BLENDING COTTON AND POLYESTER FIBERS--

EFFECTS OF PROCESSING METHODS ON FIBER

DISTRIBUTION AND YARN PROPERTIES

A THESIS

Presented to

The Faculty of the Graduate Division

by

Nelson Ping Ching Chao

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Textiles

Georgia Institute of Technology

September, 1963
 3^
12,^ ^

BLENDING COTTON AND POLYESTER FIBERS-

EFFECTS OF PROCESSING METHODS ON FIBER

DISTRIBUTION AND YARN PROPERTIES

Approved!

"—xy '—17
Date Approved by Chairman: ^^ysu^.^1^ ^h^ R^^
 li

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude and apprecia-

tion to Dr. James L. Taylor, Director of the A. French Textile School,

£or granting him a graduate assistantship and a Celanese fellowship

which made this study possible; to Professor R. K. Flege, his thesis

advisor, and to Professor R. L. Hill, both of the A. French Textile

School, for their advice and recommendations; and to Dr. Joseph J.

Moder of the School of Industrial Engineering for his assistance with

the statistical aspects of the experiment. He also extends his thanks

to Mr. R. C. Freeman, technician of the A. French Textile School, for

his kind assistance.

 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii

SUMMARY vill

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION I

Some Aspects of Blending Fibers

Stateioent of the Problem

II. INSTRUMENTATION AND EQUIPMENT 11

Raw Materials Used

Processing Equipment
Testing Equipment

III. PROCEDURE 13

Processing Blended Yarn

Physical Tests
Tests for Uniformity
Tests for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Yarn
Examination of Fiber Distribution
Analyses of Data

IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 24

V. CONCLUSIONS 44

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 47

APPENDIX 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY 74
 Iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

la. Identification of Processes 15

lb. Organization of Weights and Drafts 16

2a. Analysis of Variance for Drawing Sliver Evenness 25

2b. Tukey Test for Significance of Drawing Sliver Evenness

Differences Between Drawing Processes 25

3a. Analysis of Variance for Roving Evenness 28

3b. Tukey Test for Significance of Roving Evenness

Differences Between Drawing Processes 28

4a. Analysis of Variance for Y a m Evenness 31

4b. Tukey Test for Significance of Yarn Evenness Difference

Between Drawing Processes 31

5. Sunmary of Per Cent Coefficient of

Variation for Product Evenness 33

6a. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Breaking Strength 35

6b. Tukey Test for Significance of Yarn Strength

Differences Between Drawing Processes 35

7. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Elongation 36

8. Sunmiary of Yarn Breaking Strength Test 38

9a. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Nep Count 39

9b. Tukey Test for Significance of Yarn Nep Count

Differences Between Drawing Processes 39

10a. Analysis of Variance for Fiber Migration Index 41

10b. Tukey Test for Significance of Fiber Migration Index

Differences Between Drawing Processes 41

11. Sunmary of Yarn Nep Count Test 42

Table Page

12. Summary of the Migration Index of Cotton Component 42

13. Operating Data for H & B Revolving Flat Card 49

14. Settings for H & B Revolving Flat Card 50

15. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Roller Top Card 51

16. Settings for Saco-Lowell Roller Top Card 52

17. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell, 4 Over 5,

DS-4 Drawing Frame 53

18. Operating Data for 10-1/2" Saco-Lowell Lap Winder 54

19. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Model 57 Comber 54

20. Operating Data for Whitin Woonsocket Roving Frame 55

21. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell SS-2 Spinning Frame 56

22. Operating Data for Uster Evenness Tester 57

23. Operating Data for Uster Automatic Yarn Strength Tester . . 58

24. Fiber Fineness Test Using Sheffield Micronaire 59

25. Cotton Fiber Strength Test Using Pressley Tester 60

26. Fiber Length Test Using Servo-Fibrograph 61

27. Uniformity of Cotton Picker Lap 62

28. Uniformity of Dacron Picker Lap 62

29. Per Cent Coefficient of Variation for the Evenness of

Slivers 63

30. Summary of Per Cent Coefficient of Variation for

the Evennesses of Sliver, Roving and Yarn 64

31. Per Cent Coefficient of Variation for the

Evenness of Blended Sliver 65

32. Per Cent Coefficient of Variation for

the Evenness of Roving 67

33. Per Cent Coefficient of Variation for

the Evenness of Yarn 69
 vi

Table Page

34. Summary of Results from Yarn In^erfectlon Indicator . . . . 71

35. Results of Fiber Count for Fiber Migration Index 72

36. Summary of Results from Uster Automatic Yarn

Strength Tester 73
 vli

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Sequence of Operations for Producing

Blend of Dacron/Combed Cotton 14

2. Effects of Drawing Process and Drawing

Speed on the Evenness of Drawing Sliver 26

3. Effects of Drawing Process and Drawing

Speed on Roving Evenness 29

4. Effects of Drawing Process and

Drawing Speed on Yarn Evenness 32

5. Effects of Drawing Process and Drawing Speed on

Yarn Breaking Strength and Elongation 37

6. Effects of Drawing Process and Drawing

Speed on Fiber Migration Index 43
 viti

SUMMARY

The blending of cotton and man-made fibers at the drawing frame

has been a common practice In the textile Industry. In order to reduce

the processing cost, the newer high speed drawing frames have been

adopted to Increase the production, and the number of drawing processes

has also been reduced, In most of the mills, from three to two processes.

This Investigation was conducted to statistically evaluate the

effects of the speed of drawing frame and the number of drawing processes

on the fiber distribution, In terms of fiber migration Index, and other

physical properties of the blended yarns made from the silvers blended

at the drawing frame.

The blend of 35 per cent combed cotton and 65 per cent polyester

was made at the drawing frame where three different processes--one-

process, two-process, and three-process drawlngs--and three levels of

front roll speed--100, 200, and 300 feet per mlnute--were Introduced to

yield nine lots of blended silver. These silvers were then processed

Into 30's yarn through roving and spinning operations.

The silvers, rovlngs, and yarns were tested for evenness. The

yarns were tested for breaking strength, elongation, nep content, and

fiber migration Index. All the data obtained were statistically analyzed

to evaluate the results.

It was found that the number of drawing processes had a signifi-

cant effect. In a statistical sense, on the evenness of silvers, rovlngs,

and yarns. An Increase In the number of drawing processes had Improved

 Ix

the evenness of the products. Speed of the dravlng frame was found to

have but little effect on the product evenness. All evenness tests were

performed on the Uster Tester.

The yarn breaking strength and elongation tests, made on the Uster

Automatic Y a m Strength Tester, revealed that the number of drawing proc-

esses significantly affected the yarn strength, while the quadratic com-

ponent of the drawing frame speed significantly affected the yarn elonga-

tion. Both breaking strength and per cent elongation increased with each

additional drawing process. The speed of 200 feet per minute was found

to have yielded the strongest yarn with the highest per cent elongation.

The nep content in the yarns was determined by the Uster Imper-

fection Indicator. The number of drawing processes had a significant

effect on the nep content but only at the 10 per cent level. Two-

process drawing produced fewer neps in the yarns. Also, nep count was

lower in the yarns produced at the slower speed.

Microscopic examination of yarn cross sections revealed that the

cotton fibers had an outward migratory tendency, while the polyester

fibers had an inward migratory tendency. The migration index was lower

as the number of drawing processes increased. As the migration index

decreases, uniformity of the fiber distribution increases. Three-process

drawing yielded the yarn with the most uniform distribution of fibers.

Also, the yarn processed at the lowest drawing frame speed showed the

most uniform distribution of fibers in the cross section. The effects

of the number of drawing processes, and drawing fraxoe speed, were found

to be significant only at the 10 per cent level.

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Some Aspects of Blending Fibers

The blending or mixing of natural and/or man-made fibers has been

practiced for many years, but only recently has it attracted great at-

tention from textile manufacturers. Reduction in number of processes

required on modern machinery, differences in harvesting and ginning

practices and increased usage of new man-made fibers have greatly in-

creased the importance and significance of blending processes and

procedures.

Blending nay be defined as the mixing of two or more masses of

fibers so that the resulting mixture has the characteristics of the

average of the component items. Blending of cotton is done for at

least three purposes (1):

(a) To reduce the variation in fiber characteristics so that

a homogeneous sliver or roving is produced for the spinning frame. The

fiber properties vary with the variety of the cotton, area of growth,

cultural practices, weather conditions, time of harvest, harvesting

methods and ginning treatments. The coefficient of variation of fiber

fineness and strength within the bale has been estimated to be as much

as 40 per cent. Thorough blending is, therefore, necessary to reduce

the variation and yield more uniform yarn of controlled quality.

(b) To provide the mill aiachinery with a continuous supply of

cotton of the same average quality. This is done to maintain a uniform

stock from day to day, week to week or even longer periods of time.

(c) To take advantage of the price differentials in cotton between

grades and fineness levels, etc. It may be more economical to blend cot-

tons of different price ranges than to use only one cotton with the same

average properties.

In recent years, since the adoption of many man-made fibers by the

textile industry, the blending of man-made fibers with each other or with

natural fibers has become popular. Speakman (2) has given three main

reasons for blending. The first is to produce a cheaper product. Blends

of wool and cotton, and of wool and rayon are common practices used in

the textile industry to reduce the cost without considerably affecting

the quality. It should, however be eiiq>hasized that low cost is not

necessarily a desirable end; cost in relation to performance is the basic

criterion of merit. The objective is to give the best value for the

money. The second reason is the correction of defects. Many fibers

have some inherent undesirable characteristics which can be minimized

by blending with some other fibers. The wear resistance of wool can be

inq}roved by blending with nylon. Low water-absorption of polyester

fiber fabrics can be improved by blending with cotton or rayon. The

third and, perhaps, the most inq>ortant reason for blending is the crea-

tion of new and more desirable effects. Many fibers have specific

properties which, if used properly, produce new and special effects.

Many man-made fibers have high tenacity and low water absorption; this

may be an advantage in making easy-care fabrics which will dry quickly

and do not need pressing. Also, the mixture of different fibers gives a

diversity to the appearance and handle of fabrics. Special effects may

be created by the use of cross-dyeing to introduce two different colors

into a fabric.

Due to large variations in the fiber properties of today's cotton,

large quantity preblending and storing of blended bales has been practiced

by many cotton mills as a means for leveling out the variations. In

studies by Howe (4), four sources of cotton fiber variations were recog-

nized: (a) within each bale; (b) between bales within a mix; (c)

between shipments; and (d) from crop to crop. When the final blend is

made from preblended bales, taken across a reservoir of preblended lots,

the resultant blend will represent a cross section of perhaps several

hundred bales. This should provide uniform stock, and result in relative-

ly constant processing performance and yarn quality week after week. The

preblending operation is usually done by using blending feeders (eight

to ten) and cleaning units (Axi-Flo Cleaners) to remove some of the trash

from cotton.

In a mill operated on the cotton system, the blending of natural

and/or man-made fibers is usually done by any one, and frequently a com-

bination, of the following methods (5):

(a) Sandwich blending by hand. This involves spreading weighed

quantities of the several fibers in their correct proportions in hori-

zontal layers in large capacity bins or on the floor. This method re-

quires a large storage area and a high labor cost. The degree of

uniformity is largely dependent on the care taken in building the sandwich.

 (b) Use of blending feeders in the opening unit. An older method

of blending at the opening unit used a single bale opener around which

were placed a number of bales of fibers representing the proportion of the

components in the blend. The stock was fed on to the lattice by hand at

a controlled rate from each bale so that all bales would run out at the

same time. Uniformity of the resulting blend depended almost entirely on

the skill and care of the operator. A new and more effective method for

blending makes use of blending feeders, each supplied with a single fiber

component, and provided with a metering device to regulate the weight of

fiber delivered to the proportions required in the blend. A controlled

quantity of fibers from each blending feeder drops to the feed table to

form a sandwich blend. The resulting blend is then conveyed to the next

machine for further processing.

(c) Lap blending. In a two-process picking line, the laps pro-

duced by breaker pickers are placed on finisher picker for blending.

The proportion of blend can be regulated by the nundaer of laps of each

con^onenc placed on finisher picker.

(d) Card blending. The card does not mix fibers completely at

random, but it does break down fiber bunches very well, and blending can

be done in a later process with good results (6).

(e) Blending at the drawing frame. Blending can be made at the

first drawing process with six or eight ends up. The fibers which re-

quire different opening and carding treatments are normally blended at

this stage.

Blending also can be done at the roving or spinning frame by

using double creel for the rovlngs fed to the drafting element.

The appropriate stage for blending the different fibers is deter-

mined by the state of the component fibers as well as the quality level

required in the final product. When conditions are such that the blended

conqponents do not tend to regroup during the subsequent processing, the

greatest dispersal is obtained by blending at the earliest possible

stage in manufacture. This will give more doublings and result in uni-

form blends. When there is considerable difference in the degree of

opening or in the amount of foreign matter present there should be a pre-

liminary opening before blending. As the man-made fiber is free from

entanglement and impurities, opening is concerned only with separation

of fibers in the tufts of baled staple. Excessive processing will

damage the fibers. With cotton/man-made fiber blends, opening and clean-

ing of cotton must be carried out before blending with man-made fiber on

a short opening unit.

Selection of blend components is determined by the end-use for

the product. Determining factors are (3): (a) to define the cost of

the blend by union of coiq>onent8 of different prices, (b) to in^rove

manufacturing performance by addition of a small percentage of higher

grade fibers, (c) to improve end-use performance, and (d) to stimulate

consumer appeal by the introduction of end products with new character-

istics.

The ideal blend is one in which the individual fibers of the com-

ponents are mixed to give a uniform texture, appearance and handle. Also

there shall not be any unwanted shade variation in the finish cloth.
This is best effected when the components have approximately similar

characteristics.

Three types of irregular blending can be distinguished (7):

(a) Variation, along the yarn, in the proportion of the different

fibers in each cross section.

(b) Inadequate mixing of the different fibers in each cross

section.

(c) Variation, along the yarn, in the degree of mixing of the

different fibers at each cross section.

These irregularities will be influenced by the methods used to

blend the fibers, but they will not all have the same effect on the

appearance of the finished fabrics. The average degree of mixing of the

different fibers in the cross section of the yarn, together with any

tendency for one fiber to adopt preferential positions on the inside or

outside of the yarn, will affect the appearance and character of the

fabrics, but will not cause barring or streakiness. These faults are

caused by variation In the composition o£ the yarn along its length, or

by variation along the length of the yarn in the degree of mixing of the

fiber in each cross section.

Lund (8) has pointed out that (a) finer yarns will appear less

well blended than coarser yarns when the yarns are spun from similarly

proportioned blends of similar fibers; (b) yarns of the same count spun

from coarser fibers will appear more streaky; and (c) yarns of same

counts spun from distinctly different fibers of the same size but in

decidedly unbalanced blends, such as 90/10, will appear more streaky

than yarns of the same fibers in a 50/50 blend.

 since a perfect blend is not realized In practice, the best that

can be hoped for Is a random distribution of fibers In the yarns. Lund

showed that this random distribution of fibers could be achieved by using

a sufficient number of doublings in the processes. For a 50/50 blend,

he suggested that the minimum number of doublings In the processes should

be equal to the number of fibers In the cross section of the final yarn.

But Cox suggested (9) that the number of doublings should be five times

the number of fibers In the cross section, and the number of doublings

with unbalanced blends should be greater than the ratio quoted. It may

be concluded that, based on the number of fibers In the cross section of

yarn, the finer yarns will require less doubling than the coarser yarns

when they are spun from the fibers of same fineness. For the yarns of

same count, those spun from finer fibers will require more doubling

than those from coarser fibers.

The migration In a transverse direction of component fibers In

blended yarns Is a well-known possibility. The work done by Ford In this

line shows the fiber migration depends on the following factors (10):

(a) Denier. Increasing the denier of a component causes that

component to migrate towards the surface.

(b) Staple length. Increasing the length of a component causes

that coiiq>onent to migrate towards the center.

(c) Chemical identity. This factor is believed to depend partly

on the length characteristic of the component. Acetate and protein

materials are known to undergo fiber breakage during processing and the

migration of these two fibers toward the surface is partly due to this

effect.
 (d) Extensibility. For a given chemical Identity of fiber, In-

crease In extensibility causes that coiaponent to migrate towards the

surface. With differing chemical Identities, the extensibility alone

does not, however, determine the migration tendency.

(e) Swelling and shrinkage. Components having a greater swel-

ling and shrinkage In liquid treatments subsequent to yarn spinning

migrate towards the yarn center.

Statement of the Problem

During recent years, processing blends of man-made fibers and

cotton on the cotton system has become very common In the textile In-

dustry. Cotton's characteristics of pleasing hand, breathing capacity

and absorbency make It Ideal for blending with man-made fibers posses-

sing high strength, abrasion resistance and wrinkle recovery properties.

This concept of blending cotton with man-made fibers has met with ex-

cellent consumer acceptance. More than 320 million yards of polyester

and cotton blend fabrics were produced in 1961 (11).

Because cotton and man-made fibers often require different

opening and carding treatments, blending at th« drawing fraiae has

become a common practice in many mills. Mill men have tried to in-

crease the production rate and reduce the number of drawing processes

In order to cut down the processing cost. Newer high speed drawing

frames have made it possible to operate at 800 feet of sliver per

minute which is about six times the speed of conventional drawing

frames. The number of drawing processes, in most of the mills, has

been reduced from three to two processes.

 The purpose o£ this study was to evaluate the effects of the speed

of drawing frame and the number of drawing processes on the fiber distri-

bution and other physical properties of the blended y a m s made from the

slivers blended at drawing frame.

Limited work has been done along this line. The experiment con-

ducted by Cancelliere II (12) concluded that the drawing speed had no

effect on the strength, elongation or uniformity of the resultant yarn.

The study made by Bogdan (13) showed that the increase in front roll

speed of an Ideal SP drawing frame did not affect the yarn strength of

16's carded yarn and 16's combed yarn. However, 13's carded yarn

showed a 7 per cent loss in strength when the speed was increased from

370 feet per minute to 770 feet per minute. In the comparison of 20*8

carded yarns produced with one, two and three drawing processes, Bogdan

pointed out that the yarn strength was increased slightly with additional

drawings. Both Cancelliere II and Bogdan used 100 per cent cotton in

their experiments; no literature has been found regarding the effect of

these process variables on blended yarns.

The blend of 35 per cent combed cotton and 65 per cent polyester

fiber was selected for this study because it is the most popular blend

for many Industrial products. Three levels of speed and three different

processes were employed in drawing operations to yield nine lots of

blended sliver. Various tests were made on each lot of slivers, rovings

and resultant y a m s to provide the data for statistical analysis and

comparison.

The drawing frame used in this experiment was a Saco-Lowell,

Model DS-4 machine. It was designed to operate at normal speed of 120

 10

feet per minute. The highest speed that could be obtained was approxi-

mately 300 feet per minute. The three levels of speed were, therefore,

chosen at 100, 200 and 300 feet per minute. One-process, two-process and

three-process drawings were eoq>loyed in the experiment. The number of

doublings in the drawing processes were 8, 16 and 24, respectively.

 11

CHAPTER II

INSTRUMENTATION AND EQUIPMENT

Raw Materials Used

The raw materials used included American Upland cotton and poly-

ester fiber.

The cotton was Good Middling grade, one-and-one-quarter inches

staple length. The data on fiber fineness, strength and length are

shown in Tables 24, 25 and 26 in the Appendix.

The polyester fiber was Dacron Type 54, one-and-one-half inches

staple length, and one-and-one-half denier.

Processing Equipment

The following processing equipment was used in these experiments:

1. Cotton opening line including Saco-Lowell Hopper

Feeder 1925, Superior Cleaner 1948, Saco-Lowell

Opener 1940, and Condenser.

2. Saco-Lowell One-Process Picker and Picker Hopper, 1918.

3. Whitin One-Process Picker, Model T, 1949, with Automatic

Picker Feed and Blending Hopper, Model K-6, 1949.

4. H & B Revolving Flat Card, Flexible Wire Clothing.

5. Saco-Lowell Roller Top Card, Model 1, 1948.

6. Saco-Lowell Drawing Frame, Model DS-4, 1957.

7. Reeves Variable Transmission, Size 1, Class F,

No. 44oqQ.
 12

a. Saco-Lowell 10-1/2" Lap Winder, Model 37, 1948.

9. Saco-Lowell Comber, Model 57, 1959.

10. Whitin 10 x 5 Woonsocket Roving Frame, Casablancas

Drafting System, 1939.

11. Saco-Lowell SS-2 Spinning Frame, Shaw Drafting System,

1948.

Testing Equipment

The following testing equipment was used in this work.

1. Saco-Lowell Lap Meter, Model 4, 1951.

2. Shadowgraph, Model 4104-A.

3. Sheffield Micronaire, Model D 80400.

4. Spinlab Servo-Fibrograph, Model 163.

5. Spinlab Fibrosampler, Model 192.

6. Pressley Fiber Strength Tester, No. 1127.

7. Uster Evenness Tester, Type GGP-B20.

8. Uster Evenness Recorder.

9. Uster Quadratic Integrator, Type ITG-Q7.

10. Uster Spectrograph, Type SPG-9.

11. Uster Spectrogram Recorder.

12. Uster Imperfection Indicator, Type IPI-3.

13. Uster Automatic Yarn Strength Tester With Automatic

Bobbin Attachment.

14. Microscope, American Optical Cotr?>any, lOX & 43X.

 13

CHAPTER m

PROCEDURE

Processing Blended Yarn

The flow chart in Figure 1 shows the sequence of operations for

producing the blend of Dacron polyester staple and combed cotton. Dacron

and cotton silvers were prepared separately from the raw stocks and

blended at the drawing frame, where the number of processes and speed

were varied to make nine lots of blended silver. These silvers were

then processed Into yarn through roving and spinning operations. All

processes were carried out at a temperature of 80^ F. and a relative

humidity of 50 per cent. The Identification of processes and organiza-

tion of weights and drafts are shewn In Tables la and lb.

To prepare the cotton silver, four picker laps of 35 pounds each

were made from raw cotton by conventional opening and picking processes.

Tests were made on the Saco-Lowell Lap Meter for yard to yard weight

and uniformity of the laps. The data showed that the average weight

was 13.5 ounces per yard and coefficient of variation was 1.68 percent

(Table 27). The results Indicated that the laps were fairly uniform.

In the carding process, the laps were run through an H & B flat

top carding machine to make 16 cans of 55-graln card silver. The

machine was operated at low speed (doffer speed six revolutions per

minute) to assure the good quality of silver.

 14

Cotton Dacron

Opening

Picking Picking

Carding Carding

Breaker Pre-
Drawing Drawing

Lap
Winder

Conibing

Pi P2 P3
1st Drawing Ist Drawing Ist Drawing
Si S2 S3 Si S2 S3 Si S2 S3

' ' ' 1

2nd Drawing 2nd Drawing

' 1 1

3rd Drawing

1 ' 1 •' _; 1 1 1 '

RovjLng

i J ' 1 1 ' 1 \ '1

Spinning

Figure 1. Sequepce o£ Operations for Producing

Blend of Dacron/Combed Cotton
 15

Table l a . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Processes

Lot Drawing Front Roll Speed

NuiEber Process of Drawing Frame

PiS
PI One-Process Drawing 100 Feet per Minute

P1S2 One-Process Drawing 200 Feet per Minute

P1S3 One-Process Drawing 300 Feet per Minute

Two-Process Drawing 100 Feet per Minute

Vi
P2S2 Two-Process Drawing 200 Feet per Minute

P2S3 Two-Process Drawing 300 Feet per Minute

P3S1 Three-Process Drawing 100 Feet per Minute

P3S2 Three-Process Drawing 200 Feet per Minute

P3S3 Three-Process Drawing 300 Feet per Minute

 16

Table lb. Organization of Weights and Drafts

Weight of Weight of Number

Material Material of Actual
Fed Delivered Doublings Draft

Picker (Cotton) 13.4 ozs/yd

Picker (Dacron) 13.0 ozs/yd

Carding (Cotton) 13.4 ozs/yd 55.0 grs/yd 1 107

Carding (Dacron) 13.0 ozs/yd 57.5 grs/yd 1 99

Breaker Drawing
(Cotton) 55.0 grs/yd 47.0 grs/yd 8 9.37

Lap Winder 47.0 grs/yd 904 grs/yd 20 1.04

Comber 904 grs/yd 50.0 grs/yd 6 109

Predrawlng (Dacron) 57.5 grs/yd 56.0 grs/yd 8 8.21

1 Drawing (Blend):
Pi (Ist Process) / 50.0 grs/yd
^ Cotton,3 Ends
1 \ / 56.0 grs/yd 50.0 grs/yd 8 8.6
^ Dacron,5 Ends

P2 (2nd Process) 50.0 grs/yd 50.0 grs/yd 8 8.0

P3 (3rd Process) 50.0 grs/yd 50.0 grs/yd 8 8.0

Roving 50.0 grs/yd 1.5 Hank 1 8.98

Spinning 1.5 Hank 30's 1 20

 17

The 16 cans of card silver were divided into two groups, each group

consisted of two cans produced from each lap. Two groups of sliver were

then processed on the drawing frame, using same delivery, to make 47-grain

drawing sliver. This was the breaker drawing process.

At the lap winder, 20 ends of drawing sliver were fed and 12 laps

of 55 yards each were made. The laps were randomly divided into two groups

and processed on the comber. The percentage of noil was found to be 19.4

which indicated that a large amount of short fiber was being removed during

the combing operation. Six cans of 50-grain combed sliver were produced,

ready for blending with Dacron.

To prepare the Dacron sliver, the raw stock was processed on a

synthetic fiber picker. Four picker laps were made and the tests made on

Saco-Lowell Lap Meter showed that the average weight approximated 13

ounces per yard. The coefficient of variation was 2.26 per cent (Table

28) which implied that the laps were not uniform.

These laps, about 25 pounds each, were processed on the roller top

card and, in order to reduce the variation from the laps, the sliver

weight was often checked and draft gear was changed accordingly when

necessary. The mean weight of sliver was 57.5 grains per yard.

After carding, the sliver was processed on a drawing frame for a

predrawing treatment. This was done to parallelize and orient the Dacron

fibers similar to the cotton fibers in the combed sliver. As a result,

the tension variation between the Dacron and cotton slivers was mini-

mized on Che subsequent blend drawing. In addition, the predrawing

would lixq>rove the uniformity of the card sliver. A total of 20 cans

of 56-graln sliver were prepared for blendlne with cotton.

 18

To obtain an accurate and reliable result, at least one replica-

tion o£ entire experiment vas necessary. It vas, therefore, decided to

repeat the whole experiment £rom blend drawing through spinning.

The combed cotton sliver and carded Dacron sliver, prepared for

blending, were randomly divided into two groups. After the first group

of slivers had been blended and processed into yarn, the same procedure

was followed in processing the second group of slivers.

To blend the slivers at the drawing frame, three ends of cotton

sliver and five ends of Dacron sliver were fed to make a 33 per cent

cotton and 65 per cent Dacron blend. The slivers were arranged as fol-

lows: Dacron, cotton, Dacron, cotton, Dacron, cotton, Dacron, Dacron.

Nine lots of blended sliver were produced from the drawing operations

by using three different numbers of processes and three different levels

of front roll speed. The three different processes used were one-

process, two-process and three-process drawings. Three levels of front

roll speeds were 100 feet per minute, 200 feet per minute, and 300 feet

per minute which was the maximum speed attainable. Three different

speeds were obtained by manipulating the Reeves Variable Speed Trans-

mission which drove the drawing frame. The nine lots of blends were

produced in random order, each lot was made up of five half-full cans.

There were 15 spindles available on the front row of the roving

frame. A total of 45 cans of blended sliver were randomized and 15 cans

at a time were assigned to the spindles. One 1.5 hank roving was made

from each can so there were 45 rovlngs produced in three operations.

Five rovlngs were obtained for each lot.

 19

On the spinning frame, there vere 24 spindles available. It was de

elded to use 23 spindles in the first operation and 22 spindles in the

second. All 45 rovlngs were randomized and processed into yarn in two

spinning operations. Two bobbins of yarn were produced from each roving

so the total production was 90 bobbins, 10 bobbins per lot. Single creel-

ing was used in the spinning to eliminate the effect of doubling at this

stage on the final result of experiment.

Physical Tests

All of the tests were conducted under the standard atmospheric con-

ditions of 70° F. temperature and 65 per cent relative humidity. The

samples were conditioned for at least three days before being tested.

Tests for Uniformity

Prior to blending, the cotton slivers resulting from carding,

breaker drawing, and combing processes, and the Dacron slivers produced

from carding and predrawlng processes, were tested for their uniformi-

ties on the Uster Tester. Four test specimens, of 100 yards each, were

sampled at equal Intervals to represent the quality of the product.

After the Dacron and cotton slivers were blended, a 100-yard speci-

men of blended sliver was withdrawn from each can. There were five speci-

mens from each lot to be tested. One test was made from each of the five

rovlngs in a lot. One bobbin of yarn produced from each roving was

chosen and one test was made from each bobbin. A total of five tests were

made for each lot of roving and yarn. Four readings were taken from each

of the five tests. /

 20

The Uster Tester included an evenness tester, evenness t-ecorder,

quadratic integrator, spectrograph, spectrogram recorder/and imperfection

indicator. All tests were carried out in accordance with the procedures

described in the instruction book by the Uster Corporation. The operating

data for the tests are shown in Table 22.

The tester was properly calibrated and the initial reading was taken

one and one-half minutes after starting the test, and thereafter at 30-

second intervals. A total of 20 readings was taken for each lot of sam-

ples. The result obtained from this integrator was the deviation of the

product diameter from the average, expressed as per cent coefficient of

variation. In conjunction with the evenness test, the yarn was also

tested with the spectrograph and imperfection indicator for a period of

five minutes. The spectrograph recorded the wave length for waves or

irregularities that repeated in the material. The imperfection indicator

registered an actual count of the neps, low places, and thick places in

the yarn.

Tests for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Yarn

The Uster Automatic Yarn Strength Tester was used to test the

breaking strength as well as the elongation of the yarn. This tester

makes use of the inclined plane principle of loading in which the pull on

the specimen under test increases proportionately with time. It can be

set to give an automatic pretensioning of the sample before the load is

applied. Forty breaks were made from each of the ten bobbins giving 400

breaks per lot of yarn. The operating data for this machine are given

in Table 23.
 21

The breaking strength and elongation for each individual test were

recorded on an autograph. Two counters, one for breaking strength and

one for elongation, recorded the cumulative sum of the data. At the com-

pletion of the test, these readings were taken from counters to confute

the total, and average, strength and elongation for each lot of yarn.

The frequency distribution of the breaking strength was also ob-

tained from the machine. At the end of each individual test a small ball

was fed into the proper vertical slot in a plate corresponding to its

breaking strength. At the end of a test series, the frequency distribu-

tion diagram formed by these balls in their respective slots was trans-

ferred to a ruled chart as a permanent record.

Examinations of Fiber Distribution

It has been generally recognized that the blending of dissimilar

fibers in spun yarns may lead, not to a uniform distribution of these

fibers throughout the yarn cross section, but to one in which particular

fiber components congregate either towards the surface or to the core

of the yarn. This Is a direct result of fiber migration effects at cer-

tain process stages during yarn manufacture. As previously pointed out

in the Chapter I, these effects depend on the fiber length, denier, and

other properties.

Microscopic techniques were used in this study to examine the

distribution of cotton and Dacron fibers throughout the yarn cross sec-

tion. For purposes of identification, the test yarns were dyed with

direct dye (3 per cent Direct Blue 1 CI-24410). The cotton was dyed to

blue color, the Dacron remained white, so that they could be easily
 22

distinguished under the microscope. For each lot of yarn, ten specimens,
«

each about four inches long, were sampled randomly and embedded in paraf-
fin wax. The sections were cut from the embedded sauries by using Schwarz
microtome.

The method used in this microscopical examination was developed by

Hamilton (14). The fiber distribution was measured and represented by a

single numerical parameter, termed the Migration Index. This migration

index was based on zoned fiber counts taken from yarn cross-section and

expressed the actual migration of the component fiber in terms of the

maximum possible which could have occurred in the given yarn. Thus, a

migration index of + 100 per cent represented complete separation of the

component in question from the other fibers. The positive and negative

signs denote outward and inward migration, respectively. A migration index

of zero might be taken to represent uniform distribution of the component

throughout the yarn cross-section. In the case of this two-component

blend, the migration indexes of both components were equal in value but

opposite in sign.

To examine the fiber distribution, the cross-section of yarn was

mounted on slide and placed under the microscope. A micrometer carrying

a fine ruled scale was placed on the diaphragm in the eyepiece. By

slowly rotating the eyepiece, the divisions on the scale divided the

image of yarn cross-section into five concentric zones with equal incre-

ments in radius. Numbers of cotton fibers and Dacron fibers in each zone

were counted and recorded. Ten specimens from each lot of yarn were

examined and grand totals of zoned fiber counts on the ten yarn cross-

sections were used to compute the migration index of the yarn.

 23

Analyses of Data

For each lot of sliver, roving and yarn, the average per cent co-

efficient of variation was computed from the data taken during the even-

ness test. The frequency distribution diagrams and autographs obtained

from the yarn breaking strength test were analyzed and the average breaking

strength, average per cent elongation and their per cent coefficients of

variation were computed for each lot of yarn. The migration index for

each lot of yarn was also calculated by using the method developed by

Hamilton (14).

A con^lete analysis of variance was performed on all the data

relating to the evenness, breaking strength, elongation, nep count and

fiber migration of the products. The sources of variation included

nun^er of drawing processes (P), speed of drawing (S), their interaction

(PxS) and replication (R). Since the speed of drawing (S) was a quantita-

tive factor and its three levels were at equal intervals, a further

analysis was made to determine the effects of its linear and quadratic

coQ^onents. The interactions of linear S and quadratic S with process

(P) were also determined. If the effect of process (P) was found to be

significant at ten, five or one per cent levels, the Tukey method (13)

was used to determine the significance of the differences among the

three processes.
 24

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results o£ evenness tests for the cotton and Dacron slivers

produced at each stage prior to the blend drawing (Table 29) showed

that the silvers were average even as compared to the Uster standard

values for evenness.

Table 2a gives the analysis of variance for blended drawing

sliver. It was found that the drawing process (P) was main source of

variation. The variance ratio of 162.92 indicated that the effect of

the drawing process (P) on the sliver evenness was significant at the

1 per cent level. The effect of the quadratic component of the drawing

speed was also found to be significant, but only at the 10 per cent

level.

In Table 2b, the Tukey test was made for the significance of dif-

ferences between the drawing processes. The results showed that none

of the confidence Intervals of differences between two process means

Included zero; they were all greater than zero. Therefore, the differ-

ences between processes were all significant at the 5 per cent level.

In Figure 2, it can be seen clearly that the per cent coefficient

of variation for one-process drawing (Pj^) was much higher than that for

two-process drawing (P2) and three-process drawing (P3). The mean per

cent coefficients of variation, as shown in Table 2b, were 3.38 for P]^,

2.47 for ?2 and 2.26 for P3. The uniformity of drawing sliver was
 25

Table 2a. Analysis of Variance for Drawing

Sliver Evenness (Per Cent C. V.)

Sum Degrees Probability Points of

Source of of Mean Variance Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%

4.235 2.118 162.92 3.ir 4.46 8.65

Linear S 0.001 1 0.001 0.07 3.46 5.32 11.3

Quadratic S 0.051 1 0.051 3.92 3.46* 5.32 11.3
Total S 0.052 2 0.026 2.00 3.11 4.46 8.65

P withj
Linear S 0.064 2 0.032 2.46 3.11 4.46 8.65
Quadratic S 0.042 2 0.021 1.62 3.11 4.46 8.65
Total P X S 0.106 4 0.027 2.08 2.81 3.84 7.01

Replication 0.038 1 0.038 2.92 3.46 5.32 11.3

Remainder 0.104 _8 0.013

Total 4.535 17

* Indicating the effect is significant.

Table 2b. Tukey Test for Significance of Drawing Sliver

Evenness Differences Between Drawing Processes

Drawing Mean Confidence Interval of Difference

Process Difference (5% Level) Between Means

3.38 Pi - ?2 0-91 ± 0-05 > 0 Significant

2.47 P2 - P3 0.21 + 0.05 > 0 Significant

2.26 Pi - Po 1.12 + 0.05 > 0 Significant

Average 2.70
 26

A = P. X = P3

• = P, fl = Average

4.00-

3.50-

o 3.00-
•u
C
<u
CJ
u
(U

« 2.50-
C9
V
C
>
M

2.00-
CO

1.50-

100 200 300

Drawing Speed (Feet/Minutes)

Figure 2, The Effects of Drawing Process and Drawing

Speed on the Evenness of Drawing Sliver
 11

improv.ed by each additional drawing process. The curve of average value

in Figure 2 indicated that the slivers produced at the drawing speeds of

100 feet per minute (S,) and 300 feet per minute (S3) had essentially the

same per cent coefficient of variation. The per cent coefficient of vari-

ation was slightly lower in the sliver produced at 200 feet per minute

(S2).

The analysis of variance for roving evenness is given in Table 3a.

The indication was that the drawing process (P) and linear coiiq>onent of

drawing speed (S) were the major sources of variation. The effect of^the

drawing process (P) was significant at the 1 per cent level. The linear

component of the drawing speed (S) had a variance ratio of 5.53 and was

significant at the 5 per cent level.

The Tukey test given in Table 3b reveals that the differences

between drawing processes were all significant at 5 per cent level. The

mean per cent coefficients of variation were 5.84 for one-process drawing

(Pj^), 5.29 for two-process drawing (P2) and 5.12 for three-process drawing

(P3). These differences can also be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3 also reveals that the increase in the drawing speed (S)

resulted in a higher per cent coefficient of variation for roving even-

ness. However, as pointed out previously, only the linear component of

the effect of drawing speed (S) was significant.

The analysis of variance for yarn evenness is given in Table 4a.

It was found that the drawing process (P) was the only source of varia-

tion, and was significant at the 1 per cent level. The Tukey test given

in Table 4b shows that the difference between one-process drawing (P^^)

 28

Table 3a. Analysis of Variance for Roving Evenness (Per Cent C.V.)

Sum Degrees Probability Points of

Source of of Mean Variance Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%

1.694 0.847 56.47 3.01 4.26 8.02

Linear S 0.083 1 0.083 5.53 3.36 5.12'" 10.6

Quadratic S 0.007 1 0.007 0.47 3.36 5.12 10.6
Total S 0.090 2 0.045 3.00 3.01 4.26 8.02

P with:
Linear S 0.024 2 0.012 0.80 3.01 4.26 8.02
Quadratic S 0.021 2 0.011 0.73 3.01 4.26 8.02
Total P X S 0.045 4 0.023 1.53 2.69 3.63 6.42

Replication 0.001 1 0.001

0.015
Remainder 0.136 )
_8
Total 1.966 17

* Indicating the effect is significant.

Table 3b. Tukey Test for Significance of Roving Evenness

Differences Between Drawing Processes

Drawing Mean Confidence Interval of Difference

Process (% C.V.) Difference (5% Level) Between Means

^1 5.84 ?l - ?2 0.55 + 0.06 > 0 Significant

P2 5.29 P2 - P3 0.17 + 0.06 > 0 Significant

P3 5.12 ?^ - P3 0.72 + 0.06 >0 Significant

Average 5.42
 29

6.50-1 *^ = Pi X = P.

• » Average

6.00-

5.50-

a
«
o
u
o
5.00-
(0
CO
«
a
c
«

00
4.50-
c
•H
>
o
PH

4.00—

S3
«j
100 200 300

Drawing Speed (Feet/Minute)

Figure 3. The Effects of Drawing Process and

Drawing Speed on Roving Evenness
 30

and thxee-process drawing (P-,), and the difference between one-process

drawing (Pj^) and two-process drawing (P2) were still significant at the

5 per cent level.

The most Inqportant source of variation, which had significant

effects on the evennesses of sliver, roving and yarn, appeared to be the

drawing process (P). The drawing speed (S) had some significant effects

but only at drawing and roving stages. It was found that the variance

ratios of both drawing process (P) and drawing speed (S) were continually

decreasing from drawing stage to yarn stage. This indicated that the ef-

fects of the drawing process (P) and the drawing speed (S) became less

significant at the latter stage of processing.

The effect of the drawing process (P) on the evenness of sliver,

roving or yarn was that the per cent coefficient of variation decreased

as the number of drawing processes was increased. The increase in the

nuniber of doublings by each additional drawing process improved the

uniformity of the sliver produced.

Th« summary of the per cent coefficient of variation for sliver,

roving and yarn is given In Table 5.

Table 6a gives the analysis of variance for y a m breaking strength.

The drawing process (P) was found to be significant at the 3 per cent

level. The Tukey test given in Table 6b reveals that only the difference

between one-process drawing (P.) and three-process drawing (P^) was sig-

nificant at the 5 per cent level.

It was found that the yarn produced with three-process drawing

(P3) gave the highest breakiipg strength of 285.71 grams. The breaking
 31

Table 4a. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Evenness (Per Cent C.V.)

Sum Degrees Probability Points of

Source of of Mean Variance Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%
8.386 4.193 25.11 3.01* 4.26* 8.02*

Linear S 0.270 1 0.270 1.62 3.36 5.12 10,6

Quadratic S 0.002 1 0.002 0.01 3.36 5.12 10.6
Total S 0.272 2 0 136 0 81 3 01 4.26 8.02

P with:
Linear S 0.357 2 0.179 1.07 3.01 4.26 8.02
Quadratic S 0.638 2 0.319 1.91 3.01 4.26 8.02
Total P X S 0.995 4 0.249 1.49 2.69 3.63 6.42

Replication 0.001 0.001

0.167
Remainder 1.506 ; )

Total 11.160 17

* Indicating the effect is significant.

Table 4b. Tukey Test for Significance of Yarn Evenness

Differences Between Drawing Processes

Drawing Mean Confidence Interval of Difference

Process q C.V.) Difference (5X Level) Between Means

19.60 1.14 + 0.61 > 0 Significant

18.46 P2 - P3 0.50 + 0.61 Include 0 Not Significant

17.96 Pj^ - P3 1.64 + 0.61 > 0 Significant

Average 18.67
 32

X = P3

20.0— • = Average

19.0-

•u
6
9
O
U
«
P4 18.0—
to
n
«

>
M

M
17.0-
0)
JH

100 200 300

Drawing Speed (Feet/Minute)

Figure 4. The Effects of Drawing Process and

Drawing Speed on Yarn Evenness
 33

Table 5, Sunmary of Per Cent Coefficient of

Variation for Product Evenness

Drawing Spe:ed
Drawing Process Si S2 S3 Average

Drawing Sliver:

Pi 3.56 3.21 3.37 3.38

^2 2.42 2.44 2.55 2.47

^3 2.21 2.24 2.33 2.26

"k
Average 2.73 2.63 2.75 2.70

Roving:

P, 5.74 5.78 6.01 5.84

5.23 5.24 5.42 5.29

5.08 5.16 5.13 5.12

Average 5.35 5.39 5.52 5.42

Yam:

P, 19.72 19.26 19.82 19.60

18.42 18.55 18.43 18.46

17.42 18.27 18.21 17.96

Average 18.52 18.69 18.82 18.67*

* Over-all average.
 34

strength of one-process drawing (P,) and two-process drawing (P2) were

273.99 grams and 281.21 grams, respectively.

The analysis of variance for yarn elongation (Table 7) shows that

the drawing speed (S) becomes the main source of variation. The quadxjapic

coiiq>onent of drawing speed (S) was significant at the 5 per cent level.

Since the effect of drawing process (P) on yarn elongation was not

significant, no Tukey test was performed here.

Figure 5 reveals that the drawing speed of 200 feet per minute (Sj)

seemed to yield the strongest yarn with the highest per cent elongation

while the drawing speed of 300 feet per minute (S^) gave the weakest yarn

and the lowest per cent elongation.

A sunraary of yarn breaking strength test is given in Table 8. It

may be pointed out here that, from the analyses of frequency distribution

diagrams for yarn breaking strength, three-process drawing (P^) also had

the lowest per cent coefficient of variation for the breaking strength.

The mean per cent coefficient of variation decreased from 16.45 to 14.92

as the nund^er of drawing processes increased from one to three.

The analysis of variance for yarn nep content is given in Table

9a. The drawing process (P) appeared to be the main source of variation

but was significant only at 10 per cent level. The average numbers of

neps per 2,500 yards yarn were 42.33 for one-process drawing (P^), 14.50

for two-process drawing (P2) and 26.17 for three-process drawing (P3).

Only the difference between one-process drawing (P.) and two-process

drawing (P2) was found to be significant at the 5 per cent level as

 35

Table 6a. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Breaking Strength (Grains)

Degrees Probab ility Po ints of

Source Sum of of Mean Variance Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%

P 419.880 2 209.94 7.12 3.11* 4.46* 8.^5

Linear S 51.830 1 51.83 1.76 3.46 5.32 11.3

Quadratic S 50.790 1 50.79 1.78 3.46 5.32 11.3
Total S 102,620 2 51.31 1.74 3.11 4.46 8.65

P with:
Linear S 4.790 2 2.40 0.08 3.11 4.46 8.65
Quadratic S 25.370 2 12.69 0.43 3.11 4.46 8.65
Total S 30.160 4 7.54 0.26 2.81 3.84 7.01

Replication 46.561 1 46.56 1.58 3.46 5.32 11.3

Remainder 235.908 _8 29.49

Total 835.129 17

* Indicating the effect is significant.

Table 6b. Tukey Test for Significance of Yarn Strength

Differences Between Drawing Processes

Drawing Confidence Interval of Difference

Process Mean (Grams) Difference (5% Level) Between Means

273.99 ^1 ' ^2 7.22+8.15 Include 0 Not Significant

^2 281.21 P2 - P3 4.50 + 8.15 Include 0 Not Significant

P3 285.71 Pj^ - P3 11.72 + 8.15 > 0 Significant

Average 280.30
 36

Table 7. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Elongation (Per Cent)

Sum Degrees Probability Points

Source of of Mean Variance of Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%

P 0.403 2 0.202 2.46 3.01 4.26 8.02

Linear S 0.168 1 0.168 2.05 3.36 5.12 10.6

Quadratic S 0.449 1 0.449 5.48 3.36* 5.12* 10.6
Total S 0.617 2 0.309 3.77 3.01* 4.26 8.02

P With:
Linear S 0.094 2 0.047 0.57 3.01 4.26 8.02
Quadratic S 0.222 2 0.111 1.35 3.01 4.26 8.02
Total P X S 0.316 4 0.079 0.96 2.69 3.63 6.42

Replication 0.049 0.049

Remainder 0.690
'} 0.082
-1 ^
Total 2.075 17

* Indicating the effect is significant.

shown in the Tukey test (Table 9b) . A summary of nep content is given

in Table 11.

Table 10a shovs the analysis of variance for fiber migration in-

dex. The indication was that the drawing process (P) and the linear

component of drawing speed (S) were the major sources of variation.

However, their effects were significant only at the 10 per cent level.

The Tukey test given in Table 10b Indicated that there was no significant

difference between the drawing processes. The average migration indexes

were 10.65 per cent for three-process drawing (P3), 13.19 per cent for

two-process drawing (P2) and'15.73 per cent for one-process drawing

 37

Breaking Strength = Pi X = P-

Elongation = Po • = Average

290-

285-

280-

275-
ij
M c
o 270- o«
u
«
00 (U
S 265- 6
u o
T-l
u «
CO
00
to 6
•H
(d
-16.0 o
t-t
(0
u c
Vi
c
S
JH
-15.5

15.0

100 200 300

Drawing Speed (Feet/Minutes)

Figure 5. The Effects of Drawing Process

and Drawing Speed on Y a m
Breaking Strength and Elongation
 38

tr,
•Jc *
r-t CM vO 1-1 ON vO 00
CO 00 rH \o
in o•
<t) vO m m CM« CO CM• CM•
ool rH tH
r-l TH CM CM CM CM
0}
u •K •K
« 0^ 1-1 r-J o CM 00 o> o
ON C>4 r-v CO CM CO in <f
i CO
r>.
f-H
00
in
00 o in
r-l
in
i-«
m
rH
in
»H
o* CM CM 00
CM

00 CM 00 CM r>. r^ <y\ iH
vO vO CM 00 CM 00

o vO in in cs CO CM CM
CM CM CM CM

CM 00 -d- r^ vO 00 r^
CO 00 \o o 00 rH rH
CO
vO <r
o 00 r^ •<t m m m
(3 r* r^ 00 1-t rH rH rH
CM CM CM
cd CM

vO vO CM o CM m CJ>
> 00 m «n «* <t
CO CM rH CM
CM CM CM CM
CM
rs
CO m CO 00
iH CM
OS
r^
CM 00
00
s£>

CM
:S iH
-* 00 SO
r^ 00 00 00 • • in• •
CM CM CM
m m m
CM i-» iH iH fH

CM «n m •4- vo ox in vO
> 00 m vO 00 r*» r^
in a\ CM CM
o in CM CM
in CM CM CM CM

CO o o o\ r^ r>- 00 iH
r^ r^ i-»
r-l in
'^r >*
g CO CO
00
vO
00
rH
00
m*
rH
in
iH
m
iH m
fH
CM CM
CM CM

9
00
CO
U
^-N >
4J «
C rH
« tH
o
u 1
o
PL4 u
9
s^
00 00
CM CO fit rH CM CO («
fU fu u co tu 04 tu u
•H 9 *
5 4J
69
00
>
<
a
o
»
 39

Table 9a. Analysis of Variance for Yarn Nep Count

(Number of Neps per 2,500 Yards)

Degrees Probability Points of

Source Sum of of Mean Variance Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%
•k
P 2344.333 2 1172.167 3.55 3.01 4.26 8.02

Linear S 602.083 1 602.083 1.82 3.36 5.12 10.6

Quadratic S 20.250 1 20.250 0.06 3.36 5.12 10.6
Total S 622.333 2 311.167 0.94 3.01 4.26 8.02

P with:
Linear S 236.170 2 118.090 0.36 3.01 4.26 8.02
Quadratic S 17.164 2 8.580 0.03 3.01 4.26 8.02
Total S 253.334 4 63.334 0.19 2.69 3.63 6.42

Replication 200.000 200.000

Remainder

Total
2770.000

6190.000
i)
17
330.000

* Indicating the effect is significant.

Table 9b. Tukey Test for Significance of Yarn Nep Count

Differences Between Drawing Processes

Draving Confidence Interval of Difference

Process Mean Difference (5% Level) Between Means

42.33 - ?2 27.83 + 27.16 > 0 Significant

^2 14.50 - P3 11.67 + 27.16 Include 0 Not Significant

26.17 - P3 16.16 + 27.16 Include 0 Not Significant

^3
Average 27.67
 40

(Pj^). This result revealed the fact that the fiber distribution in the
*

blended yarn became more uniform as the number of drawing processes vas

increased.

The increase in drawing speed (S) would tend to cause a highjiar

migration index. This was indicated by an upward trend in Figure 6. A

summary of migration index is given in Table 12.

Since in two-component blended yarn, the migration indexes of both

components are equal in value and opposite in sign, only the data of one

conq>onent were presented in Tables 10a, 10b and 12. The testing results

showed that the migration index for cotton was positive while for Dacron

was negative. This implied that the cotton fibers had a tendency to

migrate towards the surface of the blended yarn while the Dacron fibers

migrated towards the axis of the blended yarn.

 41

Table 10a. Analysis of Variance for Fiber

Migration Index (Per Cent)

Degrees Probability Points of

Source Sum of of Mean Variance Variance Ratio
of Variation Squares Freedom Square Ratio 10% 5% 1%

P 79.595 2 39.798 3.39 3.01 4.26 8.02

Linear S 59.586 1 59.586 5.07 3.36* 5.12 10.6

Quadratic S 4.000 1 4.000 0.34 3.36 5.12 10.6
Total S 63.586 2 31.793 2.71 3.01 4.26 8.02

P with:
Linear S 26.903 2 13.452 1.15 3.01 4.26 8.02
Quadratic S 1.506 2 0.753 0.06 3.01 4.26 8.02
Total S 28.409 4 7.102 0.61 2.69 3.63 6.42

Replication 1.663 1.663

11.746
Remainder 104.055 ; »

Total 277.308 17

* Indicating the effect is significant.

Table 10b, Tukey Test for Significance of Fiber Migration

Index Differences Between Drawing Processes

Drawing Confidence Interval of Difference

Process Mean Difference (5% Level) Between Means

Pi 15.73 Pi - ?2 1.82 + 5.14 Include 0 Not Significant

P2 13.91 P2 - P3 3.26+5.14 Include 0 Not Significant

P3 10.65 Pj^ - P3 5.08 + 5.14 Include 0 Not Significant

Average 13.43
 42

Table 11. Summary of Yarn Nep Count Test

(Number of Neps per 2,500 Yards)

Dralvlng Drawing Spe ed

Process Si S2 S3 Average

''i 30.0 40.5 56.5 42.33

^1 13.0 11.5 19.0 14.50

P3 21.0 26.5 31.0 26.17

ic
Average 21.3 26.2 25.5

* Over--all average.

Table 12. Summary of the Migration Index

of Cotton Component*

Drawing Drawing Speed

Process Si S2 S3 Average

pi 12.49 14.49 20.22 15.73

I"2 11.53 13.52 16.68 13.91

P3 10.59 10.28 11.08 10.65

Average 11.53 12.76 15.99 13.43**

* The migration index of Dacron component is equal in value but

opposite in sign to the migration index of cotton conq)onent.

** Over-all average.
 43

= Pi X = P.
25.0-
= Average

20.0-

4J
(3
0)
o
u
9
(U 15.0-
X
4)
•O
0
§
•H
•U
4 10.0-
M
60

100 200 300

Drawing Speed (Feet/Minute)

Figure 6. The Effects of Drawing Process and Drawing

Speed on Fiber Migration Index
 44

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

From the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data

obtained from this experiment, the following conclusions have been

reached:

1. The drawing process (P) had a highly significant effect, in

the statistical sense, on the evenness of the blended sliver. The

sliver became more uniform as the number of drawing processes in-

creased. Differences between drawing processes covered were signifi-

cant at the 5 per cent level. Drawing speed (S) had little effect on

the sliver evenness, only its quadratic coo^onent was found to be

significant at the 10 per cent level.

2. At the roving stage, the effect of the drawing process (P)

on roving evenness was highly significant. The differences between

drawing processes were also significant. The effect of the linear com-

ponent of drawing speed (S) was found to be significant at the 5 per

cent level. The roving was more uniform when processed at slower drawing

speeds.

3. The drawing process (P) was the only source of variation

which significantly affected the yarn evenness. The differences between

drawing processes were still significant at the 5 per cent level with

the exception of the difference between two-process drawing (P2) and

three-process drawing (P3) which was not significant at the yarn stage.
 45

4. The effect of either drawing process (P) or drawing speed (S)

4

on the product evenness became less significant as the manufacturing

operation was prqgressing from drawing through spinning. An increase in

the number of drawing processes improved the evenness of the sliver,

roving and yarn.

5. Only the drawing process (P) was found to have a significant

effect at 5 per cent level on the breaking strength of yarn. The major

source of variation which affected the yarn elongation was the quadratic

component of the drawing speed (significant at the 5 per cent level).

6. The breaking strength and per cent elongation of the yarn

increased with each additional drawing process. The differences in

yarn strength between the drawing processes were not significant except

for the difference between one-process drawing (P^^) and three-process

drawing (P^). Also there was no significant difference in yarn elonga-

tion between the drawing processes.

7. The drawing speed of 200 feet per minute (S2) was found to

have produced the strongest yarn and the highest per cent elongation.

8. The drawing process (P) was the main source of variation

which affected the nep content of the yarn. However, it was signifi-

cant at the 10 per cent level only. The difference in nep content be-

tween one-process drawing (Pj^) and two-process drawing (P^) was

significant at the 5 per cent level.

9. The drawing process (P) and the linear coiiq)onent of the

drawing speed had only a slight effect on the migration index of the

fibers in the blended yarn. They were significant at the 10 per cent

level.
 46

10. The migration index of the fibers decreased as the number of

drawing processes increased. Three-process drawing (P-) produced yarn

with the most uniform distribution of fibers. Also, the yarn produced

at slo^wer drawing speed showed more uniform distribution in the cross

section examined.

11. In this 35/65 cotton and Dacron blended yarn, the cotton

fibers were found to have outward migratory tendencies while the Dacron

fibers had inward migratory tendencies.

12. The replication of experiment (R) and the interaction of

drawing process with drawing speed (P x S) had no significant effect on

the product properties which had been investigated.

 47

CHAPTER VI

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that similar studies be made using various com-

binations and different types of fibers in blends. The blending should

be done on various types of drawing frames and cover a wider range of

drawing speeds.

The sample size for microscopic examination should be larger than

50 in order to represent the true picture of the fiber distribution in

the blended yarn.

 48

A P P E N D I X
 49

Table 13. Operating Data for H & B

Revolving Flat Card

Diameter Type Clothing R.P.M.

Cylinder 50" Flexible Wire 160

Doffer 27" Flexible Wire 6

Lickerin 9" Metallic 440

Draft Constant 1672

Production Constant
(Pounds per Hour) 0.0065

Draft Change Gear 17 T

Production Change Gear 22 T

 50

Table 14. Settings for H 6e B Revolving Flat Card

Point of Setting Distance in 0.001"

.... • I ' '•' • •• 11 ... I i I -1, • • .1 I. I. I I > . 1,1

Feed Plate to Lickerin 12

Lickerin to Cylinder 7

Lickerin Screen (Blank Part) 29

Lickerin Screen (Bars) 12

Lickerin Screen (Nose) 187.5

Mote Knives from Lickerin (Bottom) 17

Mote Knives from Lickerin (Top) 22

Angle of Mote Knife to Lickerin 18°

Doffer to Cylinder 7

Comb to Doffer 22

Cylinder Screen to Cylinder (Front) 187.5

Cylinder Screen to Cylinder (Middle) 58

Cylinder Screen to Cylinder (Back) 29

Lower Edge Back Plate 29

Upper Edge Back Plate 29

Flat to Cylinder (Back) 10

Flat to Cylinder (Intermediate) 10

Flat to Cylinder (Front) 10

Upper Edge of Front Knife Plate 22

Lower Edge of Front Knife Plate 29

Flat Stripping Comb 15

 51

Table 15. Operating Data for Saco-

Lowell Roller Top Card

Diameter Type Clothing RiP.M.

Cylinder 50" Flexible Wire 170

Doffer 27" Flexible Wire 9.5

Lickerin 9" Metallic 210

Worker Roll 7" Metallic 9

Stripper Roll 3.5" Metallic 310

Draft Constant 1581

Draft Change Gear 14 T to 16 T

Production Constant (Pounds per Hour) 0.0104

Production Change Gear 22 T

 52

Table 16. Settings for Saco-Lowell Roller Top Card

Point of Setting Distance in 0.001'

Feed Plate to Lickerin 12

Lickerin to Cylinder 7

Lickerin Screen (Front of Blank Part) 29

Lickerin Screen (Rear of Blank Part) 12

Mote Knives from Lickerin (Top) 22

Mote Knivds from Lickerin (Bottom) 17

Angle of Mote Knife to Lickerin 18°

Doffer to Cylinder 7

Doffer Comb to Doffer 17

Cylinder Screen to Cylinder (Front) 187.5

Cylinder Screen to Cylinder (Middle) 58

Cylinder Screen to Cylinder (Back) 29

Lower Edge Back Plate 29

Upper Edge Back Plate 29

Worker Roll to Cylinder 10

Worker Roll to Stripper Roll 17

Stripper Roll to Cylinder 10

Upper Edge of Front Knife Plate 22

Lower Edge of Front Knife Plate 29

 53

Table 17. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell 4 Over 5, DS-4 Drawing Frame

Bottom Rolls Top Rolls

Diameter Type Diameter Type

First' 125" Fluted 1.125" Ctjishion

Second 750" Fine Fluted 2.000" Cushion
Third 375" Fluted
Fourth 375" Fluted 1.500" Cushion
Back 1.375" Fluted 1.500" Cushion

Cotton Dacron
Breaker Pre- Blend
Roll Settings: Drawing Drawing Drawing

First to Third 2.563" 2.656" 2.656"

Second to Third (Fixed) 1.500" 1.500" 1.500"
Third to Fourth 1.625" 1.625" 1.625"
Fourth to Back 1.875" 1.875" 1.875"

Breaker Pre- Blend Drawing

Drawing Drawing p^-
li h
Back Draft Constant 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059
Back Draft Gear 23 21 21 21 21
Back Draft 1.350 1.235 1.235 1.235 1.235

Mid. Draft Constant 90 90 90 90 90

Mid. Draft Gear 52 50 50 50 50
Mid. Draft 1.73 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Front Draft Constant 175 175 175 175 175

Front Draft Gear 44 48 46 49 49
Front Draft 3.98 3.65 3.81 3.57 3.57

Total Roll Draft 9.32 8.11 8.47 7.94 7.94

Tension Gear 73 71 73 72 72

Cotton Dacron
Breaker Pre- Blend Drawing
Drawing Drawing Si S2 S3

Front Roll Speed (Feet/Minute) 145 100 100 200 300

 54

Table 18. Operating Data for 10-1/2"

Saco-Lowell Lap Winder

Draft 1.04
Number of End Fed 20
Weight of Lap Delivered 904 Grains per Yard

Table 19. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell Model 57 Comber

Bottom Rolls Top Rolls

Diameter Type Diameter Type

First 1.25" Fluted 1.438" Cushion

Second 0.75" Fine Fluted Cushion
2.000"
Third 1.25" Fluted
Fourth 1.50" Fluted 1.438" Cushion
Back 1.50" Fluted 1.438" Cushion

Roll Settings:
First to Third 2.688"
Second to Third 1.500"
Third to Fourth 1.625"
Fourth to Back 1.938"

Feed Ratchet 15 T

Front Roll Change Gear 26 T

Front Roll Change Gear Constant 0.23

Noil Percentage 19.4

Drav Box Draft 11.95

Draft Change Gear 52 T

 55

Table 20. Operating Data for Whitin Woonsocket Roving

Frame (Casablancas Drafting System)

Type Diameter

Top Rolls:
Front Cushion 1.219"
Middle Apron 1.000" (Knurled Roll)
Back Cushion 1.219"

Bottom Rolls:
Front Fluted 1.125"
Middle Apron 1.000" (Knurled Roll)
Back Fluted 1.000"

Rloo Settings:
Front to Middle 1.906"
Middle to Back 2.063"

Draft Constant 264

Draft 8.98

Draft Change Gear 29 T

Twist Constant 50

Twist Multiplier 0.9

Twist Per Inch 1.27

Hank Size 1.5

Twist Change Gear 39 T

Lay Gear 20 T

Tension Gear 22 T

Spindle Speed 740 RPM

Front Roll Speed 170 RPM (50 Ft./Min.)

 56

Table 21. Operating Data for Saco-Lowell SS-2

Spinning Frame (Shaw Drafting System)

Type Diameter

Top Rolls:
Front Cushion 1.016"
Middle Cushion 1.219"
Back Cushion 1.016"

Bottom Rolls:
Front Fluted 1.000"
Middle Apron 1.000" (Knurled Roll)
Back Fluted 0.875"

Roll Settings:
Front to Middle 2.188"
Middle to Back 1.750"

Draft Constant 655

Actual Draft 20

Mechanical Draft 20.81

Draft Change Gear 32 T

Twist Constant 784

Twist Multiplier 4.5

Yarn Number 30's

TiiMist p e r Inch (Actual) 24.7

T v i s t per Inch (On Roll) 23.7

T'-*iet Change Gear 33 T

Spindle Speed 8600 RPM

Frort Roll Speed 120 RPM

Traveler No. 4/0

 57

Table 22. Operating Data for Uster Evenness Tester

Card &
Comber Drawing
Sliver Sliver Roving Yarn

Material Speed (Yards/Minute) 8 8 100 loo

Recorder Chart Speed (Inches/Minute) 4 4 10 10

Measuring Slot Number 3 3 5 7

Sensitivity Range 12.57. 12.5% 257, 100%

Number of Readings per Test 5 5 4 4

Number of Readings per Lot of Sample 20 20 20 20

Interval Between Readings (Seconds) 30 30 30 30

Spectrograph Evaluating Time (Minutes) 5

AiEplification 17-19

Iaq>erfection Indicator
Evaluati2:ig Time (Minutes) 5

Sensitivity Position:

Low Place 50%

Thick Place #2

Neps #2
 58

Table 23. Operating Data for Uster Automatic Yarn Strength Tester

Bobbin Attachment;

Number of Bobbins in Creel 10

Number of Breaks per Bobbin 40

Number of Breaks per Lot of Yarn 400

Knotter Number 1

Automatic Tester:

Pretension Disc Setting #5

Length of Jaw Span 20"

Setting for Rate of Loading #6

Loading Time to Break (Seconds) 9 i: 1.5

Complete Cycle Time (Seconds) 20tl.5

Range of Breaking Load 600 Grams

Range of Elongation 40%

K Value (Breaking Strength) 2.1

e Value (Elongation 0.4

L Value 0.707
 59

Table 24. Fiber Fineness Test Using

Sheffield Micronaire

Micronaire Reading
Test Number (MicroRrams per Inch^

1 3.75
2 3.75
3 3.90
4 3.73
5 3.95
6 3.80
7 3.65
8 3.60
9 3.80
10 4.10
11 3.90
12 3.80
13 3.80
14 3.75
15 3.90
16 3.78
17 3.70
18 3.95
19 3.80
20 4.00

Average 3.82

3.82 Micrograms per inch is equal to

1.352 denier.
 60

Table 25. Cotton Fiber Strength Test Using

. 4 Pressley Tester (1/8" Gauge)

Breaking Tensile*
Test Strength Weight Pressley Strength
"Nuniber (Lbs) (mgs) Ratio Index (1000 Ibs/i'n^)

1 17.80 6.10 2.918 91.47 76.83

2 13.02 3.35 3.887 121.85 102.35
3 17.95 5.00 3.590 112.54 94.53
4 16.51 4.40 3.752 117.62 98.80
5 17.41 4.58 3.801 119.15 100.08
6 14.91 4.00 3.728 116.87 98.17
7 17.21 4.60 3.741 117.27 98.51
8 19.25 5.15 3.738 117.18 98.43
9 13.46 3.40 3.959 124.11 104.25
10 13.20 3.60 3.667 114.95 96.56
11 13.73 3.55 3.868 121.25 101.85
12 19.11 5.25 3.640 114.11 95.85
13 13.43 2.90 4.631 145.17 121.94
14 11.38 2.55 4.463 139.91 117.52
15 16.65 4.00 4.163 130.50 109.62
16 14.25 3.34 4.266 133.73 112.33
17 15.10 3.70 4.081 127.93 107.46
18 13.59 3.60 3.775 118.34 99.41
19 14.05 3.60 3.903 122.35 102.77
20 17.20 5.00 3.440 107.84 90.59

Average 3.850 120.69 101.38

* Using new methods of calculation adopted by U.S.D.A.

^ , Pressley Ratio „ m^
Index = -—f— X 100
3.19
T e n s i l e S t r e n g t h (1000 l b s / i n ^ ) = Index X 84
100
Where 3.19 and 84 are the average Pressley ratio and Tensile strength
of the 1954 U. S. crop.
 61

Table 26. Fiber Length Test Using Servo-Fibrograph

. i

Test Mean Length Upper Half Mear. Uniformity

Number ("Inches) Leugth (Inc hes) Ratio (%)

i 0.875 1.094 79.98

2 0.656 1.047 62.66
3 0.875 1.125 77.78
4 0.844 1.094 77.15
5 0.906 1.156 78.37
6 0.813 1.125 72.27
7 0.906 1.125 80.53
8 0.750 1.109 67.63
9 0.844 1.125 75.02
10 0.875 1.109 78.90
11 0.813 1.109 73.31
12 0.859 1.094 78.52
13 0.875 1.109 78.90
14 0.875 1.125 77.78
15 0.875 1.172 74.66
16 0.906 1.156 78.37
17 0.891 1.109 80.34
18 0.859 1.125 76.36
19 0.875 1.141 76.69
20 0.844 1.109 76.10

Average 0.861 1.118 77.01

 62

Table 27. Uniformity of Cotton Picker Lap

Weight Frequency
(Ozs/Yd) Distribution

14.0 1

13.8 1

13.6 6 Standard Deviation: 0.226 oz,

13.4 8 % C.V,: 1.68%

13.2 3 Average Weight: 13.46 Ozs/Yd

13.0 1

Total 20

Table 28. Uniformity of Dacron Picker Lap

Weight Frequency
(Ozs/Yd) Distribution

13.6 1

13.4 1

13.2 2 Standard Deviation: 0.292 oz

13.0 7 7, C.V.: 2.261

12.8 4 Average Weight: 12.92 Ozs/Yd

12.6 4

12.4 1

Total 20
 63

Table 29. Per Cent Coefficient of Variation

for the Evenness of Slivers

Cotton Cotton Cotton Dacron Dacron

Sa.mple Test Card Drawing Comb Card Predrawing
Number Number Sliver Sliver Sliver Sliver Sliver

1 1 5.77 5.40 6.50 3.60 3.26

2 5.56 5.55 6.10 3.70 3.42
3 5.46 5.55 5.90 3.60 3.57
4 5.25 5.50 5.60 3.65 3.38
5 5.40 5.35 6.10 4.15 3.29

2 1 5.40 5.50 5.85 4.40 3.23

2 5.25 5.55 6.10 4.40 3.23
3 5.30 5.61 5.80 4.40 3.86
4 5.30 5.50 5.70 4.35 3.38
5 5.25 5.40 5.45 5.00 3.71

3 1 5.35 5.40 5.45 5.63 3.84

2 5.97 5.35 5.05 5.38 3.36
3 5.90 5.20 5.80 5.57 4.03
4 5.66 5.30 5.60 5.38 3.68
5 5.56 5.46 6.00 5.09 3.49

4 1 5.80 5.20 6.10 5.15 3.30

2 5.66 5.46 6.00 4.90 3.33
3 5.55 5.35 5.60 4.94 3.24
4 5.50 5.20 6.20 5.20 3.20
5 5.51 5.20 6.50 5.66 3.20

Average 5.52 5.40 5.87 4.71 3.45

 64

CO CO CO CO CM CO r-l
ro CO CO CO O CM i-i CO o CM

CM CM <N tn m IT) 00 00 00
P4

>4
00
CM r-l CM
O
CM
CM r'.
m o CM
CM CN4 CM «n iTi 00 00 00
:-

r-l r-l r-l r-l 00 m CJ\ CM

CM C>l CM CM CO -d*
o
CO
OO CM CM CM >t m m r>» p^ r*
eg A4

O CO
• H >^
•M
cd 'O 00 CM m CO o CM
«* CM CO
in
CO m \r\ -t «* <!• CO m <f
•«-< c <o
(0 CM CM »n 00 00 00
CN
> 00 04
fi
«4-l - H
O >
o O 00 -d- CO >4- in
-M pe:
r*4 in CO CO Csl CO m
CO
a CM CM CN 00 00
0) •> PL<
•»^ M
o «
^ >
*M f - l vO 00 CM in CO r< v£> CM
«*-l f - i CO CO Csl CM m •^
« CO CO
CM CM CM CM 00 00 00
o «n
O «w ru
o
•M
C « CO CM ON CM CM
4) • CO r-l
O • CO
CO CO 00 o CM 00

CO CO
« CO vO
m vO
o CTx C7\
M « CM
O C
M-« >
o u m O 00 00 CO VO
^^ « CM <M CM QO r^ r>* CM
M jd CO r^
4 4J <o m 00 ON ON
§ f-i r-l
p o
O
CO

o
00
CO
vO
m
m CO
r-. 3 o>
r*.
CM
P-

CO CO v"0 m uo as ON
H

<0
> <o 9 «
•H 00 00 00
rH CO CO
CO Wl U u
« «
T) r-t CM CM r-l CM
OJ > •00• > pes >
<0
T3
em < < < Qti
<
C c
T4 a
(M u
<u r-4

1 eS
>*
 65

CO o o m vO \0 CM CM vO O vO vD rH vO O »n CM CO ^ 00 CO
ro CO CM <J- CO CM CO «4' <t <t "<r CO CM •<t CO »n CO CO
O iH CM CM
CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CO
Put

O O ON ON vX3 r^ r>. CM r^ 1^ 00 'd' CO 00 CO CM r>« i-i i-i r- 00

<N r-< CM CM CM CM CO CM CO CO CM CM CO CM CO CM CM CO CO CM CM CM
l/l
CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
(U

CM CO CO ON 00 ON CO CM VO UO rH in 1-4 r^ CM 00 •<f O <t O

CM CM CM CM r-l O r-4 CM CO CO C>l O f-l C M f-4 r-l i-H CO CM CO CM
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

M •n -^ ON o r-l r-( V O r-l O <JN O ^ iH i-l CM CM m CT» ON -^ 00

CO vo *« m uo r* r-~ 00 ND vO vO iTl - ^ r^ iTt w\ tr\
c « vo m uo NO m
•o >
H f-l en CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM C^l CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
4J T - l CM
CO
<
T-l
PLI

TJ
u
CD
« CO St in r-« 00 00 00 CO 00 CO O St O N ON 00 *^ o »-< c^ o o
> •o <j- vo vo r-» CM CO CO <f St St St vO m
(M c
vf >;t CO «* vD vO m UO
o
O 1-t CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
PQ
4J
c ^-t
« o
•H
U tt 00 O O O o r«» ON ON 00 CM m Nt 00 O CM St m NO o m NO
•H 00 CM CM CO CO CO Mt -^ St CO >4- <* St CO m NO r«- r-« NO I/O m
(M
tH « CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
a
•O c
•
u M>
4J
CO r^ uo O O r«* r>. 00 NO 00 O r^ CM 00 m NO r-l CM r» 00 CO
c 9 CO St NO St <^ m «^ CM ON O CM CO iH CO
o xi O St CM CO CM CM NO **
o •u CO
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CO CO
»4 M
O
«
Cu «4-l

m r>. fo o m St CO CO r* m »o o r-l f-l C O St 00 o CO CO

•—1 C>i «d- CM »-• CO CO vO CM CM CM
CO CO t-l O «-« r-l o\ Q \r\ <t r-4 CM CM r-l
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
«
r-»
U3
«
H
r- rH r-« r-l r-l <f St CM CJN CM CM rH r-l St "d* "^ r-l o m o O
lio NO ON r^ 00 »^ r^ CM UO f-l r-l 00 ON NO NO 00 t^ m ^t CO 00
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ""^ *i" St »^ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

^ "Q
0) ^ r-l CM CO »* rH CM CO <f rH CM CO >t r-ICMCO«^ r-ICMCO«*

«
« V4 00
fH O CO
I-l
a
«
pci
i-i CM CO in 5
CO 55
 66

C0| St iTl 0\ >d- ON '^ r^ lO r^ m St <t CO St CO r-^ CO O N O N m CO

10 ON m CO CO CM CO CM CO CO CO CM CO St CO CM rH O r-l T H t-l CO
CO
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

CM ON to iTi O O •H CM CM CJN
OT
o «n ON CO
r-4 CO CM CO CO CM CM CM
m o o o CTN O N O O
CM 00 ON
O r-« CM
O
CNI
CO CO St CM O
i-l rH CM CM
(l4 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
^

o o St »n NO O U^ O N CO -4- r^ CO 00 r-« ON r>. St St «n r^

to St St CM rH CO O O N >i" 0> '-» •H ON CM CO CM CM CM
PH fH CM CM
CO I-l CM CM i-<
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM rH CM CM CM CM CM CM

•o
«
c CO ON St •n o rH 00 m 00 NO ON <t ^ 00 St CO r^ ON r^ St «* CM
U -r* CO CM CM CM m vo r>- N O vo sO r^ r* CO St >3- «* St tr» vo tr» CO m
O 4J C>4
Pl4 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
<M C3
O
C O
O v^
•H C>4 r^ CM '^ r^ NO O ON ON O O »n r-* O rH r-< m NO m o >^ 00
iJ M CO <t 1^ '^ •4" CO rH O O vD r>^ m CO CM CM CM m CO
CM CO CM CO CM
cd o 04 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
•H >
M •i-l
« -t
> CO
M-J T)
«A St r-4 CM f>» st 1^ r-« r^ CM to St St O »n O NO r-l rs. ps. 00
O «
CO CO ^ •«* CO CM CO CM CM CM CO r^ uo >J NO m m CM CO CO CM CO
-o CM
CX4 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
a <D
« rH
•H PQ
SB
U«
«
•H «« CO CO O iH iH m r^ rH o r^ CO O <-• St CM CM NO ON vO ON O
*U O CO CM CM iH CM
-^ CO CM St
«4 CO «n r«. NO CO '^ NO NO ir> St CO St
tM0 1-1
o V P4 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

o >
CJ
V4 O
«J
c xi
a> O N r«. O CM O m o o CO 00 ON O o m r^ CM CTN m o CO
«
04 4-t CM
CO
00 CM CM st
CO CJN O CM
CM CM O m
St CO CM O Ov O O O r-l
CM CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CO
P4
to
«
r-l
<3N CM O ^O CM CO 00 O NO r«» NO ON 0 0 -d- 1-4 r-4 iH 00 CO O
JH \0 -^ N O vO St >* Vt CO r^ m 0 0 00 ON 1-4 iH O -t O CO St CO
H
CO CO CO fO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CM CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

u
*J 0)
<s i-ICMCOst r-ICMCOst r-4CMCOst r-ICMCO«* rHCMCOSt

(3
O
^S.
4J
« O
00
u 18

a i-i V4
«
piS (d p CM CO lO
CO ?5 5
 67

' ro o o o m «n o o uo o o o o o o *o o »* ^f O <J\ CO
CO CO u-> 'vo m 00 O ON
CO
ON CT» <r« 0 0 0 0 v£> 0> O O r-4 O -< o
PL4 •-t-st-<l-<f <t-it<t«0 lO m m in in m m «n •^ <j- in <f in

CM »n o o o o o o o m in tr> o o o o o in o »n o o
CO iH ^ f in v o
<t <J- CO f O ON O O CM 00 Ov O rH O O •4' -d-
CO
Oi m in m m «^ m m »r> ^ <t lo m in m m m in in in in in

CO 1-4 «n 0 0 •<t- ON in o m r«- o lO in in in o o o o m

m «n <f vo 00 0\ iH r-4 C7\ 00 m CO in m m r>» CM rH 1-4 rH
C7N
'<f<t-4-<* N^^j-mm <f m tn in <J- <*• >t -d- m m m in

CO m o o r-« ox «^ O CM o m m «r» O ^ "^o r^ O NO NO O CO

CO 00 rH CO 00 i-« fH CO CO in r*« r^ O N CO m vO ON •Nh
a
o 1>I
ON O CO ON
<f m m m »;f m m in m m lo m in m m m in in m m m
•H
•M
«d
•H
M <M m r^ O O CO uo m o m r>. o m r- o o m O ON CO m
« 00 CO CM CM CM rH CO
00 O <N CM vO 00 O O O ON CJN O 0 0 UO sd- CM
eN4
> fi >^ m m m m m NO vo m <4- -* «n in m m in m in m m in
•H
«W >
o eno
•u
C «M o o m in ON r^ r>. o> o m o o in uo m o ^ o CNj m
CO 0« O ON 00 O N i-« CM CM CO CO v^ >t 00 ON ON 00
CM O CO CM CM
« o
•rl
P4 m m m »r> ^ m «^ >4- >d- m in m m m m m >t ^ <f '^t m
U «0
>i-l C O
M-l O
«M a r-i r«. m vo vo r-. o o
CO <f O O in CM m m 00 o m m CM
«c 00 O O 00 r-4 CM CO CO >n o <t «ct rH f-l CM r-l 00 rH O rH
rH

m v£> vo m vO v O v O v O m vo NO NO >^ vo vo vo ID vO vO so vO
oo
o >
M
•u m vo r^ r»» o m o CO m o NO NO o «n o in m m CM 00 in
C « CM <f vO 0 0 O N <f in r*. 00 CO »** r^ oo 00 rH tH rH r-
0) X]
eN CO vO vO ^d" < t
O 4J
CO m m in m m m m m in lA in in in m in m in vO vo vo
M »4
Q) O
p^ »w
H m r-» CM CM m m o o tr\ 1-t tr\ r-t O "^ CO m 0 0 m ON <jN m
« * NO 00 0 0 >;»• in 00 00 CO vo CO r>. in r^ vo >a- ON C O C O « n

m m m m m ir» m m m m m m m lO m m m vo vo NO m

u
V
«"s rHCMCOst rHCMCO>* fHCMCOvd- rHCMCO<;J- r H CM CO ' 4 '
V P
H ja

o
9 U btt
rH « 00
O. u
«
pes i-i
to 7
CM CO m
0)

CO Z
 68

o m m o m o 00 vo o o o m r- CM o o m o 'O m CM
00 ON o «s CO ir> vo vo CM CM Ncf ^ r*- 00 o o CM
CO -d" fO fO
<j- <h in in in m ir» m in m m m m m m m >t "4" m m m

m o «n r* o o in m o CM CM m ON «* in m ON m CM NO CM
r-i ir> m r*- OS a« 00 00 ^ CO ^ <t CO vO r* r^ 00 CM CO -d- fH

m m m m <J- vl- <t St ir> m «n m «ct <!• >;t <t <t trt tn tr\

m m o m O CM r* O CM <t CM m O O O CO <j- o r^ m
O •-• CO CO O CM CO C^ ON ON O •-• ^ m m vo CM
CJN rH CM CO
u-i m m in m m in in ^ <f m in m tn m m St m m in m

u 1-4 r-l O rH m m o m m o »n o O o m r^ o m in m o
o NO ON CO CM
O O CO CO O i-H O -* ON O O r-t vO NO N O vO
«M
/—s in in vo NO m in m m in m m in <t m m in m m m m m
fi n
o o
•r4 3
4J O
(d -H «^ o o CM O NO m r^
TH 4J <j- in r^v m CO in m o r«. o o o CO
00 CM ^ in tH
M C ON ON ON 00 00 r-l O i-l r-J CO CO CO O r-» CM CO
>4 >-/
O
O <j-»^..^^ •;fininin ^ m m m m in m m in m m m m
it-l
o to
«5 o r* o m O m »-l r-4
CO «;t NO vO
o o •<»• >*
CM CO m CO
o o o o
CO <t <!• m
CO O O O
CM CO CM CM
m
CO
0) O CO CM CN| CM
•H OS m m m m in m m m in m m m m m m m m m «n in m
U
•H tM
«M O
tM
O « CM CO in 00 r>> m o m «n 00 m o in CM CM m »-« o ^ ^o ON
O (0
O CM rH 00 m 00 CO ON in m >* r^ CM 00 ON 00 O CO CO sf 00
u «
c F^ vo NO NO in «n m in in m m m in in m m in vo vO NO NO in
4-* a
c o
o« >
w
u « m ON o o O «-» rH CM r^ m »o ON O r* NO CO o
(V4 4J m o CO CO tn r^ vO 00
m m m o o -d- NO r^ <»• -d- r*» o\ oo
CM O O CM
m NO vo NO m in m in vO vO vO N O m m m m in m in m m
CO

U3 vO CM 00 CO o m o m o o m CM m m o rH O N O rH O CO
vO 00 r^ O r*"- 00 ON ON H^ r^ r^ ON
H m ON rH CO »H rH CO NO
m m m NO m m m m m m NO <o in m m m m m m m m

•M
u
O
to ^
*• iHCMcO<t i-l<MCO<t rH CM CO ^ rHCMrO<t rHCMCO^^
CM
C
H P
O ^
•H
4J
CO «
O « V4 50
•H rH V (0
i-H U
a
01 i-i
« p CM CO
«
piS COK m
 69

/r% U-v O «0 O m o o o tn m o o o o o o in in o m r*
pi CM o r*- o in o CO in «*>• fo o r^ CO
00 O O r^ vO CN O 00
n 00 r«. r^ 00 r^ 0 0 (jx 0 0 00 00 <T» 00 00 ON <?v 0\ r^ 0 0 0 0 f^ 00
]A4 T-4 r-i r-i r-4

OvJ o o o o o o in o CM CM O m m vo o m o in o o CM
leo <N vo {VI m m <s <f CM in in r-- 00 C O r-4 r>. r-^
CM r^ VO rH in
CO 00 00 00 00 r^ r-» r>. r^ 00 00 00 r^ OO O ON ON 00 ON ON ON 00
|P4
rH fM rH r-»

O 00 O O O m o O m in in in m o o m O O O m in
in vo m in in NO CM vO r-i m in CO CO
fO vO i-H vo 00 m m r>. CO
so 1^ rx. r^ vo r^ r*. r^ vO r^ vO NO r»<. 00 00 00 vo f^ r>- r^

CO »n o O O m in o in o m o m o o o o vO O O iH 'd-
C O i-i -^ C O r- 00 o CO o m o 00 o CO m in
fiH ^ . r«» r- o NO CO
g CM
M il3^
00 00 00 00 r^^ r^ 00 00 f^ 00 ON OO 00 ON 00 00 r~-. r*. ON ON
00
•H
U fQ
fd
•H
u O o m >d- i-i vO o O m vo >^ o m m m rH rH o O in
NO r-l r^ ON vO CO CO r^
0}
f^ O O CO CM
O 00
CO rH CM <f CO 00 CO vO
^ « 00 ON 00 ON ON ON
rH (N rH rH
00 O ON O r». r^ 00 ON ON 00 O ON ON
(M U rH *N rH CS r-i f-i r-4 i-t rH iH CM r-l
O <
JH
4J
a »M m rH O O o m o o m CM CO o 00 00 00 oo r-
« o O CO CO CO m 00
o oo o CM r^ O c«i »^ ON rH rH vO vO vO ON CM
•H <s CM CM O O
p^ vO r^ r>> 00 00 00 00 00 r^ 00 00 r- O r-i -H r«^ r ^ r»» r>. 00
o
«M «a t-lPi
tH CM CM CM
O
o
oa o en o o o o o o o o o o o m «n o m o o o o o
ICO r- m ON CM CM m r--. vo
O CM ^ NO O ^^^ O 00 CO 00 CM O
o u f^ ON ON O ON ON O O ON O ON O O CM rH O CM O rH O O O
rH rH CM rH rH CM CM r-l CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CM r-l CM CM
• o
m CM o o m O rH TH 00 m m o O r-l rH O in o m o 00
|CO ft ir\ ir\ tr\ CO r-4 vO NO sO >* r~. r^ lO N O r>«. i n r>-.
cn «r> O <n r^
CO 00 h- 00 oo O ON c^ r-« 0 0 r** ON 00 ON 00 00 00 CXN CJN O 00
r-4 r-l r-4 r-t r-l r-l r-l rH T-t
f-t CM rH 1-i T-i r-l 7-( r^ rH rH CM r-i

JQ
« O O O Sf o r-i r-l O O O o o o m o o O O O
H CO 1^ O r^ ^O CM O <t ^ CM -d- CO O O
in CM CM CM CO m
r*
P4 00 ON ON ON O ON CTk ON O O ON O 00 00 Ov ON rH O O O Ol
CM rH rH rH CM CM rH CM rH rH rH rH CM CM CM CM

k4
4J 0)
CO A
r-l rHCMCOsd- rHCMCO<f rH CM C O «Cf » H CM C O <!• rH CM CO -^^
H P
C
0
•H
z
•M
9
«O « M 00
•H r-( «l «
rH
p. »•§ u
fl» P
«> CO 2 CM CO m
oe:
 70

o O «r» «n O O u-i O OO 00 r-l O O »o «o «n CM in O

«i o «n r» 00 m CM vo CM O r-< CO r-l CO \0 o
ico CO O r-l CM 00
r>^ 1^ r^ r^ r^ 00 f^ r^ r>. r^ <y. 00 ON (T« 00 00 00 00 00 r^ 00
P4

O rH m lO CM CO O ir» 00 i-t o o r-< 00 00 00 in o ON O

-N tri \ 0 I-. CO vD »4- O vo CM C M 00 m r-t in CM CO CM >t ^ 00 o
ICO
CO r^ r^ 00 <?\ 00 00 ON 00 r-* r>. r- 00 r>. r^ rv r>N 00 00 r^ r^ oi
04

00 in o •n »n 00 00 CM o O in m m o o m O 00 m O ON

CO
v£)C^4 O 1^ CM CO CM i-l
00
«n vO rH vO 0 0 v O v O O vO .-1 in si-
CO t^ 00 00 r-«. r- r-^ r~« 00 yO f^ r^ r^ r>. vD r^ r^ r--- r>* r>. r^
A4

u m o 00 o in m o O o O r-l O o o m o O O O O CM
CO
00 0\ CO O r- m CM CM CM O O vO O CM NO CO O O m
o CM m
(4-1 P*« 00 ON ON r-. 00 0000 00 00 OO 00 00 00 00 r^ 00 O O ON 00
•-4 r-l r-4 r-4 i-i f-t i-i t-H r-l r-l r^ rH fH iH f-l rH rH CM CM r-l rH
a
O /-s to
1-4 -O
« P X m-sfoo o o o o o o o m o m m o o o o o o
CM CO
•H fl r^r-iooo mmrwin OONOCO or-ir-ico OONOO
U -H Pico i*-.ooooo\ a\ a\ o^ <T\ ONi^oooo r^r>.r^oo oooor^ON 00
Cd 4J CM
A4 r-lr-lr-lr-l r-l w-i r-t r-4 r-lr-lr-lr-l r-lr-lr-lr-l r-lr-lrWr-l
> C
o
«W O
•nosfi-i o o o o o m o o o r-iino«n o o o o vO
O N^
•U C r^rHCMr^ or^r**in NOONCMr-i vOr-4CMr^ cMomcM m
0 M
^o.
<s f^OONOO 00000000 OOOOQOQO ON00ONr>. OOOOOOOO 00
0) CO fU r-ICMrHr-l r-4r-li-4r-4 ,Hr-lr^i-l r-lrHr^r-l r-lrHr-li-4
• H JM
u
• H «H
tM O v o o o o O O O O m o o o moomo m o o o CM
tM CO CM
« « iKO.
iHmvom cMr^oo ooooom COONCOO vocMsfvo
OOOOOON O N O N O O r^r^ONON O N O N O N O ONONOOOO
o «a CMr-lrHf-< r-4r-ICMCM r-<r-lr-lr-l r-liHr^CM r-lrHrHrH
4J d
0) >
o w
u « o s f o o o m m o mmooo Or-<om ooo«4" CO

« ^ |M
<J\CMCMO .—ICMI— - ^ f-i—I.—l»r» -d-i—l«OC>l vOr—lOCM •
r-4 O O O N O O O N O O N O N O O O O N O O N r - l O O OOr-iONON ON
fl4 4J
m 104 r-lr-ICMCM r-*CM<HrH r-ICMr-lCM r-ICMCM<M r-ICMr-4r-l
CO

ococMCM d o r - i o O O O O o o m o o m o o ON
(d OrHONNO o»*r^r-* O O O N O o < f c M m m o c o c o r^
H
O r - l O O ONONOOON O O r - I O s O O O O N ONOOONCJN ON
CMCMCMCM r-4r-lTHrH CMCMCMr-l CMCMCMr-l r-lr-lr-4i-l

M
4 j 4)
8B ^
c»i « H r-l C M C O S t r-4 C M C O • * r-l C M C O -;f r-<CMCOSf i-ICMCOSj-

e
o

bO
f H 0) (d
u
o
a Cd p
V
ptS
CO 2 CM CO m i
 71

(T) »r» o
W OJ CO
• 00 • ir>
cn rH
r>. o
00
<t
<T> fO
a. o <t

<f •J- ON in 00 vO eN< f-i v£>

r>- ON p^ CO CM

o
CO CO 1-1
in oO CM

in
o
r^ o 00 00 ON
o 00 (N

m m
m CO O
00
m ON

CO
•o
o td

so «n O m vO CO O
m 00 O
m
A
C^^
xs
o m 4J
VO 00
a\ lO m r^ <!• ON
CM
v£> ON CO
00
m o

m
00 CM m vO 00 CO
o
CM o CO CM «n

m
<* CM 00 o
CM
o
ON
CO vO
ON
v£>
o
CTi es o <t CO

«M
o
(0
H 6
OB

•O
«0 c
(d
« « M
00 «> 00 00 O
(0 01
«.* u
OS «
»4 «M M
« >^
O r-l «
o r-l CM > 04 r-l CM • o CM
r<
-l (x; < P!S OS
>
< M PC
04 (m Pti
^ o
? o •i
lo
-J
^
•H p
H z:
 72

cr» ON ON a\ C«< C M n CO CM CM 00 0 0 ON ON 00 00 00 00
a CM C M m m m m vO \0 »r» in CM CM O O
0 , /-«
•H B^ r^ <N o o iH f H CO C O vO \0 o o O O i-H rH
U N-* r-4 i-H r-l i-l i-H I-H T-l r-( r-l I-l r-( r H
O 1 + • + CM CM
1 + «+ • + t +
rH r-l
• + • +
r-l 1-1
1 +
CO

0}
ap ONC^
t-Hi-H
r-». r-.
coco
r>.r«.
0000
I-HI-H
f-Hr-i
I-HI-H
0000
I-HI-H
0000
r^r*.
>^<h
m m
•<}••<*•
>3"<t
o o
o
u
CO
s55 o o
i-Hi-H
coco
i-HrH
o o
CMCM
m m NONO
r H r - l i - H r H
COCO
r-i <-4
r^r^ oooo CMCM
rHr-l
o O
M «+ •+ 1+ >+ «+ «+ •+ •+ « +
c H ONOS O O VOVO « ^ > * COCO m m o o r-lrH r H r H
u
>^
2
O
r>»r^ vOvO m m ONON CMCM m m r».r>» r-irH f-irH
H '^••d- m m ONON r«-r>. o o ONON COCO CMCM O O
o
r-4 s Pli r-<rH rHt-H T-II-H rHi-H i-HrH r-t t-t r-lt-H r H r H

1+ 1+ 1+ •+ • + ' + ' + •+ •+
6
0
ce vO o <t vO O 00 NO o NO CM NO oo -d- CM vO CM
rH 3 00 m i-H r ^ m 00 CM p^ r-< ON CM NO o NO 00
« m NO
NO CM CM vO r^ m CM
m CM CNl vO CM NO m CM CM
NO CO
u
o 00 CM o o NO 00 CM CM o CM CM CM o o
H - * 00 00
m m ON 00 o VO rH CJN O o ON O CM CM r ^ T-t
»© rH I-H I-H r-H rH rH r-t 1-^ o r-M ft CM I-H I-H r H
fii rH r-*
C f-H
< M o o vO o 00 NO CM ^ o CM NO C M
M fi 00
vO
O 00 00 >*
00
O
>.• s N;f 0 0 CO
w-i
VO NO
rH
NO 0 0 vO NO CO 0 0
rH
00 r» CJN •<J- r-.
p f-H I-H t-4 r-A I-H rH

X ^ o
« fx3 O NO o o O <f 00 00 \0 00 o o O -d- <J- 00
•o 23 CO CO m m vt <f m fA CO 'd- CM st
c O
CM
r-4
vO m -4- ft rH
rH
NO
I-H m r-* m rH
rH
H N3 rH

c
0
•H
C<
dti CM
O <f
ON ^
vO
00
00
CM
v O \£>
ON CO
O
00 CO
NO • > *

rH
rH
00
CO
00 -d-
r* CO so CM 00
00 CM
v O yO
00 CO

4J
< NO CM CM ^ 00 CM o NO o CN o o NO
M <t 'H CO
'^^ O CM
r-t
O NO
00
•H
-4- -I >t rH rH rH CO
• ^ rH

s
M
O
JO
vO vO
so
•H 00 0 0 00 St vO 00 00 CM 00 >t NO 00 00 00
|bC4 00 0 0 CO >t -4- t-t O N
<f <N NO CO r^ O m <-* 00
o 00 00 CO
o
M • ^ CO NO CO
VO CM NO CO NO m CM
CO NO CO
O
U-l o ^o CM y£> O CO O 00 00 o CM NO CM CM CM o St 00
m «* O N O fs. r-< O N CM >* CM CM vO rH m CXN eg vO O
4J rH rH I-H T-t r-t CM rH CM
1-i t-t r-t m r-t T-t
CM rH r-«
c (Hi rH

§ Cd St CM NO 00 00 0 0 00 00 NO CM o CM o 00 00 St 00 00
o ^ r-i
r-i
00
m O CO
I-H c^ m r^ r* NO r*- 00 vo r*- CO 0 0
rH
r-t T-t
u g rH rH
rH r-4

o o 00
^
•H
b
w
5a CO
00
I-H m
O CM St
>t m
00 CM
CM N O
r-t
\0 >*
CO NO
Oi
St vO
CM NO
St
r-t
5 St
CO
NO
NO m m
r-t
CM 00
O >*
o f*
r-4
r-t r-t rH T-t
N
m vO <if o O O >^ <t o CM CM St o
0 T-i CM
ON
00 CM St « * 00
(4 CM r^ CO CO CO ON St r>^ CO ON CO CO 00 CM CJN sJ- 00 CO
00 r-H
u
rH
P O ^ NO 00 CM CM 00 00 o vO St O 0 0 NO NO CM O vO
n •J- r-t St St -» C M T-t m r-l .;t rH CO rH St r-t CO rH
«
pii
fia C3 0 a p C aa c G G C a fi
o o o 0 O O 0 O 0 § O 0
o 0 o o o o
U <U u u u 4J M 4J u u M iJ
m U
o u
«J
u 4J U u U 4J o •P U 4J 4J a •M O U
o n o (0
4J
O flS O 08 O « O O 4J o o (0 o (0 O
Q U O « o Q o Q CJ
o O O Q
o a o oo Q o
r-«
X) fi CS CO rH CM CO rH CM CO
« *J CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
H O O f-4 r-l rH CM CM CM CO CO CO
»-i sz P4 (U (U P4 (U 04 04
 73

Table 36. Summary of Result!9 from Uster

. i Automatic Yarn Strength Tester

Breaking Strength ElDngation

Reading Reading
Lot from Mean from Mean
No. Replication Counter (Grams) % C.V. Counter (%]) ?• C V.
PlSi Rl 1759 279 12 17 .18 555 14 94 20 88
R2 1677 267 26 16 .46 556 15 39 24 43
Average 273 19 16 .82 15 17 22 66

P1S2 Ri 1793 284 94 16 02 582 15 76 22 84

R2 1702 270 95 15 70 580 15 52 24 16
Average 277 95 15 .86 15 64 23 50

P1S3 Rl 1674 266 51 16 76 538 14 41 23,46

R2 1730 275 13 16 60 578 15 32 21 08
Average 270 82 16 68 14 87 22 27
P2S1 Ri 1788 283 38 15 22 576 15 57 22 86
R2 1789 284. 01 15 67 576 15 57 22 92
Average 283. 70 15 45 15 57 22 89

P2S2 Rl 1804 283. 18 14 15 573 15 51 22 05

R2 1757 279 35 15 37 576 15 31 22 99
Average 281. 27 14 76 15 41 22 52
P2S3 Ri 1749 277. 20 15 87 556 15 02 25 63
R2 1764 280 16 15 56 578 15 29 22 11
Average 278. 68 15.72 15 16 23 87
P3S1 Ri 1844 292 17 15 85 570 15 35 22 93
R2 1775 281. 22 15 25 577 15 60 22 56
Average 286. 70 15.55 15,48 22, 75

P3S2 Rl 1815 287. 82 14 30 589 15.83 21 23

R2 1827 289. 83 15, 17 594 15.79 21 66
Average 288. 83 14, 74 15 81 21 45
P3S3 Rl 1783 282. 88 14,02 582 15.71 22 34
R2 1766 280. 34 14 92 582 15,25 22 23
Average 281 61 14,48 15.48 22 29
 74

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 75

LITERATURE CITED

1. W. C. Harris, "Some Aspects of Preblending Cotton," Cotton Research

Clinic, 1962.

2. J. B. Speakman, "Fiber Blends," Testile In8t:itute Journal. 49, P. 580

3. S. A. G. Caldwell, "Modern Fiber Blending Practice," Man-Made Tex-

tile, June, 1961, p. 51.

4. D. E. Howe, "Massive Blending as a Means of Leveling Out Cotton's

Variables," Textile Bulletin, 85, July, 1959.

5. Caldwell, p. 52.

6. G. V. Lund, "Tips on Blending Fibers," Textile World, 104, April,

1954, p. 87.

7. A. E. DeBarr & P. G. Walker, "A Measure of Fiber Distribution in

Blend Yarns and Its Application to the Determination of the Degree
of Mixing Achieved in Different Processes," Textile Institute Jour-
nal, 48, T 405, 1957.

8. G. V. Lund, "Fiber Blending," Textile Research Journal, 24, August,

1954, p. 764.

9. D. R. Cox, "Some Statistical Aspects of Mixing and Blending,"

Textile Institute Journal, 45, 1954, T 113.

10. J. E. Ford, "Segregation of Component Fibers in Blended Yarns,"

Textile Institute Journal, 49, 1958, T 608.

11. G. S. Kates, "Some Technique Tips on Processing Blends of Dacron

and Cotton on the Cotton System," Textile Bulletin, 88, April,
1962.

12. F. P. Cancelliere II, A Study of the Effects of High Speed Drawing

on the Properties of Yarn, M. S. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, 1955.

13. J F. Bogdan, "An Exploration of Roller Drafting," Cotton Research

Clinic, 1962.

14. J. B. Hamilton, "The Radial Distribution of Fibers in Blended Yarns,"

Textile Institute Journal, 49, September, 1958, T 411.
 76

15. A. H^ Bowker & G. J. Lieberman, Engineering Statistics. Prentice

Hall Inc., p. 295.