Yarn Evenness

 2.1 Theoretical aspects of evenness

 2.2Measurement and benchmarking of yarn evenness

 Theoretical aspects of evenness
Introduction
The foundations for the study of yarn evenness were
laid in a 1945 classical paper by Martindale, entitled “a
new method of measuring the irregularity of yarns with
some observations on the origin of irregularities in
worsted slivers and yarns" (Martindale 1945). For this
reason, the evenness theory has often been refereed to
as the Martindale theory.
Objectives
At the end of this topic you should be able to:

 Understand the statistical limit of evenness (limiting

irregularity)
 Appreciate the effect of fibre fineness on yarn
evenness
 Know the evenness-related calculations
 Understand the effect of fibre processing on sliver and
yarn evenness
Most Perfectly even yarn
For a spun yarn (or any other fibre assembly) to be
perfect even, we need two conditions:
(1)The constituent fibres are uniform in thickness
(2)The yarn has the same number of fibres in all
cross sections along its length
Figure 1.1 depicts such an ideal fibre assembly with
perfect evenness.

Fig. 1.1: A perfectly even fibre assembly with uniform fibres and ‘butted’ fibre ends
While the first condition may be achievable with
manufactured staple fibres, natural fibres such as cotton
and wool always exhibit variations in thickness along
fibre length.

To satisfy condition (2) would mean that the fibre ends

are ‘butted’ together (Figure 1.1). In other words, as one
fibre terminates, another must be introduced to take its
place. This would require control and manipulation of
each fibre in the fibre assembly by the processing
machinery. This is not possible with current processing
technology.
Because of the variable nature of fibres, particularly
natural fibres, and the difficulty with individual fibre
placement in the fibre assembly using current
technology, a perfectly even yarn is unattainable in
practice. Therefore, a real yarn (or any other fibre
assembly) would always have some irregularity in linear
density, because the way fibres are arranged deviates from
what’s required to make a perfectly even yarn. The
question then is how does the current fibre processing
machinery arrange fibres? Without this knowledge, we
can not possibly know what would be the likely
irregularity for such an arrangement.
To answer this question, we need to look at the whole
fibre to yarn processes and examine what each process
does to the fibres. Let us now briefly recap the key
processes, from the perspective of fibre arrangement,
before we move onto the theoretical aspects of evenness.
Fibre arrangements during fibre to yarn processing

Fibres arrive at textile mills in large bales. It is a

statement of fact that fibres vary in properties, both
within a bale and between different bales. We can
certainly not persuade a sheep to produce identical
wool or make a cotton plant to grow identical cotton. In
addition, wool and cotton grown in different regions
exhibit considerable variations in properties.
To produce a large quantity of uniform yarns from
variable fibres, blending and mixing is essential. There
are two fundamental requirements of the blended
product:
 The blend is homogenous, and
 The blend is intimate
These two requirements have different but complementary
connotations. A homogenous blend means that the blend
components are in the right proportion, while an intimate
blend means the blend components lie side by side without
regions of concentration of just one component. If a blend
satisfy these requirements, then fibres in the blend are
thoroughly mixed up, in the right proportions throughout
the bulk (the whole lot or population).
In other words, within such an ideal blend, all different
fibres are arranged in a completely random way, and all
the fibres have the same chance of being found at any
selected place in the bulk. Achieving this task is a
major objective in fibre to yarn conversion. But it is not
an easy task, and has to be carried out gradually.
In the initial blending of fibres from bales, small tufts of
fibres are picked up and combined to make a
homogenous blend first. For intimate blend, the fibre
tufts need to be opened out into individual fibres, in the
carding process that follows.

A key objective of carding is fibre opening. Only when

fibres are opened out into individual fibres can different
fibres lie side by side to achieve an intimate blend. After
blending and carding, fibres are more or less
randomized. Preserving this randomness is a key
objective of the subsequent drawing process.
During gilling of wool or drawing of cotton, several
slivers are doubled together first and drafted to
reduce its thickness. Doubling is a random operation
because no deliberate attempt is made to
compensate for thick places by doubling them
against selected thin places. If the fibre ends in the
individual slivers are randomly distributed, they will
still be randomly distributed after doubling. If
drafting is done properly, this randomness will
persist into the drafted sliver.
One problem with maintaining the random fibre ends
distribution is the fibre length variation. If fibre length is
very variable or if there are many short fibres in the
slivers before drafting, the short fibres tend to be drafted
in tufts rather than individually, and a drafting wave
appears in the drafted sliver. Since a drafting wave is a
practically periodic variation in the number of fibres in
the cross sections along the sliver, it defeats the
randomness of fibre ends distribution.
For this reason, some fibre control devices, such as
pressure bars in drawing and faller bars in gilling, are
often used to minimize the drafting waves and improve
the random distribution of fibre ends. Similarly, in the
roving process and during the drafting stage of spinning,
fibres are also controlled during drafting.
 From this brief discussion of the fibre to yarn
conversion, we can see that throughout the different
processes involved, random fibre distribution is a key
objective. If all processes perform perfectly, we will end
up with a completely random distribution of fibre ends
in the resultant yarn.
We call this yarn an ideal yarn, and the irregularity of this
yarn the limiting irregularity.. Limiting irregularity is
therefore the minimum irregularity that we must expect
from any real yarn or other fibre assemblies. A thorough
understanding of the concept of limiting irregularity is
essential for the understanding of yarn evenness in
particular, and yarn quality in general.
Limiting irregularity (CVlim)
A common method of expressing the irregularity of a
yarn is to use the statistical term CV or coefficient of
variation. Obviously the higher the CV value, the
more irregular the yarn is. The traditional way of
obtaining the CV value is to dissect a length of yarn
into many short sections of equal length, say 1 cm,
and then weigh each of the short sections. Assuming
we have dissected a yarn into n short sections, and the
weights of these sections are: x1, x2, x3 ..... xn
respectively.
From these readings we can easily calculate the
following statistics regarding the yarn:
 The mean or average:

___
x1  x 2  x3  .......  x n  xi
x   (1.1)
n n

 The standard deviation:

__ __ __ __

s
( x1  x)  ( x 2  x)  .....  ( x n  x)
2 2 2


 i x
( x  ) 2
(1.2)
n 1 n 1
 The coefficient of variation:

s
CV  __
100% (1.3)

 Thepercentage mean deviation (known as the U%

value in textiles)
 __



| x  x |
i


U  n  100 %
(1.3a)
 
__

 x 
 
 
The CV thus calculated will be the measured CV, or
effective CV. It is the actual CV of the yarn concerned.
The U% value is listed here for completeness.
Increasingly, it is the CV or CV% value that gets used for
this purpose. For a fault-free yarn with random
variations in thickness or linear density, the following
relationship exists between the U value and the CV
value.

CV  1.25U (1.3b)
Modern instrument, such as the Uster Evenness Tester,
can measure the U and CV values of a fibre assembly at
a high speed. More on evenness measurement will be
discussed later.
Coming back to the concept of limiting irregularity, we
have said before this is the minimum irregularity that
must be expected from even an ideal yarn with random
fibre ends distribution. The limiting irregularity is also
expressed as a CV value, denoted as CVlim here. Early
works in this area have derived the following very
important expressions for the limiting irregularity of
various yarns with random fibre ends distribution.
(1) Limiting irregularity of an ideal yarn without fibre
variability:
100
CVlim  (1.4)
n
where n is the average number of fibres in
yarn cross section.
(2)Limiting irregularity for an ideal yarn with fibre
variability:

100 1  0.0001CV A
2

CVlim  (1.5)

n
where CVA is the coefficient of variation of fibre cross
sectional area.
These expressions indicate that the number of fibres in
yarn cross section is overwhelmingly the most important
factor that determines the irregularity of a yarn.
Irregularity increases with a reduction in the number of
fibres in yarn cross section. The fibre variability also has
some effect on the irregularity value. But different fibre
types vary considerably in terms of fibre variability.
 Cotton and synthetics (staple fibre)
Synthetic staple fibres have very little fibre variability,
and cotton fibres have some small fibre variability. For
these fibres, the number of fibres in yarn cross section
can be worked as below:

Yarn linear density (tex)

No of fibres in yarn cross sec tion 
Fibre linear density (tex)

(1.6)
The fibre variability of synthetic staples may be ignored
and we can simply use equation (1.4) to calculate the
limiting irregularity of a assembly of synthetic staple
fibres.
100
CVlim ( synthetic staple)  (1.6a)
n
Because of the small fibre variability in cotton, we can
not simply use equation (1.4) to work out the limiting
iregularity. Instead, the following equation is used to
calculate the limiting irregularity of cotton fibre
assemblies.
106
CVlim  (1.6b)
n
Worked example:
A cotton yarn of 25s English cotton count (Ne) consists
of cotton with a micronaire value of 4.1( g inch)
What is the limiting irregularity of this cotton yarn?

Firstly we need to work out the number of fibres in yarn

cross section using formula (1.6). To do that we need to
use the same count unit, tex, for both fibres and yarns.
From the first module, we already know the conversion
between English cotton and tex count systems (tex  590
Ne
.5
)
Therefore, the yarn count in tex is
590.5
 23.62 tex
25
The following shows how fibre fineness is converted into
tex:

4.1 g 4.1106 g 106 g 106 g 106 g g

 1.61 1.61 2 1.61 5  0.161  0.161tex
inch 2.54 cm cm 10 m 10 1000 m 1000 m

Using equation (1.6), the average number of fibres in

yarn cross section is:
23.62 tex
n  146.7
0.161tex

Applying equation (1.6b), we get the limiting irregularity

for this yarn:
106 106
CV lim    8.75 (%)
n 146.7
 Wool fibres
For wool fibre, it is the fibre diameter and diameter CV
that get measured, not the fibre cross section area and its
CV. In addition, the average number of fibres in yarn cross
section is not as easy to get as the yarn count. The
following equation has been derived to calculate the
average number of fibres in the cross section of worsted
yarns consisting of 100% wool fibres, assuming a fibre
density of 1.31 g/cm3.

972  tex
n
D 2 (1  0.0001CVD ) (1.7)
2

where: tex = yarn count in tex

D = mean fibre diameter of wool (in micron)
CVD = coefficient of variation of fibre diameter
Since the bulk of the merino wool fibres has a CVD of
about 24.5%, the above equation is often simplified to:
917  tex
n (1.7a)
D2
It should be noted though this simplified equation is
based on the assumption that CVD = 24.5%.
If we put equation (1.7) into equation (1.5) and note that
for wool, we have the following expression for the
limiting irregularity of wool assemblies:

3.2 D 1  0.0005 CVD

2

CVlim ( wool )  (1.8)

tex
This equation has the following important
implications:

 For a given yarn count (tex), the finer the fibre in the
yarn, the less the yarn irregularity. This is the main
reason why fine fibres are more expensive than coarse
fibres.
 For fibres of a given fineness (D), the finer the yarn, the
more irregular it is. This explains why for a given fibre
fineness, there is a limit on the finest yarn count. It is
worth noting that the concept of irregularity applies to not
just yarns, but fibre assemblies in general. Therefore, for a
given fibre fineness, the irregularity of sliver will be less
than that of roving, and roving’s irregularity will be less
than yarn irregularity. This can also be explained by
considering the different number of fibres in those fibre
assemblies.
 If you reduce the CV of fibre diameter, the irregularity of the
yarn decreases. Put differently, if you reduce the fibre
diameter CV by 5, you may increase the fibre diameter by 1
micron without significantly affecting the yarn irregularity.
This is the so-called 5-to-1 rule of thumb.

The equations for wool appear rather complex. A simpler

equation for wool is given below:
112
CVlim ( wool )  (1.8a)
n
However, this equation should be used with caution, because
it is based on assumption that the CV of fibre diameter is
25%. If the diameter CV deviates significantly from 25%, the
above formula will lead to error.
 Fibre blends
Blends of different fibres are common and their
popularity is increasing. How do we work out the limiting
irregularity of blend yarns then? This can be tackled by
considering the blend yarn as a ply yarn consisting of two
or more single yarns, each having one fibre component. If
fibres in the blend yarn are randomly distributed, it is
reasonable to assume the fibres in each component are
also random. Therefore, we can treat each single yarn the
same as we have treated the 100 cotton or 100% wool
yarns.
 Given the count of the blend yarn Tb, and the blend
ratio of fibre component Pi, the count of each
component Ti can be worked out according to the
formula below:
Tb  Pi
Ti  (1.9)
100
Once we know the count of each component yarn, the
limiting irregularity of the blend yarn of n fibre
components is given as follows,

(CV1 lim  T 1) 2  (CV2 lim  T 2) 2  .....  (CVn lim  Tn) 2

CVlim (blend )  (1.10)
Tb
Worked Example:
A wool/polyester blend yarn is manufactured on the
worsted processing system. The yarn has a count of 30
tex and contains 45% wool and 55% polyester. The
fibre fineness for the polyester staple is 2.5 dtex. The
mean diameter of the wool fibres is 22 micron, with a
CV of 25%. What is the limiting irregularity of this
blend yarn?
Solution :
Assuming the blend yarn is a ply of two single yarns, or
100 wool and 100% polyester respectively, we can work
out the count of the wool component (Tw) and the
polyester component (Tp) according to equation (1.9):

Tb  Pw 30  45
Tw   13.5 (tex)
100 100

Tb  Pp 30  55
Tp    16.5 (tex)
100 100
 Using equation (1.6), the average number of fibres in the
polyester component (np) can be worked out as:
16.5 tex 165 dtex
np    66
2.5 dtex 2.5 dtex

Since polyester staple has little variability in fineness, we

can then use equation (2.4) to work out the limiting
irregularity of the polyester component:
100 100
CV p lim   12.3 (%)
n 66

For the wool component, we can use equation (2.8),

3.2 D 1  0.0005 CVD 3.2  22  1  0.0005 252

2

CVwlim    21.95 (%)

tex 13.5
 Finally, we can use equation (2.10) to work out the
limiting irregularity of the blend yarn,

(CVw lim  Tw) 2  (CV p lim  Tp) 2 (21.95 13.5) 2  (12.316.5) 2

CVlim (blend )   12 (%)
Tb 30

So, the blend yarn has a limiting irregularity of 12%.

Finally, since some textile mills still use the U% value

discussed earlier, the limiting U value can be worked
using the simple equation below:
CVlim
U lim  (1.11)
1.25
Index of Irregularity (I)
After the proceeding discussions on limiting irregularity, we
should be very clear in our minds that the number of fibres in
yarn cross section has a decisive effect on yarn evenness.
Because of this, a coarse yarn would always be more even than a
thinner yarn made from similar fibres and under similar
processing conditions. Does this mean the coarse yarn is
intrinsically better, in evenness, than the finer yarn then?
The index of irregularity provides such a measure. It is
defined as the ratio between the actual (measured,
effective) irregularity and the limiting irregularity for the
yarn (or other fibre assemblies)
CV
I 
eff
(2.12)
CVlim

where I = Index of irregulaity

CVeff = Effective (actual, measured) irregularity
CVlim = Limiting irregularity.
The index of irregularity is a dimensionless parameter. In the
ideal case, I = 1. Since the actual CV of a yarn is almost
always higher than its limiting CV, the I value is usually
greater than 1. The higher the I, the worse the yarn is in
evenness, regardless of the yarn count. Of course, as for
limiting irregularity, the index of irregularity also applies to
fibre assemblies other than yarns.
Figure 1.2 shows changes in CV and I of the fibre
assemblies at different stages of the fibre to yarn
conversion. It is worth noting that the trends for CV
and I are quite different. The index of irregularity (I)
gradually decreases with further processing. This
indicates that the fibre assembly is increasingly
approaching an ideal one.
CVeff I Defective passage

CVeff

1
Carded Combed Drawn slivers Rovi ng Yarn
sliver sliver 1st & 2nd

Fig. 1.2: Changes in CV and I values in a combed cotton yarn

production
In other words, with further processing, the fibre ends
distribution is getting more and more random. As
mentioned early, promoting random fibre ends
distribution is a key objective of fibre to yarn processing.
At the yarn stage, the index of irregularity is
approaching one, suggesting that the yarn is
approaching an ideal yarn.
On the other hand, there is a general trend for the
effective (or actual) CV of the fibre assemblies to
increase during fibre to yarn processing, with the CV
of the resultant yarn higher than the roving’s and the
slivers’. This is a reflection of the decreasing
thickness of the fibre assemblies, and reducing
number of fibres in the cross section of the fibre
assemblies. At the yarn stage, the number of fibres in
the cross section is the lowest, hence the CV of the
yarn is the highest.
This example again demonstrates the difference between the
CV value and the I value. The I value provides a good
indication of how close a fibre assembly is to an idea one with
random fibre ends distribution. Because of this, the I value is
often used as a quality control parameter for assessing the
performance of drawing and spinning.
For instance, if the I value is obtained at every processing
stage, and an increase in I value is found after the 2nd
drawing as indicated by the broken line in Figure 1.2,
that immediately tells us that the 2nd drawing is a
defective one and should be fixed. If all processing stages
are under control, the I values should progressively
decrease from start to the end of the processing as
indicated by the solid line for I values in Figure 1.2.
Unlike the CV% and U% values, the index of
irregularity (I) is independent of the count of the
fibre assembly. This makes it an ideal tool for use in
the control chart. For instance, if the I value is
obtained at the roving stage for every processing lot
and plotted on a control chart, abnormalities may be
easily identified before the final spinning stage.
Reduction and addition of irregularities

Figure 1.2 shows that the measured CV (CVeff) of the

cotton sliver gradually reduces from carding to 2nd
drawing, and then the CV increases again after the
roving and spinning stages. Why is this the case then?
What is causing the increase and decrease in yarn
irregularity. To answer this question, we need to learn
the law of doubling and addition of irregularity.
 Law of doubling
During drawing, many slivers are combined (doubled)
on the input side to feed the drawframe. The law of
doubling says that if you combine (double) n slivers
together, the overall irregularity of the combined
(doubled) sliver will reduce according to the following
law: ______

CV  CV
I (1.13)
n

where: CVI = CV of all n slivers at the input to the

drawframe
____

CV= Mean value of the CV values of all the single

slivers
___ CV1  CV2 .... CVn
CV 
n
n = number of doubled slivers.
Therefore, doubling always reduces the overall irregularity.
This is not difficult to comprehend if you consider the large
increase in the number of fibres in the cross section of the
doubled material. The doubled material is then subject to
drafting, which reduces its thickness. As long as the
drawframe is functioning properly, and the output sliver is
thicker than, or as think as, the average thickness of the input
slivers, the CV of the output sliver will be lower than the
average CV of the input slivers. This explains the decrease in
measured CV from carding to drawing in Figure 1.2.
 Addition of irregularity
At the roving and spinning stage, there is no doubling. A
sliver is drafted into a thinner roving, and a roving is drafted
to yarn thickness during spinning. The net result is a
reduction in the number of fibres in yarn cross section. In
addition, the process itself may introduce additional
irregularities to the drafted material.
Mathematically, if a fibre assembly enters a drafting
process (roving, spinning) with an irregularity of CVin,
and emerges from that process with an irregularity of
CVout, then the additional irregularity due to the
process itself (CVadd) can be worked out using the
following formula:

CV 2 out  CV 2 in  CV 2 add or CVadd  CV 2 out  CV 2 in

The added irregularity comes from two sources –
reduction in the number of fibres in cross section and
imperfect drafting.

The following example will help understand the

concepts here.
Worked example
Eight slivers, with an average irregularity CV of 4%, were
fed to a drawframe. The drawn sliver has a CV value of
3%. What is the total irregularity introduced during the
drawing process?

Solution :
The above problem can be graphically represented as:
Sliver 1
CVadd = ?

CVout = 3%

Sliver 8
CVave = 4%
First of all, we need to know the CV of the input material
(CVin). According to the law of doubling (equation 1.13),
this can be easily calculated:
___

CVin  CV 
4
 1.4 (%)
n 8

Now that we know CVin and CVout is already given as

3%, we can calculate the CV introduced during drawing
(CVadd) using equation 1.14.

CVadd  CV 2 out  CV 2 in  3 2  1.4 2  2.65 (%)

As mentioned before, this added CV is due to two factors
– reduction in the number of fibres in cross section and
imperfect drafting caused by material and/or machine
related reasons.
Review questions

1.In the calculation of limiting irregularity, information on

fibre length is not used. This implies that fibre length has
nothing to do with the theoretical yarn evenness. Yet in
practice, fibres with shorter length and higher length
variations usually make less even yarns, other things being
equal. How do you explain this 'discrepancy'?
2. A yarn is composed of 40/60 wool/cotton blend and
has a linear density of 20 Nec (cotton count). The
cotton has a fineness of 3.8 micronaire () and the
wool has an average diameter of 19 μm (1 μm = 10-6
m) and a diameter CV of 25%. What is the limiting
irregularity of this wool/cotton yarn? If the blend
ratio is changed to 20/80 wool/cotton, is the yarn
evenness likely to improve or deteriorate, compared
with the 40/60 wool/cotton blend ratio? (you need
to show your workings).

.
Measurement and benchmarking of yarn
evenness
Introduction
Up till now we have used the term effective CV, actual or
measured CV of yarns. But how do we measure the CV
of a yarn or a fibre assembly and what do we do with the
measured results?

This topic discusses evenness measurement and making

use of the measured results.
Objectives

At the end of this topic you should be able to:

 Understand the principle of evenness testing

 Appreciate the importance of spectrograms as a diagnostic
tool
 Know the difference between Uster Statistics and Yarnspec
Principle of evenness testing
As mentioned before, the traditional way of evenness testing is to
dissect the fibre assembly into many short sections and weigh
each section, and then calculate the CV of the fibre assembly
from the weights of the individual sections. This is still a
reference method, by which the accuracy of other methods is
judged. Such cutting and weighing method is a very tedious
process as you can imagine, considering that a sufficiently long
length of yarn should be measured to get a CV value
representative of the bulk material.
 Zellweger Uster AG, a textile instrument manufacturer
based in Switzerland, has produced generations of
evenness testing instrument for rapid measurement of
the evenness of various fibre assemblies. The latest is the
Uster Evenness Tester 4, although its predecessor (Uster
Evenness Tester 3) is still widely used. A photo of the
Uster tester 3 is given in Figure 2.1.

Fig. 2.1: A photo of Uster evenness tester 3 (Zellweger Uster AG)

The Uster Evenness Tester(Uster)

measures mass variations along the length of a fibre

assembly. It is based on the capacitance principle as
depicted in Figure 2.2. The two capacitors detect the
mass variations or weight per unit length variations of
the fibre assembly running between them. These
variations are transformed into a proportional
electrical signal. The signal processing unit will
process this signal, and work out the U% and CV%
value, as well as other useful information concerning
the mass variations. All the details can be displayed or
printed out.
Evenness test results
The Uster evenness tester provides a considerable
amount of information on the evenness of a fibre
assembly, including:

 Single overall results

 Diagram

 Spectrogram
 Single overall results

These include the U% and CV% values, the index of

irregularity (I), as well as the number of imperfections
(thin place, thick place, and neps). All those
parameters are expressed as single numbers, which are
easy to use, particularly in a mill situation. These single
values provide an overall picture of yarn evenness.
However, if the results are bad, the causes of the poor
results can not be identified from these single values
 Diagram
A diagram is simply a trace of mass (linear density)
variation along a fibre assembly. For instance, if you
dissect a long length of yarn into many very short
sections and then weigh each section, you will get many
mass readings (xi) as shown in Figure 2.4.
Mass
xi (individual mass readings)

Mean
mass

Fig. 2.4: A manually constructed diagram of mass variation Length

From this diagram, many useful statistics (mean, CV
etc) can be obtained as shown in the Limiting
Irregularity section.
A diagram obtained from the Uster evenness tester is
given in Figure 2.5. The dip in the middle of this
diagram was actually caused by a missing sliver, of
about 120 m, in the input material for a drawframe. This
example demonstrates the usefulness of diagrams in
identifying certain faults in the fibre assembly.
Basically, the diagrams can help identify extreme thin
and thick places, slow changes in the mean mass value,
step changes in the mean value, periodic mass
variations of long wave length etc.
Fig. 2.5: A diagram showing an extreme thin place in the
sliver (Furter 1982, p.12)
 Spectrograms

The single overall results are very useful in that they provide
evenness information in concise single values. These single
values are easy to use for comparison purpose in particular.
For instance, the CV% or index of irregularity of one yarn is
higher than another similar yarn, we can say one yarn is
better than the other in terms of yarn evenness.
But that is often not sufficient for quality control purpose.
Suppose we now know from the single overall results (eg.
CV, I) that a yarn is not good in evenness, and we want to
find out what has caused the irregularity in the yarn.
Once we know what has caused the irregularity, we can
then try to rectify the problem. For this, we need the
spectrograms.
Before we discuss the spectrogram, it is necessary to say a few
words about the nature of mass variations in a fibre assembly. We
already know that random fibre arrangements lead to mass
variation, and this variation can be precisely calculated as
discussed in the limiting irregularity section. If that is all the
variation we get, then we have nothing more to worry about,
because that is exactly what we aim for in a yarn. Unfortunately
we often get more than just the random variations, for two
common reasons:
(a) Variability in fibre length and the presence of short fibres
make fibre control during drafting difficult, this leads to non-
random variations in a fibre assembly. Such non-random
variation is called a drafting wave. It is called a drafting wave
because the mass variation occurs in a more or less periodic
manner in the drafted material, much like a wave of variations
along the length of the fibre assembly.
(b) There may be machine defects or mechanical faults in
the drafting systems, which causes changes in drafting
speed and the actual draft periodically, leading to rather
strictly periodic mass variations in the drafted fibre
assembly.
Here we need to reflect upon what has been discussed
on Roller Drafting in the Introduction to Fibre Science
and Textile Technology unit. For roller drafting, as
depicted in Figure 2.6, the most important concept is
the concept of perfect roller drafting.

Back rollers Front rollers

Slower
Faster

Ratch setting

Fig. 2.6: A simple roller drafting system

The concept of perfect roller drafting is: every fibre
in the drafting zone should travel at the speed of
back rollers until its leading end reaches the front
roller nip. Then the fibre gets instantly accelerated
to the front roller speed.If this is what actually
happens in roller drafting, we will get a drafted fibre
assembly with random variation of fibre ends only.
However, when there are many short fibres in the
drafting zone, these short fibres will not move
according to the requirements of roller drafting. They
‘float’ and ‘swim’ together in the drafting zone, the
speed at which they travel depends on the speed of
their neighbouring fibres. The end result is some
practically (i.e. not strictly) periodic mass variation
in the drafted material. Such practically periodic
mass variation caused by floating short fibres is
called a drafting wave, and its wave length is
approximately 2.5 to 3 times the average fibre length
of the fibre assembly.
With good fibre control, using pressure bars (on cotton
drawframe) and pinned faller basr (on worsted gillbox),
drafting waves can be significantly reduced or eliminated.
A common machine defect or mechanical fault of drafting
elements is roller eccentricity, as indicated in Figure 2.7.

Eccentric front Fig. 2.7: Eccentric rollers cause periodic mass

bottom roller variations Drafted material

Speed varies
with radius
r
R
Wave length
(Roller circumference)
Eccentric back
bottom roller
Drafted material

R
r

Wave length
(Roller circumference x draft)
Because of roller eccentricity, the surface speed (v) of
the eccentric roller varies as the radius of rotation (r)
varies (n, where n is the roller rpm). If the front bottom
roller is eccentric, a larger radius of rotation (R) will
lead to higher roller surface speed, which means
increased drafting, resulting in over draft or a thin
section in the drafted material. The opposite happens
with the smaller radius of rotation, and this cycle
repeats for every complete revolution of the eccentric
roller. As a result the wave length of the periodic
variation is exactly the same as the circumference of the
offending roller.
On the other hand, if the back bottom roller is eccentric
and front rollers are fine, then at the larger radius of
rotation R), the back roller surface speed will be faster,
leading to a reduction in draft and hence a thicker
section in the drafted material. The opposite is the case at
the smaller radius of rotation (r). Not only that, the
periodic mass variation caused by the back eccentric
roller will be lengthened by a factor of the draft used. In
other words, the wave length of the periodic mass
variation caused by a back eccentric roller will be equal to
the roller circumference multiplied by a factor of draft, as
indicated in Figure 2.7.
Periodic mass variations in a yarn often result in
unwanted patterning in fabrics made from such yarns.
They also lead to increased ends down during spinning
and subsequent processing. It is essential in yarn
manufacture to prevent the occurrence of such mass
variations in slivers, rovings or yarns.
Furthermore, the presence of periodic or practically
periodic mass variations in a fibre assembly does not
necessarily result in significant increases in the CV%
value or in the index of irregularity.
So the CV% value or index of irregularity will not
indicate the presence of those mass variations. But how
do we know if a fibre assembly has a drafting wave or
periodic mass variation then? This question leads us
back to discussion on spectrograms.
Hypothetically, if a yarn has mass variations that resemble a
sinusoidal wave as shown in Figure 2.8(a), then a
mathematical (Fourier) transformation of such a mass
variation signal will reveal the frequency (f) of such variation
as a sharp peak shown in Figure 2.8(b). For a signal that is
not as simple as just a sinusoidal wave, it has been proven
mathematically that it can be constructed by superimposing
a series of sinusoidal waves of varying frequencies.
Therefore, if the original mass variation in the yarn is of a
more complex shape as shown in Figure 2.8(c), then the
same mathematical transformation will reveal the
frequency of each of its sinusoidal components as shown
Figure 2.8(d). The different amplitude reflects the
different ‘share’ of the respective component in the
original signal.
Amplitude Amplitude
(a) (b)

Transformation

Time f Frequency
(c) (d)

Transformation

Time f1 f2 f3 Frequency

Fig. 2.8: Transformation of time domain signal to frequency domain

If the original mass variation is of a random nature, then
after transformation, there will be many frequencies of
similar amplitude. Further, if there is a periodic mass
variation in addition to the random variation, then the
frequency of that periodic mass variation will show up as a
sharp peak after the transformation. Put differently, if a
mass variation signal is subjected to a transformation and
a sharp peak (“chimney”) appears in the transformed
signal, then we know there is a periodic mass variation in
the fibre assembly. This is basically how spectrogram
works.
Since wave length is more useful than frequency for
textile purposes, the spectrogram indicates the
different wave lengths (on a logarithmic scale)
versus their amplitude. Modern evenness testing
instruments, such as the Uster Evenness Tester,
provide diagrams as well as spectrograms for the
fibre assembly tested. The diagram is a time domain
mass variation signal, while the spectrogram
represents the same mass variation in the frequency
domain.
Figure 2.9 shows the diagrams and spectrograms of 3
different yarns – normal yarn with random variation only,
faulty yarn with additional periodic mass variation, and
faulty yarn with additional drafting wave.
Fig.2.9: Diagrams (left) and spectrograms (right) of 3
yarns (Uster Spectrograph, Zelleger Uster, PE404)
 With respect to interpreting a spectrogram, the
following simple rules can be used as a guide:

(a) A fault-free fibre assembly will give a typical normal

spectrogram (with neither ‘chimnies’ nor ‘humps’)
(b) A ‘chimney’ on top of a normal spectrogram
indicates the presence of a periodic mass variation in the
fibre assembly. The wave length of this periodic mass
variation can be read off the horizontal axis (noting the
logarithmic scale)
(c) A ‘hump’ on top of a normal spectrogram indicates the
presence of a drafting wave in the fibre assembly. The wave
length of the drafting wave is equal to 2.5 to 3 times the
mean fibre length.
Once we get the wave length of a periodic mass
variation from the spectrogram, and we know this
wave length is related to the circumference of the
offending roller, we can then identify the roller and
replace it with a good one to solve the problem. For
drafting waves, the use of more uniform fibres and
proper fibre control during drafting will usually solve
the problem.

Spectrogram is therefore a very useful quality control

tool in a spinning mill.
Benchmarking yarn evenness
In management jargon, benchmarking is a total quality
management tool and denotes the procedure of
identifying and quantifying topnotch or world-class
performance (benchmarks) in a particular business or
product category and comparing the data with the
performance of the own company or product.

Let’s assume we have already produced some yarns and

we have tested the yarns for evenness. Now we want to
know how good our yarns are. In other words, we want to
benchmark a product - our yarns.
There are several ways of benchmarking yarn evenness,
including:

 Index of irregularity
 Uster Statistics

 Yarnspec (for worsted yarn only)

 Index of irregularity
Table 2.1 shows a classification of worsted yarns based
on the index of irregularity of the yarn.
Table 2.1: Classification of worsted yarns based on the
index of irregularity

Since processing technology is improving and so is yarn

quality, the data in this table may not reflect the quality
of worsted yarns in the future. Generally speaking, a
good quality worsted yarn should not have an index of
irregularity greater than 1.2 by today’s standard.
 Uster statistics

While the evenness index value is of use to the yarn

manufacturers for internal quality control purpose, what
matters to the users of yarn (i.e the weavers and knitters)
is the actual irregularity in the yarn they are going to use.
For this reason, the Uster Statistics is of great practical
importance.
So what is the Uster Statistics then?
The following excerpts from the 1997 Uster Statistics
Book (produced by Zellweger Uster) answer this question
briefly:“Almost half a century ago, in 1949, the first Uster
Standards were presented to the textile public in
numerical form. This started a new era in the assessment
of the technological and commercial value of spun yarns.
Over the years, the Uster Standards have developed into
the Uster Statistics, which have been regularly updated
until today and additional quality parameters for sliver,
roving, and yarns have been introduced progressively.
Simultaneously, the methods and procedures applied to
establish the Uster Statistics have been gradually
enhanced.”
Today, the Uster Statistics represent the only truly
comprehensive survey of the quality of textile materials
produced in the major textile hubs around the world and
they constitute the mainstay of global market intelligence
related to textile quality.

The Uster Statistics are first and foremost a practical

guide to ‘good textile practices’ in the field of yarn
manufacturing.

The Uster Statistics just seem to have been made for

quality benchmarking on the corporate level.
Uster Statistics 1997 provide data on the following major
types of yarn:
 100% CO, carded, ring spinning – 100% carded cotton (ring
spun)
 100% CO, carded, rotor spinning – 100% carded cotton (rotor
spun)
 100% CO, combed, ring spinning – 100% combed cotton (ring
spun)
 100% CO, combed, rotor spinning – 100% combed cotton
(rotor spun)
 100% CO, carded, rotor spinning – 100$ carded cotton (rotor
spun)
 100% WO, worsted spinning – 100% wool yarn (worsted ring
spun)
Provisional data is also provided for the following types
of yarn:

 100% PES, ring spinning – 100% polyester (ring spun)

 100% CV, ring spinning - 100% Rayon (ring spun)
 100% CV, rotor spinning – 100% Rayon (rotor spun)
 65/35, 67/33 PES/CO, combed, ring spinning – 65%
polyester/35% cotton blend, combed (ring spun) and 67%
polyester/33% cotton blend, combed (ring spun)
 65/35, 67/33 PES/CV, ring spinning – 65% polyester/35% Rayon
blend (ring spun) and 67% polyester/33% Rayon blend (ring
spun)
 50/50 PES/CO, rotor spinning – 50% polyester/50% cotton blend
(rotor spun)
 50/50 PES/CO, air-jet spinning – 50% polyester/50% cotton
blend (air-jet spun)
 65/35 PES/CO, air-jet spinning – 65% polyester/35% cotton blend
(air-jet spun)
 55/45 PES/WO, worsted spinning – 55% polyester/45% wool
blend (worsted ring spun)
The key quality attributes listed for these yarns are:

 Yarn count variation (between bobbins or packages)

 Mass variation (U% and CV%)
 Imperfections (thick and thin places, neps)
 Uster Hairiness Index
 Tensile properties (strength and elongation)
 Yarnspec (for worsted yarns)
Yarnspec is a computer program developed by Scientists
at CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology in Geelong. Since
the work was funded by Australian wool growers, the
program has been specifically designed for the
prediction of properties of worsted yarns and the
performance of worsted spinning, based on the
properties of worsted tops and the spinning conditions.
The predicted results are what a worsted spinner can
expect in terms of spinning performance and yarn
quality if the operation follows “best commercial
practice”. In other words, Yarnspec can be used to
benchmark the performance of worsted spinners.
(c)Yarn details
 Yarn count

 Yarn twist

 Dyed or undyed

The predicted outcome includes the following details:

 Yarn evenness (I, CV%, U%)

 Yarn Imperfections (Thin places/km, thick

places/km, and neps/km
 Yarn tenacity and breaking elongation

 Spinning ends-down per 1,000 spindle hours

For a worsted spinner, Yarnspec is a step ahead of Uster
Statistics for performance benchmarking, because it
takes into consideration of the fibre properties used in
spinning the yarn. In addition, it provides information
on yarn strength as well as on the critical spinning
performance in terms of ends-down per 1,000 spindle
hours. Yarnspec can also be used to predict the
properties of two folded yarns.
Review questions

1.An ideal sliver of 70 mm mean fibre length is roller drafted with a

draft of 10 under the following three conditions:

(a)Perfect roller drafting

(b)Presence of a large number of uncontrolled short fibres
(c)An eccentric back drafting roller with a diameter of 3 cm.

Explain how drafting under each condition will affect the

evenness of the drafted sliver, and sketch and label the
spectrogram for each drafting condition.

2.A 50 tex worsted yarn of 100% wool is measured for its evenness
on the Uster evenness tester. If the CV of this yarn is 15%, how
good is this yarn in relation to world production of similar yarns?
 USTER TESTER-6
 The Vital Link to Think Quality
 The starting Point for Superb Quality and optimized
Productivity in the spinning mill
 Integrated Quality throughout the mill
 Latest Sensor Technology has all the answers with UT-
6
 The Full Story of Hairiness for the first time
 Precision control, for the productivity and optimum
fabric appearance
 Uster Expertise in problem-solving makes yarns and
fabrics better, faster, simpler
 Uster tester-6
 Easy to learn, easy to use: a fresh approach textile
laboratory testing
 Total testing Centre: get connected for comprehensive
quality management
 Comprehensive alerts against quality shortfalls
 Central control and optimization-linking several
instruments across multiple production units
 Yarn prognosis: a new perspective on quality from
customer viewpoint
 Assistant Q: a new “employee” with 65 years of know
how
 Uster Tester 6
 key benefits at a glance
 The total testing centre: meeting quality exceptions
every day
 Sensor Technology for top performance
 Built in knowledge to support mills
 The standard from fibre to fabric
 Broad range of products
 Optimal service
 Uster Statistics-the textile industry standards
 Usterized-brand your products with quality
 Uster Worldwide: many technology centres, regional
services provide best services worldwide