144.1 0.9 141.1 5.3 0.4 20.0 0.6 27.0 0.9 32.9 1.1

128.4 0.5 131.5 0.3 128.5 0.4 130.7 0.6 129.4 148.9 1.2 143.5 3.3 0.4 19.0 0.6 27.2 0.9 34.7 1.2

127.7 0.5 130.5 0.6 127.6 0.7 130.6 0.8 131.7 152.2 0.8 143.3 4.7 0.4 19.2 0.7 27.2 0.9 34.1 1.1

131.2 0.5 134.1 0.4 131.5 0.8 134.2 0.6 134.0 164.1 0.8 154.9 12.9 0.4 19.6 0.4 30.0 1.0 33.5 1.1

141.2 0.4 143.8 0.5 141.1 0.5 143.9 0.5 144.7 151.9 0.9 141.5 10.2 0.4 11.3 0.5 29.8 1.0 31.0 1.0

275

Appendix 3

2/1 TwillLoom 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33



epcm

Ends and Picks

gsm


ppcm


155.2 0.4 158.3 0.3 155.5 0.3 158.5 0.3 156.1 134.9 1.0 127.3 7.2 0.5 6.8 0.4 27.9 0.9 28.7 1.0

135.5 0.2 138.2 0.3 135.6 0.3 138.4 0.3 136.8 146.1 0.9 142.5 6.5 0.4 18.3 0.5 27.7 0.9 32.8 1.1

137.0 0.3 139.9 0.3 137.1 0.2 140.0 0.3 137.3 143.9 0.9 140.9 5.4 0.4 18.6 0.6 27.5 0.9 32.7 1.1

134.4 0.4 137.3 0.2 134.6 0.3 137.5 0.2 136.5 143.9 0.9 140.9 4.3 0.3 21.1 0.4 27.1 0.9 32.9 1.1

131.5 0.6 134.1 0.6 131.7 0.7 134.3 0.5 132.5 154.4 0.8 145.6 6.4 0.4 20.8 0.6 27.5 0.9 33.9 1.1

132.1 0.2 134.7 0.2 132.2 0.2 134.9 0.1 134.0 148.5 0.8 142.8 4.5 0.4 19.6 0.5 27.5 0.9 33.5 1.1

127.6 0.5 130.3 0.4 128.2 0.6 131.0 0.5 132.7 152.0 1.0 146.5 4.7 0.4 22.3 0.5 28.1 0.9 33.8 1.1

129.2 0.1 131.6 0.3 128.9 0.1 131.7 0.1 131.9 154.8 0.8 146.9 5.9 0.4 20.0 0.5 28.2 0.9 34.0 1.1

152.3 0.2 155.4 0.1 152.2 0.1 155.1 0.2 155.0 151.0 0.9 144.4 6.6 0.4 9.1 0.6 35.1 1.2 28.9 1.0

133.5 0.3 136.5 0.2 133.5 0.1 136.6 0.2 135.9 164.6 1.2 159.4 4.4 0.4 20.4 0.5 34.7 1.2 33.0 1.1

138.4 0.2 141.1 0.2 138.5 0.2 141.4 0.2 140.2 157.8 0.9 155.1 5.5 0.4 16.1 0.5 34.8 1.2 32.0 1.1

129.2 0.4 132.0 0.2 128.8 0.4 132.1 0.2 131.4 173.8 0.7 164.1 5.8 0.4 19.4 0.6 35.5 1.2 34.1 1.1

276

Appendix 3

3/3 TwillLoom 26

Scour 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

121/6+RP26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26


epcm

Ends and Picks

gsm


ppcm


155.1 0.4 158.2 0.2 155.1 0.1 158.2 0.1 156.1 137.1 0.9 127.5 6.1 0.4 6.4 0.4 28.4 0.9 28.7 1.0

144.2 0.2 147.2 0.3 144.7 0.3 147.6 0.4 145.6 138.9 1.1 138.2 8.1 0.4 10.9 0.5 29.3 1.0 30.8 1.0

132.4 0.5 135.1 0.6 132.4 0.4 135.3 0.5 130.9 154.5 1.2 149.4 8.2 0.4 17.9 0.5 28.8 1.0 34.3 1.1

137.1 0.2 140.2 0.1 137.1 0.1 140.0 0.2 137.9 145.5 1.2 142.7 6.6 0.4 17.3 0.5 28.3 0.9 32.5 1.1

131.5 0.3 134.5 0.3 131.8 0.2 134.7 0.2 134.0 151.9 1.0 146.0 6.4 0.4 20.9 0.4 28.0 0.9 33.5 1.1

128.7 0.2 131.3 0.2 128.7 0.3 131.5 0.2 131.7 152.9 0.9 149.3 7.0 0.4 19.4 0.5 28.9 1.0 34.1 1.1

128.4 0.3 131.2 0.2 128.4 0.3 131.2 0.3 130.2 152.2 1.0 149.5 7.5 0.4 19.1 0.5 28.5 1.0 34.5 1.1

126.1 0.4 128.4 0.3 125.7 0.4 128.3 0.3 127.9 160.6 1.0 152.9 7.6 0.4 18.8 0.5 29.4 1.0 35.1 1.2

125.6 0.2 128.3 0.1 126.0 0.2 128.5 0.2 130.4 158.9 0.9 150.4 6.9 0.4 19.7 0.4 29.1 1.0 34.4 1.1

151.1 0.2 154.0 0.2 151.2 0.3 154.2 0.2 154.7 155.6 1.0 143.9 5.0 0.4 8.6 0.4 35.4 1.2 29.0 1.0

132.7 0.5 135.5 0.5 132.6 0.4 135.3 0.4 131.2 174.8 1.2 168.4 7.0 0.4 21.4 0.5 36.2 1.2 34.2 1.1

136.3 0.4 139.0 0.3 136.1 0.2 138.9 0.2 136.8 164.2 0.9 162.1 6.9 0.4 18.1 0.6 36.0 1.2 32.8 1.1

126.6 1.0 129.3 0.9 126.8 0.8 129.5 0.7 128.4 181.0 0.8 171.7 7.6 0.4 21.3 0.6 36.7 1.2 34.9 1.2

277

Appendix 3

PilotLoom

Crab

Stent

Crop

No KD

110C/2

110C/4

110C/6

114C/2

114C/4

114C/6

121C/2

121C/4

121C/6

121C/6 2bl

Total 2g 100gWarp Weft Warp Weft Cover K K thick thick

% Wp Wf CR g/cm3 g/cm3

− − − − − − − − − −

13.9 12.4 0.54 0.48 0.76 15.5 13.9 0.77 0.31 0.48

14.0 12.9 0.54 0.50 0.77 15.7 14.4 0.80 0.31 0.48

13.9 12.6 0.54 0.49 0.76 15.6 14.1 0.78 0.31 0.48

14.2 13.0 0.55 0.50 0.78 16.0 14.5 0.80 0.39 0.49

14.4 12.6 0.56 0.49 0.77 16.2 14.1 0.79 0.41 0.53

14.0 12.6 0.54 0.49 0.77 15.7 14.1 0.79 0.43 0.56

14.0 12.5 0.54 0.48 0.76 15.7 14.0 0.78 0.42 0.55

14.5 12.8 0.56 0.50 0.78 16.3 14.3 0.80 0.45 0.56

14.1 12.8 0.55 0.50 0.77 15.8 14.4 0.80 0.43 0.54

14.1 13.0 0.55 0.50 0.78 15.8 14.6 0.80 0.43 0.56

14.0 12.9 0.54 0.50 0.77 15.6 14.5 0.80 0.41 0.56

13.7 13.1 0.53 0.51 0.77 15.3 14.7 0.80 0.48 0.61

14.3 13.2 0.55 0.51 0.78 16.0 14.8 0.82 0.43 0.55

14.2 12.9 0.58 0.50 0.79 15.9 14.4 0.80 0.51 0.61

Fractional Cover Bogaty Compactness Ratio

DensityCover Factor (SI)

Table A3.2 (cont.) Physical Test Results

278

Appendix 3

BulkLoom

Scour

Crab

Stent

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2






13.5 12.6 0.52 0.49 0.76 15.12 14.18 0.78 0.16 0.42

14.1 12.3 0.55 0.48 0.76 15.78 13.78 0.77 0.21 0.42

14.9 12.4 0.58 0.48 0.78 16.73 13.91 0.80 0.32 0.47

14.7 12.4 0.57 0.48 0.78 16.48 13.88 0.79 0.30 0.47

15.1 12.2 0.59 0.47 0.78 16.94 13.71 0.79 0.33 0.47

15.7 12.3 0.61 0.48 0.80 17.64 13.74 0.81 0.46 0.57

15.7 12.9 0.61 0.50 0.80 17.57 14.48 0.83 0.50 0.60

15.8 12.6 0.61 0.49 0.80 17.68 14.18 0.82 0.51 0.61

15.6 12.8 0.61 0.50 0.80 17.54 14.31 0.82 0.49 0.60

15.7 12.1 0.61 0.47 0.79 17.64 13.58 0.80 0.44 0.55

16.6 11.7 0.64 0.46 0.81 18.62 13.17 0.80 0.53 0.66

16.3 12.1 0.63 0.47 0.80 18.24 13.61 0.81 0.55 0.67

16.6 12.0 0.64 0.46 0.81 18.62 13.44 0.81 0.53 0.65

279

Appendix 3

124/2

124/4

124/6

Dec+RP+B2

Crop+110/2

Cl2 Control

KD No Crab

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2







16.4 11.9 0.64 0.46 0.81 18.45 13.38 0.81 0.52 0.64

15.5 12.6 0.60 0.49 0.80 17.43 14.08 0.81 0.47 0.61

15.8 12.5 0.61 0.48 0.80 17.71 13.98 0.82 0.45 0.58

15.4 12.4 0.60 0.48 0.79 17.25 13.94 0.81 0.48 0.62

16.1 12.0 0.63 0.46 0.80 18.1 13.41 0.80 0.46 0.58

16.3 12.1 0.63 0.47 0.80 18.24 13.54 0.81 0.50 0.61

16.6 12.3 0.64 0.48 0.81 18.59 13.78 0.82 0.54 0.65

15.6 12.2 0.60 0.47 0.79 17.47 13.71 0.80 0.41 0.53

15.4 12.1 0.60 0.47 0.79 17.32 13.54 0.79 0.44 0.56

16.3 12.2 0.63 0.47 0.81 18.24 13.64 0.81 0.56 0.69

16.0 12.2 0.62 0.47 0.80 17.92 13.64 0.81 0.55 0.68

15.7 13.4 0.61 0.52 0.81 17.6 15.0 0.85 0.49 0.57

14.5 13.3 0.56 0.52 0.79 16.3 14.9 0.83 0.57 0.69

280

Appendix 3

2/1 TwillLoom 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33







13.5 12.5 0.52 0.48 0.75 15.1 14.0 0.65 0.20 0.35

15.4 12.4 0.60 0.48 0.79 17.3 13.9 0.68 0.30 0.40

15.3 12.3 0.59 0.48 0.79 17.2 13.8 0.68 0.29 0.39

15.4 12.1 0.60 0.47 0.79 17.3 13.6 0.67 0.29 0.39

15.9 12.3 0.62 0.48 0.80 17.8 13.8 0.69 0.48 0.60

15.7 12.3 0.61 0.48 0.80 17.6 13.8 0.69 0.48 0.63

15.9 12.6 0.62 0.49 0.80 17.8 14.1 0.70 0.55 0.70

15.9 12.6 0.62 0.49 0.81 17.9 14.1 0.70 0.53 0.66

13.6 15.7 0.53 0.61 0.81 15.2 17.6 0.75 0.21 0.40

15.5 15.5 0.60 0.60 0.84 17.4 17.4 0.79 0.33 0.43

15.0 15.6 0.58 0.60 0.83 16.8 17.5 0.78 0.34 0.45

16.0 15.9 0.62 0.62 0.85 18.0 17.8 0.81 0.58 0.70

281

Appendix 3

3/3 TwillLoom 26

Scour 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

121/6+RP26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26






13.5 12.7 0.52 0.49 0.76 15.1 14.2 0.53 0.19 0.30

14.4 13.1 0.56 0.51 0.78 16.2 14.7 0.56 0.20 0.29

16.1 12.9 0.62 0.50 0.81 18.0 14.4 0.58 0.22 0.31

15.3 12.7 0.59 0.49 0.79 17.1 14.2 0.56 0.22 0.30

15.7 12.5 0.61 0.49 0.80 17.6 14.0 0.57 0.21 0.30

16.0 12.9 0.62 0.50 0.81 17.9 14.5 0.58 0.43 0.59

16.2 12.8 0.63 0.50 0.81 18.1 14.3 0.58 0.415 0.573

16.4 13.1 0.64 0.51 0.82 18.4 14.7 0.59 0.472 0.629

16.1 13.0 0.63 0.50 0.81 18.1 14.6 0.59 0.497 0.663

13.6 15.8 0.53 0.61 0.82 15.3 17.8 0.61 0.193 0.306

16.0 16.2 0.62 0.63 0.86 18.0 18.2 0.66 0.235 0.307

15.4 16.1 0.60 0.62 0.85 17.3 18.1 0.65 0.234 0.314

16.4 16.4 0.64 0.64 0.87 18.4 18.4 0.67 0.519 0.684

282

Appendix 3

PilotLoom

Crab

Stent

Crop

No KD

110C/2

110C/4

110C/6

114C/2

114C/4

114C/6

121C/2

121C/4

121C/6

121C/6 2bl

RS% Er RS% Er HE%Er HE% Er Form Form Shear(wp) % (wf) % (wp) % (wf) % (wp) (wf) 5g 5g 20g 20g 100g 100g Bias G

mm² mm² wp wf wp wf wp wf wp wf N/m

− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

-0.6 0.7 0.4 1.0 5.5 0.6 7.0 0.8 0.36 0.46 0.6 0.6 1.9 2.4 5.0 6.8 6.0 4.0 3.9 21

-1.1 0.8 2.5 0.8 4.2 0.8 6.3 0.7 0.35 0.43 0.4 0.6 1.6 2.1 4.6 6.1 6.3 4.4 4.1 20

0.5 0.8 1.1 1.1 5.3 0.7 6.9 1.0 0.36 0.45 0.5 0.6 1.9 2.5 5.2 7.0 6.2 3.8 3.5 20

-0.1 0.6 -0.6 0.8 5.2 0.9 7.3 0.9 0.33 0.49 0.7 0.8 1.9 2.7 4.8 7.6 5.0 4.1 3.7 25

0.3 1.0 -0.3 0.8 5.2 1.0 7.5 0.7 0.42 0.52 0.5 0.9 2.1 3.1 5.6 8.9 5.5 4.1 3.4 22

0.3 0.6 -0.1 0.6 6.0 0.7 6.9 0.7 0.37 0.55 0.5 0.7 1.9 2.8 5.3 7.9 4.2 3.9 3.9 30

0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 5.9 0.7 6.9 1.1 0.34 0.37 0.5 0.7 1.8 2.3 5.1 6.5 4.5 3.9 3.3 27

0.8 0.8 1.1 0.7 5.6 1.0 7.3 0.8 0.29 0.41 0.5 0.7 1.7 2.5 4.5 7.3 4.5 3.7 3.3 27

0.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 6.0 0.9 7.2 0.6 0.32 0.46 0.5 0.7 1.7 2.8 4.9 8.0 4.8 3.7 3.2 26

0.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 6.1 0.7 7.7 0.7 0.42 0.49 0.5 0.7 2.1 2.8 5.8 8.1 4.4 3.8 3.5 28

0.6 0.8 0.5 0.9 5.8 0.8 6.8 0.8 0.30 0.47 0.6 0.8 1.8 3.0 4.7 8.4 4.5 3.7 3.2 27

1.2 0.8 1.2 0.8 6.2 0.8 7.1 0.8 0.36 0.44 0.4 0.8 1.9 2.8 5.4 7.8 3.8 3.7 3.3 32

1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 6.3 0.7 7.5 0.8 0.35 0.48 0.6 0.9 2.0 2.8 5.0 7.8 4.9 3.9 3.6 25

0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 5.6 0.7 7.6 0.7 0.32 0.40 0.5 0.7 1.8 2.5 5.0 7.1 3.6 3.7 3.3 34

FAST TestingBending Rigidity

Table A3.3 Objective Test Results

µN.m

Extensibility %

283

Appendix 3

BulkLoom

Scour

Crab

Stent

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2





µN.m

Extensibility %

3.6 0.7 2.9 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.28 0.24 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.6 3.7 0.5 10.1 11.8 246

1.2 0.8 0.9 0.5 1.5 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.29 0.34 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.3 3.8 4.4 2.3 6.7 6.8 54

-0.1 0.9 -0.4 0.7 5.4 0.7 6.9 0.7 0.43 0.51 0.6 0.7 1.9 2.5 6.6 8.0 5.7 4.7 4.1 21

-0.3 0.3 1.0 0.8 4.9 0.4 7.7 0.9 0.42 0.80 0.7 0.9 2.0 3.3 8.7 10.3 5.4 4.6 4.9 23

0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 4.7 0.5 7.9 0.6 0.33 0.61 0.3 1.1 1.3 3.7 3.6 10.1 5.1 4.8 3.5 24

1.2 0.5 1.4 0.5 4.9 0.5 8.6 0.5 0.35 0.54 0.4 0.9 1.4 3.1 4.0 9.2 3.5 5.1 3.6 35

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 5.4 0.4 8.4 0.7 0.33 0.54 0.3 0.8 1.4 3.1 4.4 9.7 3.5 4.4 3.4 35

0.8 0.4 1.2 1.1 5.4 0.4 8.2 1.1 0.36 0.58 0.4 0.9 1.3 3.2 4.0 10.2 3.1 5.4 3.7 39

0.3 0.4 0.8 0.4 5.1 0.5 9.3 0.7 0.30 0.52 0.5 0.9 1.5 3.2 4.5 9.2 3.5 4.5 3.3 35

6.6 0.9 -0.8 0.6 4.8 0.9 8.4 0.9 0.16 0.37 0.3 0.6 0.7 2.1 1.8 7.5 2.3 5.1 3.6 53

1.1 0.3 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.4 8.7 0.5 0.21 0.63 0.1 0.9 0.6 3.6 2.3 10.8 2.3 6.2 3.4 54

0.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.8 0.5 8.4 0.7 0.28 0.62 0.2 0.8 1.1 3.3 3.7 10.3 2.4 4.8 3.6 51

0.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 3.5 0.4 9.8 0.5 0.24 0.79 0.2 0.9 0.8 3.9 3.8 11.9 2.6 5.5 3.9 47

284

Appendix 3

124/2

124/4

124/6

Dec+RP+B2

Crop+110/2

Cl2 Control

KD No Crab

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2






µN.m

Extensibility %

0.7 0.6 0.1 0.3 3.8 0.6 9.4 0.4 0.26 0.64 0.2 0.9 0.9 3.8 2.9 11.1 2.5 5.5 3.5 50

1.0 0.6 0.4 0.6 4.6 0.5 6.7 0.5 0.29 0.51 0.3 0.8 1.3 2.9 4.0 8.6 2.7 4.3 3.5 46

1.1 0.6 1.2 0.6 5.0 0.6 8.2 0.7 0.30 0.58 0.3 0.9 1.3 3.4 3.9 10.3 3.4 4.3 3.4 36

0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 4.7 0.6 7.2 0.5 0.27 0.45 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.7 3.5 7.7 2.6 4.5 3.4 46

2.7 0.6 -0.5 0.5 3.8 0.5 9.1 0.5 0.21 0.57 0.2 1.1 0.9 3.8 2.1 10.5 3.8 4.6 3.1 32

2.0 0.6 0.9 0.6 3.9 0.8 8.9 0.5 0.21 0.59 0.3 1.0 0.9 3.6 2.4 10.3 3.2 5.1 3.4 39

1.4 0.5 -0.6 0.6 4.0 0.5 9.5 1.0 0.25 0.70 0.2 1.2 0.9 4.5 2.9 12.9 3.2 5.0 3.1 39

1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 4.7 0.4 7.8 0.5 0.30 0.51 0.4 0.8 1.4 3.1 3.8 8.7 4.0 4.4 3.3 31

6.7 0.9 -0.6 0.6 4.8 0.9 8.1 0.7 0.13 0.54 0.1 1.1 0.5 3.7 1.6 10.2 3.5 5.3 3.1 35

1.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 3.3 0.4 7.6 0.4 0.20 0.49 0.3 0.8 0.9 3.0 2.3 8.4 2.5 5.1 3.3 49

0.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 3.5 0.5 8.1 0.4 0.20 0.58 0.2 0.9 0.7 3.4 2.4 9.6 2.7 5.2 3.4 46

0.5 0.6 -0.3 0.6 6.9 0.5 9.5 0.5 0.48 0.76 0.5 0.8 2.0 3.2 6.3 10.5 3.1 4.7 4.6 39

0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 5.8 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.41 0.42 0.4 0.5 1.8 2.2 5.8 6.5 2.8 4.4 3.8 44

285

Appendix 3

2/1 TwillLoom 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33






µN.m

Extensibility %

3.5 0.5 3.0 0.6 2.5 0.4 1.7 0.8 0.28 0.22 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.6 3.4 3.6 1.9 7.8 6.8 64

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 5.6 0.4 10.3 0.7 0.38 0.88 0.4 1.7 1.6 5.5 4.1 12.6 8.1 4.8 3.4 15

-0.3 0.6 2.3 0.6 5.8 0.6 11.2 0.7 0.43 0.89 0.5 1.8 1.8 5.6 4.8 13.5 8.4 4.8 3.4 15

1.9 0.6 -1.1 0.6 5.7 0.7 10.0 0.5 0.34 0.93 0.4 1.7 1.5 5.7 3.8 13.5 7.3 4.9 3.4 17

0.8 0.6 0.8 0.3 4.2 0.6 7.8 0.5 0.37 0.76 0.3 1.3 1.3 4.5 4.6 15.5 3.4 5.4 3.5 36

0.8 0.3 0.8 0.3 4.6 0.3 8.0 0.5 0.27 0.69 0.3 1.2 1.1 4.3 3.0 12.2 3.3 5.0 3.3 37

0.4 0.3 -1.0 1.5 3.8 0.5 5.5 1.6 0.29 0.72 0.2 0.9 0.9 3.7 2.9 12.9 2.4 6.0 3.8 51

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 4.0 0.4 7.2 0.5 0.37 0.80 0.2 0.9 1.2 3.9 3.4 13.2 2.3 5.6 3.9 54

2.7 0.5 4.1 0.8 1.5 0.5 1.3 0.9 0.30 0.19 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 2.4 2.4 0.5 12.1 9.4 254

0.0 0.6 -0.3 0.4 4.1 0.5 8.5 0.3 0.35 1.03 0.3 1.4 1.3 4.9 3.5 12.6 6.2 5.1 4.3 20

-0.4 0.6 2.6 0.7 4.4 0.6 8.4 0.6 0.32 0.80 0.4 1.1 1.4 4.0 3.9 9.9 6.1 4.8 4.1 20

0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 3.1 0.4 6.7 0.5 0.34 0.82 0.2 0.5 1.1 2.8 3.4 8.8 2.0 5.8 5.3 60

286

Appendix 3

3/3 TwillLoom 26

Scour 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

121/6+RP26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26





µN.m

Extensibility %

6.8 0.7 5.4 0.6 7.9 0.7 6.0 0.6 0.46 0.38 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 5.8 4.2 13.3 5.2 4.5 9

2.8 0.5 1.8 0.7 8.9 0.5 7.1 1.3 0.62 0.86 1.0 2.0 2.9 5.1 6.3 11.5 13.2 4.8 4.1 9

1.3 0.6 1.0 0.6 10.1 0.7 13.2 1.1 0.64 1.29 1.0 3.5 3.1 8.7 6.6 16.8 16.1 4.6 3.6 8

1.3 1.1 3.6 0.9 9.8 1.0 12.8 1.2 0.61 1.12 1.0 3.1 2.9 7.9 6.2 14.6 13.3 4.7 3.4 9

3.1 0.4 0.2 1.0 9.7 0.5 13.0 1.0 0.47 1.61 0.7 4.2 2.1 10.8 5.0 19.8 14.7 5.1 3.6 8

-3.0 0.5 0.4 0.6 2.1 0.6 8.0 0.9 0.53 1.04 0.5 1.6 1.9 5.6 4.6 16.1 5.2 5.6 3.8 24

1.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 6.8 0.7 8.5 0.8 0.40 1.07 0.4 1.7 1.6 6.0 4.3 19.2 5.6 5.0 3.7 22

0.0 0.7 -0.1 0.8 5.0 0.6 6.0 1.1 0.41 1.02 0.3 1.1 1.3 4.5 4.6 17.6 2.2 5.8 4.4 55

0.1 0.5 -0.1 0.4 5.1 0.5 6.1 0.7 0.37 0.86 0.3 1.1 1.3 4.2 3.8 16.1 2.4 5.4 4.2 51

4.8 0.8 4.4 0.6 5.5 0.6 5.2 0.7 0.31 0.58 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.7 3.3 6.2 8.8 6.6 6.9 14

0.3 0.6 1.1 0.9 6.6 1.1 12.1 1.2 0.58 1.77 0.8 3.4 2.4 9.0 5.4 18.3 13.6 5.3 4.6 9

0.4 0.5 3.1 0.6 7.5 0.5 11.4 0.8 0.56 1.36 1.0 2.7 2.7 7.2 5.6 15.1 12.5 4.9 4.4 10

-0.1 0.3 -0.3 0.3 4.7 0.3 5.2 0.4 0.47 0.80 0.3 0.6 1.5 2.6 4.4 8.5 1.8 5.9 5.9 67

287

Appendix 3

PilotLoom

Crab

Stent

Crop

No KD

110C/2

110C/4

110C/6

114C/2

114C/4

114C/6

121C/2

121C/4

121C/6

121C/6 2bl

T2 T100 ST TR2 TR100STR FSR SFS EFS TFS Perm% % % % Set%

− − − − − − − − − − −

0.41 0.27 0.15 0.44 0.27 0.16 88.4 − − − −

0.42 0.27 0.15 0.42 0.28 0.14 104.3 14.6 11.0 -3.7 133.3

0.42 0.27 0.15 0.42 0.27 0.15 103.4 -5.0 -8.6 -3.6 58.3

0.35 0.27 0.08 0.37 0.27 0.10 76.8 32.7 48.3 15.6 67.6

0.33 0.25 0.08 0.33 0.26 0.08 100.0 46.9 46.9 0.0 100.0

0.31 0.23 0.07 0.30 0.23 0.07 101.4 53.1 52.4 -0.7 101.3

0.31 0.24 0.07 0.32 0.24 0.08 93.4 48.3 51.7 3.4 93.4

0.30 0.24 0.06 0.31 0.24 0.07 87.0 53.1 59.2 6.1 89.7

0.32 0.25 0.07 0.33 0.25 0.08 88.3 47.6 53.7 6.1 88.6

0.32 0.25 0.08 0.33 0.24 0.09 89.7 40.8 46.9 6.1 87.0

0.33 0.24 0.09 0.32 0.24 0.08 103.6 42.9 40.8 -2.0 105.0

0.28 0.22 0.06 0.29 0.23 0.07 87.7 55.8 61.2 5.4 91.1

0.32 0.25 0.07 0.35 0.27 0.08 85.7 42.9 51.0 8.2 84.0

0.26 0.22 0.05 0.29 0.23 0.06 − − − − −

Table A3.3 (cont.) Objective Test Results FAST TestingCompression

288

Appendix 3

BulkLoom

Scour

Crab

Stent

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2



0.81 0.31 0.50 1.08 0.32 0.75 66.3 − − − −

0.63 0.31 0.32 0.83 0.32 0.51 62.6 31.8 57.3 25.5 55.6

0.44 0.30 0.14 0.46 0.30 0.16 87.9 69.5 73.2 3.7 94.9

0.45 0.29 0.16 0.46 0.30 0.16 99.4 -4.5 -3.8 0.6 116.7

0.42 0.29 0.12 0.43 0.30 0.13 91.0 18.3 25.6 7.3 71.4

0.31 0.25 0.06 0.36 0.26 0.10 56.4 24.6 57.5 32.8 42.9

0.29 0.24 0.05 0.33 0.25 0.08 63.3 21.8 50.5 28.7 43.1

0.29 0.24 0.05 0.31 0.25 0.06 81.0 20.3 35.4 15.2 76.0

0.30 0.24 0.05 0.33 0.26 0.07 77.1 -11.1 14.3 25.4 66.0

0.32 0.25 0.07 0.34 0.25 0.08 77.4 -20.0 7.1 27.1 47.2

0.28 0.22 0.05 0.30 0.24 0.07 83.1 22.6 35.7 13.1 63.3

0.26 0.22 0.05 0.28 0.22 0.06 83.9 13.8 27.7 13.8 50.0

0.27 0.23 0.05 0.29 0.23 0.06 81.4 -5.4 14.3 19.6 35.3

289

Appendix 3

124/2

124/4

124/6

Dec+RP+B2

Crop+110/2

Cl2 Control

KD No Crab

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2




0.28 0.23 0.05 0.29 0.23 0.06 82.5 -6.8 11.9 18.6 15.4

0.30 0.24 0.07 0.35 0.25 0.10 68.4 -55.6 -6.3 49.2 8.8

0.32 0.25 0.07 0.36 0.27 0.09 76.1 6.1 28.6 22.4 29.0

0.29 0.23 0.07 0.32 0.24 0.08 79.3 10.9 29.3 18.5 52.8

0.31 0.25 0.07 0.32 0.25 0.08 86.7 8.5 20.7 12.2 47.4

0.29 0.23 0.05 0.31 0.24 0.07 74.0 2.7 28.0 25.3 36.7

0.28 0.23 0.05 0.30 0.24 0.06 76.2 13.7 34.2 20.5 40.0

0.35 0.27 0.08 0.37 0.27 0.10 82.3 -52.4 -25.4 27.0 69.1

0.32 0.25 0.07 0.39 0.27 0.11 63.7 -17.7 25.0 42.7 -70.8

0.26 0.21 0.05 0.28 0.22 0.07 74.2 41.6 56.6 15.0 73.4

0.26 0.21 0.05 0.28 0.22 0.06 89.1 16.7 25.8 9.1 64.7

0.32 0.27 0.05 0.36 0.29 0.07 62.2 − − − −

0.25 0.21 0.04 0.30 0.23 0.07 64.6 − − − −

290

Appendix 3

2/1 TwillLoom 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33




0.62 0.36 0.26 0.80 0.37 0.43 61.2 − − − −

0.48 0.36 0.12 0.51 0.37 0.15 81.4 66.3 72.6 6.3 122.9

0.48 0.36 0.12 0.49 0.36 0.13 93.1 10.3 16.6 6.2 62.5

0.49 0.36 0.13 0.51 0.36 0.14 90.8 -9.2 0.8 10.0 -1200.0

0.31 0.24 0.06 0.35 0.26 0.08 76.2 40.8 54.9 14.1 74.4

0.30 0.23 0.07 0.33 0.24 0.09 80.5 -3.6 16.7 20.2 -21.4

0.27 0.21 0.06 0.28 0.22 0.07 89.2 25.3 33.3 8.0 75.9

0.28 0.22 0.06 0.28 0.22 0.06 96.7 7.7 10.8 3.1 71.4

0.69 0.37 0.33 0.90 0.38 0.53 61.6 − − − −

0.48 0.37 0.11 0.51 0.36 0.15 77.4 72.4 78.6 6.2 66.7

0.46 0.35 0.11 0.48 0.36 0.12 90.2 16.4 24.7 8.2 66.7

0.28 0.23 0.05 0.33 0.26 0.07 67.6 39.3 59.0 19.7 28.1

291

Appendix 3

3/3 TwillLoom 26

Scour 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

121/6+RP26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26



0.66 0.43 0.23 0.81 0.46 0.35 67.8 − − − −

0.69 0.47 0.22 0.81 0.50 0.31 71.2 11.3 36.8 25.5 30.709

0.68 0.49 0.19 0.75 0.52 0.24 81.8 22.9 36.9 14.1 61.947

0.66 0.47 0.20 0.74 0.50 0.25 79.3 -4.2 17.4 21.6 -24.4

0.70 0.49 0.21 0.78 0.51 0.26 80.0 -5.7 15.4 21.1 -36.8

0.35 0.25 0.09 0.47 0.32 0.15 63.9 43.5 63.8 20.4 68.1

0.36 0.26 0.10 0.41 0.29 0.12 80.5 16.3 32.7 16.3 50.0

0.32 0.24 0.08 0.35 0.25 0.10 80.0 18.7 35.0 16.3 53.5

0.30 0.23 0.08 0.37 0.26 0.11 68.5 -11.0 24.0 35.0 -45.8

0.75 0.47 0.28 0.83 0.48 0.35 78.0 − − − −

0.72 0.55 0.17 0.74 0.55 0.19 90.9 47.5 52.3 4.8 90.8

0.69 0.52 0.18 0.71 0.53 0.19 95.2 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0

0.33 0.25 0.08 0.36 0.27 0.09 87.0 50.5 57.0 6.5 88.7

292

Appendix 3

PilotLoom

Crab

Stent

Crop

No KD

110C/2

110C/4

110C/6

114C/2

114C/4

114C/6

121C/2

121C/4

121C/6

121C/6 2bl

MIU MIU MMD MMD SMD SMD EMC WC RC LC B Bwp wf wp wf wp wf % gf.cm % wp wf wp wf wp wf wp wf wp wf

(µm) (µm)

0.19 0.21 0.04 0.03 8.87 7.44 64.9 0.51 52.1 0.63 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.95 0.92 1.18 1.10

0.19 0.21 0.02 0.02 9.63 8.08 43.8 0.17 50.9 0.52 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.28 0.22

0.21 0.19 0.03 0.03 8.96 7.08 36.0 0.14 47.3 0.61 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.20

0.20 0.20 0.02 0.02 8.56 6.52 38.4 0.14 50.4 0.57 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.35

0.19 0.19 0.03 0.02 9.20 6.40 24.1 0.07 43.5 0.59 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.31

0.18 0.17 0.02 0.03 8.99 6.96 24.1 0.06 39.1 0.56 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.19 0.22 0.21

0.17 0.17 0.03 0.02 8.70 7.09 24.9 0.06 33.0 0.52 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.26 0.20 0.26

0.17 0.16 0.02 0.02 8.72 6.66 22.7 0.06 33.0 0.57 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.21

0.16 0.17 0.03 0.03 8.47 7.06 21.7 0.04 15.9 0.44 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.27 0.20 0.25

0.17 0.17 0.03 0.02 8.47 7.32 22.6 0.05 20.4 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.42 0.57 0.36

0.16 0.16 0.02 0.02 8.55 6.26 31.9 0.05 19.1 0.31 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.22

0.18 0.17 0.03 0.02 8.74 5.96 23.1 0.05 31.7 0.47 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.30 0.21 0.29

0.16 0.15 0.03 0.02 7.99 6.45 24.7 0.04 27.6 0.42 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.23

0.17 0.16 0.02 0.02 8.45 6.45 21.2 0.05 31.7 0.54 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.25

0.15 0.16 0.02 0.02 8.92 6.32 20.1 0.07 64.9 0.41 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.17

gf/cm²/cm

KES-F Testing

RSB 5°

gf.cm/cm

2HB 1°Compression Bending

2HB 0.5°

gf.cm/cm ----- -----


RSB 1°Surface

293

Appendix 3

BulkLoom

Scour

Crab

Stent

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2


(µm) (µm) gf/cm²/cm

KES-F Testing

RSB 5°

gf.cm/cm


2HB 0.5°

gf.cm/cm ----- -----


RSB 1°Surface

0.16 0.17 0.02 0.02 7.91 7.21 58.8 0.48 56.8 0.36 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.08 1.40 0.55 1.87 1.21

0.17 0.17 0.03 0.03 7.20 6.93 51.3 0.41 63.8 0.39 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.44 0.40 0.53 0.41

0.19 0.18 0.03 0.02 8.91 7.35 27.0 0.13 58.4 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.24 0.21

0.20 0.19 0.02 0.02 10.49 7.38 29.2 0.14 58.1 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.31

0.22 0.19 0.03 0.02 9.47 7.10 26.9 0.13 60.6 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.30

0.16 0.15 0.02 0.02 9.23 6.60 20.9 0.08 63.2 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.20

0.16 0.15 0.03 0.02 7.96 6.29 17.8 0.07 61.9 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.25 0.20 0.21

0.15 0.14 0.03 0.02 8.92 6.45 17.8 0.07 63.8 0.46 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.25 0.20 0.24

0.17 0.16 0.02 0.02 7.18 5.96 19.6 0.07 63.1 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.64 0.20 0.23

0.13 0.14 0.02 0.02 5.76 5.69 22.0 0.07 64.4 0.37 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.21

0.16 0.14 0.03 0.02 7.07 6.75 19.7 0.07 66.9 0.46 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.27 0.21 0.23

0.17 0.16 0.03 0.02 8.39 6.68 17.6 0.07 61.5 0.46 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.33 0.22 0.30

0.15 0.15 0.02 0.02 8.07 5.90 19.7 0.06 60.6 0.39 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.20

294

Appendix 3

124/2

124/4

124/6

Dec+RP+B2

Crop+110/2

Cl2 Control

KD No Crab

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2




KES-F Testing

RSB 5°

gf.cm/cm


2HB 0.5°

gf.cm/cm ----- -----


RSB 1°Surface

0.14 0.14 0.02 0.02 7.37 5.80 18.2 0.06 61.1 0.44 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.28 0.21 0.23

0.15 0.14 0.02 0.02 8.13 6.38 21.0 0.09 66.7 0.49 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.21

0.16 0.15 0.02 0.02 8.31 6.57 22.4 0.10 67.2 0.48 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.15

0.15 0.14 0.03 0.02 8.65 6.12 24.6 0.09 65.2 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.19 0.23

0.17 0.16 0.02 0.02 8.73 5.89 18.1 0.07 66.2 0.47 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.21

0.15 0.15 0.02 0.02 8.13 5.94 21.2 0.08 67.7 0.45 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.18 0.20

0.16 0.14 0.02 0.02 6.65 6.57 20.0 0.07 65.0 0.45 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.38 0.21 0.34

0.17 0.15 0.02 0.02 8.51 6.53 22.9 0.10 66.0 0.45 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.22

0.16 0.15 0.02 0.02 7.49 6.15 29.5 0.09 66.5 0.32 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.23 0.17 0.19

0.15 0.15 0.02 0.03 7.72 6.19 26.2 0.08 60.2 0.38 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.23

0.14 0.15 0.02 0.02 7.70 6.20 19.3 0.06 61.4 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.24 0.19 0.21

0.15 0.16 0.02 0.02 7.56 6.13 21.7 0.07 57.2 0.63 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.26

0.14 0.14 0.03 0.02 6.75 6.17 19.7 0.06 63.3 0.44 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.20

295

Appendix 3

2/1 TwillLoom 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33




KES-F Testing

RSB 5°

gf.cm/cm


2HB 0.5°

gf.cm/cm ----- -----


RSB 1°Surface

0.20 0.26 0.01 0.04 4.25 10.08 46.3 0.33 56.5 0.35 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.82 0.69 0.90

0.21 0.22 0.01 0.02 4.78 6.91 24.5 0.17 55.6 0.49 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.21

0.21 0.22 0.02 0.02 4.58 6.05 26.1 0.15 59.5 0.42 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.21 0.24 0.23

0.22 0.21 0.02 0.02 5.07 6.15 28.2 0.16 56.6 0.37 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.24

0.15 0.16 0.02 0.02 5.24 5.74 22.1 0.07 71.2 0.40 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20

0.14 0.15 0.01 0.02 4.77 5.81 26.7 0.08 68.8 0.33 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.21 0.24 0.19

0.14 0.14 0.02 0.02 4.53 4.50 20.6 0.08 65.0 0.48 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.27

0.13 0.13 0.01 0.02 4.63 4.84 21.2 0.08 61.4 0.48 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.24

0.21 0.23 0.02 0.04 5.62 8.39 50.1 0.43 55.2 0.39 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.82 0.93 0.85 0.93

0.23 0.20 0.02 0.02 4.40 5.56 25.4 0.15 53.3 0.42 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.22

0.22 0.20 0.02 0.02 4.35 6.22 25.1 0.17 56.2 0.49 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.29

0.14 0.14 0.02 0.02 4.74 4.39 25.3 0.08 62.5 0.36 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.32 0.28 0.34

296

Appendix 3

3/3 TwillLoom 26

Scour 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

121/6+RP26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26



KES-F Testing

RSB 5°

gf.cm/cm


2HB 0.5°

gf.cm/cm ----- -----


RSB 1°Surface

0.24 0.28 0.02 0.02 6.57 8.95 38.5 0.33 55.2 0.40 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.54 0.46 0.55 0.51

0.28 0.28 0.03 0.02 9.51 7.46 34.7 0.34 53.7 0.46 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.34

0.26 0.23 0.02 0.02 10.92 5.54 31.5 0.29 55.4 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.30

0.25 0.22 0.02 0.01 9.57 4.99 31.5 0.29 53.6 0.44 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.28

0.28 0.22 0.02 0.02 9.57 5.81 31.5 0.29 51.9 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35

0.16 0.14 0.02 0.01 4.80 4.70 24.0 0.12 61.7 0.50 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.27 0.29 0.29

0.16 0.15 0.01 0.01 5.25 4.62 30.7 0.14 59.6 0.41 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.31 0.26 0.30

0.13 0.14 0.02 0.01 4.30 3.66 26.1 0.13 62.2 0.51 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.34 0.29 0.33

0.13 0.13 0.02 0.01 4.63 4.12 29.8 0.08 73.9 0.31 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.26

0.28 0.26 0.03 0.02 5.50 7.10 38.8 0.36 55.4 0.41 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.58 0.74 0.59 0.85

0.30 0.21 0.02 0.01 13.18 4.17 25.2 0.25 53.6 0.47 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34

0.28 0.20 0.02 0.01 12.77 4.21 27.2 0.25 52.2 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.34

0.14 0.13 0.02 0.01 5.38 3.31 24.4 0.09 69.7 0.39 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.28

297

Appendix 3

PilotLoom

Crab

Stent

Crop

No KD

110C/2

110C/4

110C/6

114C/2

114C/4

114C/6

121C/2

121C/4

121C/6

121C/6 2bl

Chemical Testing

G wp G wf RSG RSG EMT EMT WT WT RT RT LT LTwp wf wp wf wp wf wp wf Wp Wf wp wf wp wf

% %

1.61 1.68 4.41 4.61 4.95 5.09 2.74 2.74 5.9 4.6 9.5 7.8 68.0 68.9 0.6 0.7 13.00 53.29

0.51 0.49 0.23 0.32 0.69 0.71 0.45 0.66 9.6 11.3 10.8 13.1 71.3 69.6 0.4 0.5 9.27 38.07

0.54 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.84 0.79 0.67 0.68 7.6 10.8 9.0 13.1 72.3 71.0 0.5 0.5 10.97 33.74

0.53 0.51 0.37 0.33 0.82 0.75 0.70 0.66 7.8 11.9 10.0 14.4 73.3 70.7 0.5 0.5 9.32 33.18

0.62 0.45 0.37 0.28 0.96 0.68 0.59 0.63 8.8 12.9 11.0 15.8 68.0 67.5 0.5 0.5 10.23 31.89

0.61 0.58 0.30 0.30 0.88 0.83 0.50 0.52 8.6 13.4 10.4 16.3 71.1 65.2 0.5 0.5 11.31 31.26

0.75 0.71 0.35 0.33 1.10 1.08 0.47 0.46 9.3 12.1 11.0 15.9 71.2 68.1 0.5 0.5 8.68 32.50

0.71 0.68 0.34 0.31 1.04 1.01 0.48 0.46 8.5 11.4 10.9 14.9 71.0 68.7 0.5 0.5 9.59 31.02

0.72 0.66 0.41 0.37 1.12 1.03 0.56 0.55 7.9 11.4 10.4 14.5 72.2 70.2 0.5 0.5 8.13 29.47

0.67 0.61 0.39 0.36 1.04 0.95 0.59 0.59 8.2 12.1 11.0 15.1 71.0 69.3 0.5 0.5 7.68 27.34

0.74 0.71 0.42 0.39 1.15 1.13 0.56 0.55 10.0 14.1 12.5 17.8 70.1 66.1 0.5 0.5 8.47 25.89

0.84 0.77 0.43 0.40 1.30 1.21 0.51 0.52 8.2 14.0 10.9 17.7 72.4 66.4 0.5 0.5 8.80 26.57

0.93 0.88 0.45 0.42 1.47 1.40 0.49 0.47 8.6 12.1 11.3 15.8 73.1 67.9 0.5 0.5 8.14 21.33

0.69 0.66 0.35 0.33 1.10 1.03 0.50 0.49 8.1 12.6 10.8 15.5 71.3 69.3 0.5 0.5 8.98 19.42

0.90 0.87 0.38 0.32 1.39 1.38 0.42 0.37 8.4 13.2 10.3 17.0 68.3 62.3 0.5 0.5 8.53 10.76

Table A3.5

Shear Tensile KES-F Testing

Urea Bisulfite Solubility

Alkali Solubility

%g/cm.

degree g/cm g/cm gf.cm/cm² -----%-----

2HG5

Table A3.4 (cont.) Objective Test Results

2HG

298

Appendix 3

BulkLoom

Scour

Crab

Stent

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B1

121/6+RP+ 121/6

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B2

Chemical Testing


% %

Table A3.5



Alkali Solubility

%g/cm.


2HG5


2HG

1.89 1.88 4.86 5.10 5.08 5.14 2.57 2.71 5.9 4.5 9.5 7.4 66.6 66.4 0.6 0.7 12.47 55.03

1.03 1.06 1.01 1.39 2.08 2.18 0.98 1.32 6.4 7.0 9.6 10.5 65.3 62.6 0.6 0.6 12.26 50.41

0.56 0.53 0.37 0.32 0.84 0.78 0.67 0.61 8.3 12.8 9.0 14.5 66.2 60.7 0.4 0.5 8.29 31.30

0.58 0.55 0.36 0.36 0.89 0.85 0.63 0.65 7.9 13.4 9.0 14.4 63.6 64.0 0.5 0.4 8.87 26.76

0.64 0.59 0.39 0.35 0.96 0.87 0.61 0.59 6.6 15.2 7.7 16.6 69.8 62.3 0.5 0.4 9.30 32.90

0.96 0.92 0.53 0.38 1.54 1.50 0.56 0.41 6.8 15.5 8.5 19.3 70.8 62.2 0.5 0.5 7.70 15.29

1.01 0.97 0.53 0.42 1.51 1.59 0.52 0.43 7.8 16.3 10.0 19.9 69.6 61.9 0.5 0.5 6.79 11.95

1.01 0.96 0.50 0.42 1.51 1.56 0.49 0.44 7.6 15.1 9.6 19.2 68.8 60.2 0.5 0.5 7.14 10.75

0.98 0.93 0.67 0.45 1.56 1.57 0.68 0.48 7.5 17.7 9.5 21.2 70.0 59.4 0.5 0.5 9.77 15.45

1.10 0.97 0.63 0.53 1.84 1.82 0.58 0.55 3.4 15.1 4.5 20.8 74.1 58.1 0.5 0.6 9.45 18.54

1.44 1.40 0.90 0.63 2.12 2.40 0.62 0.45 3.7 18.0 4.9 25.4 75.4 58.0 0.5 0.6 8.67 14.56

1.27 1.25 0.85 0.56 1.95 2.11 0.66 0.45 5.7 17.8 7.2 23.2 74.2 59.8 0.5 0.5 9.06 14.99

1.28 1.20 0.89 0.50 1.84 2.03 0.69 0.42 5.1 21.3 6.6 27.3 73.9 54.9 0.5 0.5 9.63 14.61

299

Appendix 3

124/2

124/4

124/6

Dec+RP+B2

Crop+110/2

Cl2 Control

KD No Crab

121/6+RP+ 121/6 B3

121/6+RP+ 110/2121/6+RP+110/2+B2


Chemical Testing


% %

Table A3.5



Alkali Solubility

%g/cm.


2HG5


2HG

1.28 1.12 0.74 0.47 1.79 1.82 0.57 0.42 4.7 19.9 6.3 25.2 75.3 57.1 0.5 0.5 9.57 14.16

1.23 1.20 0.58 0.45 1.85 1.93 0.47 0.37 6.5 13.8 8.7 18.6 72.2 61.0 0.5 0.5 8.51 23.31

1.01 0.96 0.52 0.39 1.51 1.54 0.51 0.41 6.8 14.8 8.5 19.4 71.3 61.3 0.5 0.5 8.59 18.20

1.37 1.33 0.61 0.58 2.05 2.20 0.45 0.43 6.8 14.6 8.2 19.5 70.4 59.8 0.5 0.5 8.59 20.93

0.95 0.76 0.48 0.30 1.50 1.28 0.51 0.40 3.9 17.5 4.8 20.9 76.3 60.6 0.5 0.5 8.32 17.55

1.06 1.00 0.62 0.39 1.61 1.65 0.58 0.39 4.2 17.6 5.3 22.2 75.4 58.5 0.5 0.5 7.08 14.17

1.11 0.97 0.61 0.42 1.63 1.65 0.55 0.43 4.9 18.9 6.5 22.3 74.0 59.9 0.5 0.5 7.38 13.64

0.91 0.84 0.47 0.36 1.39 1.34 0.51 0.42 6.8 15.3 8.5 19.3 70.0 58.3 0.5 0.5 7.11 24.66

0.88 0.70 0.42 0.37 1.45 1.18 0.48 0.53 3.8 15.9 4.9 20.1 71.4 59.2 0.5 0.5 8.46 26.10

1.42 1.41 0.82 0.61 2.12 2.40 0.58 0.43 4.0 16.3 5.0 22.5 76.0 59.0 0.5 0.6 8.87 14.75

1.27 1.20 0.79 0.49 1.88 1.99 0.62 0.41 4.7 17.9 6.1 24.5 73.9 56.1 0.5 0.5 9.12 15.13

1.01 0.97 0.61 0.53 1.43 1.52 0.60 0.55 12.4 18.4 16.1 22.4 59.6 53.9 0.5 0.5 9.27 12.32

1.35 1.32 0.50 0.48 2.00 2.00 0.37 0.36 9.3 10.4 11.6 14.2 73.1 67.7 0.5 0.5

300

Appendix 3

2/1 TwillLoom 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33


Chemical Testing


% %

Table A3.5



Alkali Solubility

%g/cm.


2HG5


2HG

0.89 0.88 2.43 2.38 3.02 2.99 2.74 2.70 5.4 5.2 9.1 8.8 65.9 66.0 0.7 0.7

0.43 0.37 0.33 0.26 0.58 0.49 0.76 0.70 5.8 18.8 6.3 19.1 75.1 66.1 0.4 0.4

0.40 0.37 0.31 0.32 0.54 0.51 0.78 0.87 6.4 17.7 6.8 18.3 74.0 67.2 0.4 0.4

0.42 0.38 0.30 0.32 0.54 0.52 0.71 0.84 4.8 19.2 5.3 19.0 76.4 65.7 0.4 0.4

1.09 0.96 0.65 0.61 1.96 2.02 0.59 0.64 4.6 18.8 6.8 25.1 72.2 52.1 0.6 0.5

1.01 0.89 0.62 0.56 1.80 1.82 0.61 0.63 4.5 18.6 6.2 24.6 74.8 53.9 0.6 0.5

1.42 1.38 0.88 0.65 2.33 2.66 0.62 0.47 5.6 20.2 8.2 29.3 72.7 48.5 0.6 0.6

1.45 1.43 0.89 0.69 2.29 2.65 0.62 0.48 6.3 20.1 8.8 29.2 71.3 48.5 0.6 0.6

1.44 1.42 4.47 4.38 5.12 5.06 3.09 3.09 4.6 5.4 8.3 9.2 68.4 67.0 0.7 0.7

0.59 0.50 0.45 0.51 0.90 0.84 0.77 1.00 5.2 17.2 6.9 18.4 72.7 69.8 0.5 0.4

0.53 0.51 0.38 0.46 0.79 0.83 0.71 0.91 6.1 13.4 7.1 14.8 75.9 73.0 0.5 0.4

1.58 1.61 1.10 0.74 2.42 2.72 0.69 0.46 6.4 16.9 8.4 26.9 76.1 55.0 0.5 0.6

301

Appendix 3

3/3 TwillLoom 26

Scour 26

Crab 26

Stent 26

Crop 26

121/6 26

121/6+RP26

Loom 33

Crab 33

Stent 33

Finished 33

Fully Finished 26

121/6+RP+ 121/6 26

Chemical Testing


% %

Table A3.5



Alkali Solubility

%g/cm.


2HG5


2HG

0.35 0.40 0.74 0.82 0.79 0.88 2.13 2.07 5.7 5.9 7.5 7.3 64.8 65.1 0.5 0.5

0.30 0.27 0.37 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.23 1.51 8.7 10.8 9.5 11.9 60.6 51.9 0.4 0.4

0.26 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.29 0.33 1.04 0.99 8.3 16.9 7.6 14.1 65.0 60.3 0.4 0.3

0.26 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.13 0.83 0.99 7.4 16.0 7.2 13.3 66.2 60.8 0.4 0.3

0.28 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.71 0.99 7.0 18.5 7.1 15.5 64.2 58.0 0.4 0.3

0.75 0.62 0.66 0.79 1.71 1.57 0.87 1.28 6.8 20.9 9.7 26.3 64.0 42.2 0.6 0.5

0.70 0.60 0.71 0.78 1.63 1.54 1.01 1.29 6.9 19.4 9.5 25.5 63.8 40.3 0.5 0.5

1.10 1.07 0.91 1.01 2.59 2.80 3.15 0.92 8.1 19.1 11.6 15.1 62.1 37.0 0.6 0.6

1.25 1.23 0.99 1.18 2.85 3.22 0.80 0.96 7.4 21.1 11.3 29.0 63.2 42.0 0.6 0.5

0.47 0.44 1.12 1.17 1.29 1.28 2.38 2.67 5.4 7.0 7.6 9.2 61.6 64.2 0.6 0.5

0.32 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.52 1.10 1.32 6.7 18.8 6.9 16.9 66.1 63.0 0.4 0.4

0.31 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.45 0.48 1.01 1.28 7.1 15.5 7.3 15.4 66.5 62.0 0.4 0.4

1.40 1.39 1.13 1.10 2.95 3.13 0.81 0.79 8.4 18.2 11.9 30.3 63.2 41.5 0.6 0.7

302

Appendix 3

Sample Name Al

anin

e

Argi

nine

Aspa

rtic

Aci

d

Cys

teic

A

cid

Cys

tine

Glu

tam

ic

Aci

d

Gly

cine

His

tidin

e

iso

Leuc

ine

Lant

hion

ine

Leuc

ine

Lysi

ne

mes

o C

ystin

e

Met

hion

ine Ph

enyl

al

anin

e

Loom uM/g 342.84 438.24 343.89 14.84 105.24 744.48 800.04 61.17 176.92 0.00 504.69 202.03 124.06 60.70 175.21%CV 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03

Crab uM/g 390.03 458.43 361.89 21.65 113.15 765.61 815.85 64.05 194.95 15.38 526.47 213.32 163.32 44.22 180.69%CV 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02

No KD uM/g 348.65 450.57 358.33 14.86 171.93 757.58 800.07 62.74 180.64 14.92 517.17 213.53 158.69 43.24 178.25%CV 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04

110C/2 uM/g 372.29 465.63 349.04 14.43 137.60 800.06 865.36 64.57 193.63 20.06 541.82 211.38 155.08 42.31 185.48%CV 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.03

110C/4 uM/g 341.77 446.89 352.51 15.03 157.61 754.97 793.16 61.71 169.73 19.12 511.56 208.64 146.48 36.23 176.71%CV 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.03

110C/6 uM/g 347.26 451.21 332.33 14.46 110.19 755.57 794.22 62.87 171.20 10.41 520.02 213.93 142.78 48.21 182.15%CV 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.28 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.01

114C/2 uM/g 375.98 490.46 337.91 15.04 137.58 845.89 869.36 67.07 252.42 10.20 568.14 229.40 202.20 51.78 198.48%CV 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04

114C/4 uM/g 341.49 451.33 345.29 14.87 119.50 761.27 800.63 63.13 229.80 13.30 521.15 209.87 173.58 44.94 180.71%CV 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.07 #N/A 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.04

114C/6 uM/g 358.49 474.01 395.07 15.86 119.54 785.52 810.56 64.13 225.44 15.97 528.66 206.70 186.03 48.33 183.02%CV 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.48 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.21 0.32 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.01

121C/2 uM/g 339.77 446.25 345.08 14.78 108.05 764.03 788.84 62.00 235.38 13.48 514.14 207.39 173.28 43.11 175.54%CV 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04

121C/4 uM/g 338.57 447.44 345.49 14.30 143.32 764.24 789.00 61.52 244.87 20.93 510.04 204.16 89.12 41.17 174.41%CV 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.27 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.03

121C/6 uM/g 342.86 444.39 311.91 15.00 122.37 765.98 852.99 62.07 208.46 19.35 522.41 204.14 12.79 44.03 179.51%CV 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01

Table A3.6 Pilot Amino Acid Analysis

303

Appendix 3

Sample NameLoom uM/g

%CVCrab uM/g

%CVNo KD uM/g

%CV110C/2 uM/g

%CV110C/4 uM/g

%CV110C/6 uM/g

%CV114C/2 uM/g

%CV114C/4 uM/g

%CV114C/6 uM/g

%CV121C/2 uM/g

%CV121C/4 uM/g

%CV121C/6 uM/g

%CV

Pro

line

Ser

ine

Thre

onin

e

Tyro

sine

Val

ine

Tota

l C

ystin

e

443.00 684.51 411.87 365.62 571.37 229.300.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.16 0.11

455.22 586.20 360.06 300.36 476.36 276.470.02 0.16 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.06

449.10 684.39 415.95 310.54 465.22 330.620.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.02

475.30 741.14 440.71 322.83 513.53 292.680.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

451.34 695.94 414.70 316.27 485.02 304.090.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06

455.33 705.16 416.34 376.28 723.52 252.960.01 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.24 0.16

506.18 782.18 461.84 329.76 584.24 339.790.03 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.23 0.03

467.85 679.57 425.41 306.50 504.10 233.670.02 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.17

482.95 706.95 433.31 309.46 432.75 212.560.01 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.71

457.32 697.39 418.19 297.34 457.49 281.330.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.12

455.20 702.07 419.73 273.37 423.01 187.880.03 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.44

470.41 716.28 426.20 289.21 465.32 128.770.00 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.19

Table A3.6 (cont.) Pilot Amino Acid Analysis

304

Appendix 3

Sample Mass (ug) Alan

ine

Argi

nine

Aspa

rtic

Aci

d

Cys

teic

A

cid

Cys

tine

Glu

tam

ic

Aci

d

Loom 12 uM/g 407.48 567.44 388.63 47.91 8.86 1017.89%CV erro 0.55 0.33 5.35 0.74 5.84 1.12

Crab 9.59 uM/g 412.79 551.35 339.28 50.39 0.00 1020.73%CV erro 3.35 8.17 14.99 2.29 - 4.29

Crop 10.1 uM/g 395.50 578.81 400.67 54.72 5.53 1030.43%CV erro 1.95 2.42 4.92 2.92 - 3.46

121/6 11 uM/g 413.37 581.22 388.73 49.54 9.19 1072.60%CV erro 2.97 2.86 0.46 1.64 9.51 1.36

121/6 B1 9.88 uM/g 392.82 590.03 381.05 63.52 12.67 1050.10%CV erro 2.69 4.74 4.78 3.59 9.25 4.32

121/6 B2 10.9 uM/g 382.78 556.15 340.58 49.61 4.05 1031.34%CV erro 5.51 4.83 2.89 5.90 - 5.81

121/6 B3 10.7 uM/g 457.02 618.29 406.69 58.00 9.13 1124.44%CV erro 1.67 1.28 2.53 4.07 3.79 2.90

121/6+RP 10.5 uM/g 450.44 605.59 372.00 52.03 8.69 1080.30%CV erro 0.53 3.42 0.56 4.47 17.89 3.68

121/6+RP+121/6 10.5 uM/g 434.90 582.53 335.59 47.72 9.68 1059.39%CV erro 1.60 1.49 1.39 2.44 1.38 0.73

121/6+RP+121/6 B2 11.4 uM/g 468.50 611.20 353.80 53.32 4.43 1150.62%CV erro 1.12 0.46 4.96 5.99 - 1.55

124/4 10.4 uM/g 443.67 574.81 318.42 47.24 0.00 1069.88%CV erro 6.09 2.83 5.71 4.80 - 3.78

121/6+RP+B2 11.1 uM/g 432.63 582.97 336.21 45.57 0.00 1022.05%CV erro 5.47 8.29 12.43 7.80 - 7.01

121/6+RP+110/2 9.82 uM/g 437.02 562.24 354.83 52.75 0.00 1052.42%CV erro 0.17 1.97 2.22 17.52 - 0.51

121/6+RP+110/2+B2 11.4 uM/g 425.50 555.40 320.67 47.84 0.00 1030.65%CV erro 8.20 4.47 2.65 0.98 - 7.91

Crop+110/2 12 uM/g 429.13 579.24 322.90 52.44 3.73 978.98%CV erro 11.11 10.83 6.88 12.66 - 7.66

Crop+110/2+RP 9.55 uM/g 427.54 568.15 305.63 59.73 0.00 971.82%CV erro 1.34 0.29 6.77 0.12 - 0.75

110/2+RP+121/6 9.62 uM/g 457.39 567.70 316.06 60.81 0.00 1042.34%CV erro 2.72 1.72 4.22 6.10 - 0.52

110/2+RP+121/6+B2 10.4 uM/g 391.99 581.25 318.00 56.75 0.00 1023.89%CV erro 1.59 3.45 1.59 0.67 - 0.03

Cl2 Control 9.65 uM/g 340.61 580.80 293.57 63.99 0.00 1114.58%CV erro 8.72 11.26 18.66 14.26 - 11.47

121/6+bl2 prelim 9.89 uM/g 336.87 551.44 239.32 48.52 0.00 1014.66%CV erro 3.98 1.60 6.10 17.78 - 4.23

Table A3.7 Bulk Amino Acid Analysis

305

Appendix 3

SampleLoom

Crab

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+121/6

121/6+RP+121/6 B2

124/4

121/6+RP+B2

121/6+RP+110/2

121/6+RP+110/2+B2

Crop+110/2

Crop+110/2+RP

110/2+RP+121/6

110/2+RP+121/6+B2

Cl2 Control

121/6+bl2 prelim

Gly

cine

His

tidin

e

iso

Leuc

ine

Lant

hion

ine

Leuc

ine

Lysi

ne

mes

o C

ystin

e

1207.85 121.74 242.01 56.79 540.33 109.02 16.502.75 1.01 0.28 2.51 0.28 2.31 2.91

1234.62 123.33 253.16 72.56 551.94 99.98 18.938.38 10.90 4.89 5.78 5.42 13.15 1.51

1263.19 131.80 257.46 80.93 563.62 120.24 24.264.03 3.17 2.56 9.57 1.05 1.62 5.37

1299.90 128.44 256.05 68.84 565.76 112.23 20.912.05 2.29 2.12 1.87 2.54 1.82 0.34

1318.57 139.37 259.20 82.75 566.19 115.99 29.307.77 6.41 2.53 8.91 1.18 2.84 4.52

1204.35 111.48 256.07 73.76 549.17 110.78 24.366.77 11.28 7.10 2.76 7.38 9.48 8.68

1355.98 135.47 246.82 59.93 551.96 98.88 19.712.38 2.58 0.70 1.88 0.44 0.55 12.27

1354.94 125.29 241.06 61.59 535.04 96.27 22.703.49 0.30 1.41 10.81 2.31 11.77 2.30

1390.17 133.89 253.89 75.78 552.88 93.95 21.621.00 2.20 0.12 1.78 0.75 0.54 1.16

1551.98 131.35 259.39 85.28 555.45 90.55 35.543.07 1.89 1.23 0.72 0.73 1.77 1.87

1467.66 121.83 264.56 93.93 560.27 91.50 32.363.69 4.97 0.08 0.26 0.28 0.92 7.69

1365.42 127.41 254.42 86.88 546.96 104.08 24.945.48 5.80 4.65 0.43 5.10 7.23 1.70

1474.01 126.11 261.95 105.45 533.63 98.18 36.051.26 0.00 0.45 2.12 0.60 0.83 0.09

1494.07 116.22 261.40 111.22 529.04 97.05 44.6213.49 6.04 4.68 16.35 2.56 11.83 17.43

1415.88 118.51 245.91 96.72 516.86 101.55 36.538.38 10.81 3.61 4.40 4.88 7.11 5.29

1333.88 109.26 254.16 83.18 534.41 102.89 21.266.03 2.07 1.28 28.70 1.50 14.14 13.01

1517.11 128.77 280.66 124.78 559.41 97.37 50.420.24 6.78 0.50 0.10 0.97 5.96 1.85

1517.57 129.89 277.33 124.85 555.51 113.37 83.630.29 1.46 0.69 5.59 1.47 0.43 4.05

3400.14 140.01 299.76 163.70 567.96 108.01 179.2811.96 12.58 7.19 15.45 6.63 9.81 11.04

1579.50 123.98 295.79 158.19 552.61 105.38 60.244.97 5.66 1.87 6.60 1.72 3.20 9.13

Table A3.7 (cont.) Bulk Amino Acid Analysis

306

Appendix 3

SampleLoom

Crab

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+121/6

121/6+RP+121/6 B2

124/4

121/6+RP+B2

121/6+RP+110/2

121/6+RP+110/2+B2

Crop+110/2

Crop+110/2+RP

110/2+RP+121/6

110/2+RP+121/6+B2

Cl2 Control

121/6+bl2 prelim

Met

hion

ine

Phen

yl

alan

ine

Pro

line

S-c

arbo

xy

met

hyl

Cys

tein

e

Ser

ine

Thre

onin

e

Tyro

sine

58.98 189.32 1031.98 1095.52 1118.95 894.08 333.835.51 0.07 4.16 0.03 7.29 0.71 0.83

71.22 183.01 1076.80 1009.48 1243.07 949.81 347.187.75 7.37 2.78 6.36 10.55 6.14 5.03

70.83 197.67 1037.60 1060.40 1188.96 938.53 356.792.02 1.52 2.01 0.23 2.21 0.29 3.96

74.12 190.35 1049.02 1055.87 1230.15 951.90 349.970.75 1.52 2.51 2.09 2.58 3.66 1.93

93.89 194.46 1131.19 1049.55 1202.52 1001.60 351.805.21 1.75 5.05 5.33 13.48 8.33 4.35

83.19 189.54 1003.90 940.14 1232.20 881.09 344.492.04 2.87 2.51 1.89 0.32 3.60 2.79

76.66 178.68 1096.17 1167.15 1189.89 987.82 360.162.19 0.70 1.65 2.11 15.75 4.24 0.94

71.30 176.42 1092.74 1161.68 1268.69 1021.14 351.930.72 6.87 5.78 0.65 17.89 6.81 0.15

79.19 175.09 1134.05 1074.48 1338.65 1047.84 375.024.23 1.26 0.31 0.62 0.83 0.79 0.87

77.25 176.98 1227.03 1133.16 1623.69 1159.28 387.834.18 0.95 1.62 1.40 3.97 1.06 1.01

65.87 180.07 1171.71 1066.58 1460.48 1077.46 395.311.53 1.16 3.78 3.92 1.95 6.03 1.42

67.17 177.96 1069.98 1044.04 1222.84 1017.63 382.3712.06 3.72 4.00 6.75 8.12 7.99 3.2468.37 176.58 1039.08 986.45 1184.48 935.56 376.55

0.22 0.71 0.28 0.16 14.93 0.22 1.4264.62 174.42 1066.00 990.05 1215.38 935.35 386.69

0.84 1.58 13.64 7.27 24.06 13.26 9.4728.95 177.64 1030.27 1064.25 1104.04 936.21 387.14

- 4.17 7.18 9.33 3.35 7.24 7.910.00 184.37 945.33 1059.64 1024.97 848.05 364.22

- 2.57 11.87 2.92 1.15 6.78 7.990.00 184.14 1122.44 1018.17 1187.35 991.56 425.31

- 0.44 0.31 1.49 6.74 3.12 2.8276.79 194.53 1154.92 985.03 1150.16 971.29 398.59

0.65 0.63 0.16 2.31 14.22 0.77 0.350.00 192.59 1382.13 898.65 1318.90 1013.41 439.61

- 5.67 10.20 10.42 17.32 11.53 9.60105.07 197.51 1283.83 930.67 1421.31 1022.00 426.22

10.17 1.55 5.60 2.21 4.01 5.96 3.14


307

Appendix 3

SampleLoom

Crab

Crop

121/6

121/6 B1

121/6 B2

121/6 B3

121/6+RP

121/6+RP+121/6

121/6+RP+121/6 B2

124/4

121/6+RP+B2

121/6+RP+110/2

121/6+RP+110/2+B2

Crop+110/2

Crop+110/2+RP

110/2+RP+121/6

110/2+RP+121/6+B2

Cl2 Control

121/6+bl2 prelim

Val

ine

606.242.51

671.969.20

698.290.82

705.253.91

715.047.11

677.986.59

756.944.66

781.725.26

855.762.26

899.750.36

894.795.24

914.427.57

827.010.78

798.6111.12

852.079.57

822.983.83

919.329.05

843.693.12

930.9613.50

915.615.18


308

Appendix 3

Loop Loop Average %length mm length mm Shrinkage

Initial Dry 495.0 494.0Initial Wet 491.0 490.52min 488.0 0.61 487.0 0.71 0.75min 487.0 Wet 0.81 485.0 Wet 1.12 1.010 min 479.0 2.44 476.0 2.96 2.715min 469.5 Wet 4.38 466.5 Wet 4.89 4.620min 463.0 5.70 458.0 6.63 6.225min 451.5 Wet 8.04 450.5 Wet 8.15 8.130min 436.5 11.10 444.5 9.38 10.235min 430.0 Wet 12.42 431.5 Wet 12.03 12.240min 411.0 16.29 423.0 13.76 15.045min 392.0 Wet 20.16 406.5 Wet 17.13 18.650min 381.0 22.40 398.0 18.86 20.655min 366.0 Wet 25.46 384.0 Wet 21.71 23.660min 349.5 28.82 376.0 23.34 26.1


Initial Dry 494.5 493.0Initial Wet 493.0 495.02min 492.0 0.20 492.0 0.61 0.45min 489.5 Wet 0.71 489.0 Wet 1.21 1.010 min 485.5 1.52 484.0 2.22 1.915min 477.0 Wet 3.25 476.0 Wet 3.84 3.520min 472.5 4.16 463.5 6.36 5.325min 463.5 Wet 5.98 461.0 Wet 6.87 6.430min 453.0 8.11 450.0 9.09 8.635min 453.0 Wet 8.11 445.5 Wet 10.00 9.140min 446.0 9.53 433.0 Wet 12.53 11.045min 441.5 Wet 10.45 423.0 14.55 12.550min 436.5 11.46 406.0 Wet 17.98 14.755min 430.0 Wet 12.78 397.0 19.80 16.360min 421.0 14.60 381.0 23.03 18.8

Table A3.8 Yarn Testing

Test 2B 20tex SSI Weft

Warp yarn 114αm, 22tex,

Weft yarn 114αm, 20tex,

Test 1A 22tex SSI Unwaxed Warp

Test 1B 22tex SSI Unwaxed Warp

Test 2A 20tex SSI Weft

Cond-itions

Cond-itions

Cond-itions

Cond-itions

total % shrink

total % shrink

total % shrink

total % shrink

309

Appendix 3


Initial Dry 493.0 492.0Initial Wet 492.5 491.02min 486.0 1.32 486.0 1.02 1.25min 478.5 Wet 2.84 480.0 Wet 2.24 2.510 min 469.5 4.67 471.5 3.97 4.315min 456.0 Wet 7.41 463.0 Wet 5.70 6.620min 447.5 9.14 450.0 8.35 8.725min 435.0 Wet 11.68 439.0 Wet 10.59 11.130min 426.0 13.50 427.5 12.93 13.235min 415.5 Wet 15.63 413.5 15.78 15.740min 396.0 19.59 406.0 Wet 17.31 18.545min 379.0 Wet 23.05 385.0 21.59 22.350min 358.5 27.21 369.0 Wet 24.85 26.055min 355.5 Wet 27.82 366.5 25.36 26.660min 343.0 30.36 354.5 27.80 29.1



Table A3.8 (cont.) Yarn Testing22/2, 82αm

spin, 110αm Test 3A 22/2 Tex (2 fold) Test 3B 22/2 Tex (2 fold)

Sample 82αm, 22tex 554tpm

Cond-itions

Cond-itions

Test 4A Solospun 554tpm Test 4B Solospun 554tpm

Cond-itions

Cond-itions

total % shrink

total % shrink

total % shrink

total % shrink

310

Appendix 3



Table A3.8 (cont.) Yarn TestingTest 5A Solospun

853tpm Test 5B Solospun 853tpmSample

127αm, 22tex total % shrink

total % shrink

Cond-itions

Cond-itions

311

APPENDIX 4 TYPICAL TENSILE AND COMPRESSION CURVES

Figure A4.1a Typical Tensile Curve (2/1 Twill 121/6+RP+121/6)

Figure A4.1b Typical Tensile Curve (Plain KD instead of crab)

312

Appendix 4

313

Figure A4.2a Typical Compression Curve (2/1 Twill 121/6+RP+121/6)

Figure A4.1b Typical Compression Curve (Plain KD instead of crab)

a study of the reasons for shrink-resistance and ... - UNSWorks

Documents

Transcript of a study of the reasons for shrink-resistance and ... - UNSWorks