Textile Research Journal Article

A Comparison of Compact Yarn Properties

Produced on Different Systems
1
Fatma Göktepe , Demet
Abstract It is well known that yarn produced using Yilmaz and Özer Göktepe
the compact spinning technique, which has been Textile Engineering Department, The University
introduced as one of the best spinning inno-vations of
of Suleyman Demirel, Isparta, Turkey
this century, has superior yarn structure and quality,
especially in terms of hairiness and strength. However,
there are different compact spin-ning systems on the
market from different manu-facturers and information
concerning the favorable and unfavorable properties of
each would be of great interest. In this study, we
compared the prop-erties of yarn spun on the three main
compact spinning systems commonly used today. To
main-tain impartiality it was preferable to refer to these
three systems as system A, system B, and system C
instead of using their trade names. It was found that
system B seemed to be more suitable for finer yarns
whereas system A generally gave better results for
medium to coarse counts.

Key words compact yarn spinning systems, yarn

hairiness, yarn properties

There are a number of new systems offered to tackle the
current yarn quality/production speed problem on conven-
tional ring systems and compact yarn spinning is one of these.
Although this system uses the major components of a
conventional ring spinning system, it is also considered to be
a new spinning system by some researchers [1, 2].
Today, there are a number of designs offered by differ-ent
machine manufacturers, but they all use the same prin-ciple,
namely condensing the fibrous strand at the end of the draft
region pneumatically. The main compact spin-ning machine
producers available today are Zinser by Air-Com-Tex 700
(CompACT3), Rieter by K44 (Com4) and Suessen by Elite.
However, some other companies such as Cognetex and
Officine Gaudino have recently introduced their own designs
to the market.
Although, the compact system was first introduced at
ITMA 1995, most of the subsequent publications in this field
derive from the compact spinning system manufacturers or
the institutions involved in developing the system, and inde-
pendent studies, although needed, are very limited.
There are studies comparing compact yarn structure with
conventional ring spun yarns, and the greater even-ness of
structure and reduced hairiness of compact yarns is well
known [1–3]. Furthermore, because of this structure, greater
strength, evenness and elongation properties have been
reported by several researchers [1–7]. On the other hand,
some investigations have indicated that the same strength, and
therefore higher productivity, can be achieved with lower
twist values [1–3, 8–10]. Krifa and Hequet defined the
necessary fiber properties for this system [11] and Mahmood
et al. studied the effect of spinning parame-ters on yarn
hairiness [12].
Both yarn structure and the performance of compact yarns
in downstream processes have been investigated and the
benefits of compact yarn in winding, sizing, singe-ing,
doubling, weaving, and knitting have been reported
1 Corresponding author: fax: + 90 246 237 08 59; e-mail: fgok-
tepe@mmf.sdu.edu.tr

Textile Research Journal Vol 76(3): 226–234 DOI: 10.1177/0040517506061241 www.trj.sagepub.com © 2006 SAGE Publications
Figures 6, 7 appear in color online: http://trj.sagepub.com

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

 A Comparison of Compact Yarn Properties Produced on Different Systems F. Göktepe et al.
in some studies. Dash et al. studied their performance in
winding [4] and Krifa et al. compared the performance of ring
spun and compact yarns spun from various staple lengths of
fibers [5]. Artzt indicated the advantage of this system for
combed yarns [13] and Behera et al. studied the performance
of compact yarns in weaving [14].
In his study, Hechtl produced worsted yarn on a com-pact
spinning system and compared its properties with con-
ventional yarns [9]. Artzt, on the other hand, reported that this
system was also advantageous for man-made fiber spinning
[13].
However, Cheng and Yu criticised the compact spin-ning
system, suggesting that it was only effective for yarns finer
than Ne 60 and that it required higher investment and
maintenance costs [2]. Similarly, Oxenham reported that for
of similar reasons the system was still not widely accepted in
the USA [6].
Nikolic et al. reported another interesting study in which
they compared the properties of cotton and cotton/ polyester
blended compact yarn spun on the Elite Fiomax E1 machine
of Suessen and Air-Com-Tex 700 of Zinser
[15]. However their study did not compare these two com-
pacting systems but instead focused on a comparison of
compact yarns with conventional yarns.
In all the studies mentioned above, the main interest was
on the superior yarn and fabric properties of com-pact yarns
as well as their running performance in down-stream
processes in comparison with the conventional yarns.
However, we believe a comparison of the differ-ent systems
currently in common use in the world would be a valuable
contribution to the decision-makers in the short-staple
spinning industry, and so the present study compared the
properties of compact ring spun yarns made from the same
raw material but spun on different systems.
Figure 1 The basic principle of system A.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015
227
TRJ
Material and Methods
Compact Yarn Spinning Systems Used
In this study, the three different systems most commonly in
use today in short staple spinning mills were compared. The
basic principles of these three systems (named as sys-tem A,
B, and C, respectively in this paper) are shown in Figures 1–3.
System A has a perforated apron which follows just after
the classical 3 over 3 drafting rollers (Figure 1). One of the
typical properties of this system is its perforated apron
situated at the top and an air current created under-neath. In
1
system A, the delivery top roller (4 ) and perfo-rated apron
are the condensing components and are called the
“compacting element”. After drafting, the fiber bundle is
1 2
sucked through the slot in the H –H region by air suc-tion
after leaving the front rollers. The perforated apron has pores
and the forms of these pores are in the order elliptical pores
followed by circular ones.
On the other hand system B, which is shown schematically
in Figure 2, uses a perforated drum rather than an apron.
Inside the perforated drum, there is a stationary drum hav-ing
a slot in direction of fiber flow so that an extra transverse
force could be applied onto the yarn. Fibers are caught by the
air current in the perforated drum soon after they leave the nip
1 2
point (3–3 ) until they reach the nip point (3–3 ). The air
current influences the fibers to pass along the slot
(S) and therefore the fibers are condensed by means of the
aerodynamic forces caused by the air current.
The third system, system C has a perforated apron simi-lar
to the system A, but this is situated at the bottom part of the
drafting system (Figure 3). Underneath this apron, there is a
grooved tube (S) to facilitate the condensing process. This
tube has a small slot beginning from the nip line of
TRJ 228 Textile Research Journal 76(3)

Figure 2 The basic principle of

system B.

Figure 3 The basic principle of system C.

1
front rollers (S ) and ending at the delivery nip line formed by Yarn Production
4
the delivery top roller (S ). The form of the groove changes
We produced 100% cotton combed compact yarns of Ne 20/1,
according to yarn count and raw material. The condensing
Ne 30/1 and Ne 41/1 on each system. This count range was
zone consists of a grooved tube (S), lattice apron and the
chosen since it covers the majority of the yarn pro-duced
delivery top roller (4). Drafted fibers pass to the condensing
zone and are held on the surface of the perforated apron although the compact system is mainly designed for finer
firmly. The fibers are seized by the air current and transported counts.
1 4 It was necessary to use different roving for Ne 41 to be
from the S end to the S end of the suction slot.
able to produce the yarn count range required without any
difficulty. Therefore the yarns of Ne 20 and Ne 30 were
produced from Agean cotton of Ne 0.85 rovings whereas

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

 A Comparison of Compact Yarn Properties Produced on Different Systems F. Göktepe et al. 229
TRJ

the yarns of Ne 41 were produced from Greek cotton of Ne

Table 1 The fiber properties.
1.0 roving count.
For yarn production, the yarn preparation processes were Properties Mean values
followed closely. During yarn spinning, the same rov-ings Agean cotton Greek cotton
were fed in the same order to the spindles of each of the
different compact yarn spinning machines to eliminate any Staple Length (mm) 30.1 28.2
Micronaire 4.6 4.2
variation between roving bobbins. On each machine, the same
U.I. 85.6 82.6
10 spindles were also used during the production of different Strength (g/tex) 30.6 27.9
yarn counts to eliminate any possible variation between Breaking Elongation (%) 6.7 11.6
spindles. SFI 7.3 6.9
In addition, all yarn samples were produced with the same +b 8.0 7.6
spinning parameters, namely the same twist multi-plier, draft Rd 76.5 74.85
and spindle speed, etc. We also tried to use same traveler for CG 31–2 41–1
each, but there had to be slight differ-ences in travelers SCI 153 128.6
because of the differences between ring diameters and profiles
of the three compact spin-ning machines. However, the most
suitable traveler types having similar wire profile and shape was used [16–18]. However, when we examined the test
were chosen by fol-lowing the manufacturer’s results, it was found that the highest hairiness values occurred
recommendations to provide the highest performance for each with system C although the traveler used for this count at
ring profile and yarn count. In terms of traveler number, system C was the heaviest. Similarly, the lowest hairiness
similar numbers were used during the production of Ne 20 results were obtained at system A for Ne 41 although the
and Ne 30 counts, but for Ne 41 yarn, there were differences lightest traveler was used there. As a result, the effect of the
as the lightest traveler was used for System A whereas the traveler weight for Ne 41 seemed to be insignificant.
heavi-est one was used for System C. As it is well known, the
yarn hairiness values decrease as the heavier traveler The fiber properties and spinning parameters are given in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 2 Spinning particulars.

System A System B System C

Roving count 0.85
Twist (t/m) 628
αe 3.6
Spindle speed (rpm) 12.000
Ne 20

Take-up speed (m/min.) 19 19 19

Traveler EL1 Hf 1/0 C1 UL Udr 1/0 C1 LM Udr 1/0
Ring diameter (mm) 38 (Elliptic) 40 (Titan) 40 (Titan)
Break draft 1.18 1.14 1.16
Draft Total 23.5 23.8 23.4
Roving count 0.85
Twist (t/m) 843
αe 3.9
Spindle speed (rpm) 15.000
Ne 30

Take-up speed (m/min.) 17.8 17.8 18.5

Traveler EL1 Hf 5/0 C1 EL Udr 4/0 C1 LM Udr 5/0
Ring diameter (mm) 38 (Elliptic) 40 (Titan) 40 (Titan)
Break draft 1.18 1.14 1.16
Draft Total 35.3 35.6 34.9
Roving count 1.0
Twist (t/m) 918
αe 3.56
Spindle speed (rpm) 15.500
Ne 41

Take-up speed (m/min.) 16.8 16.8 17

Traveler EL1 Hf 4/0 C1 EL Udr 6/0 C1 LM Udr 7/0
Ring diameter (mm) 38 (Elliptic) 40 (Titan) 40 (Titan)
Break draft 1.19 1.14 1.16
Draft Total 40.7 41.0 40.5

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

TRJ 230 Textile Research Journal 76(3)
Yarn Tests
To minimize any possible variation, we used 10 spindles side
by side on each compact spinning machine and obtained
samples following two consecutive doffings from each
spindle. As a result, 20 bobbins from each compact spinning
machine for each yarn count were available to determine their
properties.
The yarn tests were carried out on Uster Tester 4, Uster
Tensorapid and Zweigle G566 testers by feeding bobbins of
each system in the same order to the test-ers. Twenty bobbins
were tested for each system yielding the average values of 20
test results for each property. The tests were carried out under
standard atmospheric conditions and the samples were
conditioned for a mini-mum of 24 hours before the tests. All
the tests were car-ried out on the same testers and the test
results were analysed statistically to determine any significant
differ-ences [19].
Results and Discussion
Yarn Hairiness Results
The Uster hairiness (H) and Zweigle S3 results are given in
Figures 4 and 5. The test results show that system A had the
lowest hairiness in terms of both Uster H and Zweigle S3
value in comparison with the other two systems for all yarn
counts we produced. The reason for this might be the different
design and construction of the systems. In system A, the air
suction is performed over a larger area under-neath the
perforated apron. However, in systems B and C
Figure 4 Uster Hairiness (H) values.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015
Figure 5 Zweigle hairiness (S3) values.
the suction is through narrower grooves situated under-neath
the perforated drum and lattice apron, respectively (Figure 6).
1
In system A, the roller 4 has a larger diameter in com-
1
parison with the roller 3 (Figure 1) leading to a slight draft in
this condensing region. However, at system B and C, there is
no such draft in this region. The combined effect of air
suction through the perforated apron and such a draft
(max.1.04) in system A might lead to much better fiber
control and binding into the yarn body, and therefore reduced
hairiness. These aspects indicate that system A works more
effectively in terms of reducing hairiness for this range of
yarn counts because the condensing power may be stronger
than that of systems B and C. As reported by the
manufacturers, system A has a maximum suction of 3430 Pa
whereas systems B and C have 686 and 3000 Pa suction,
respectively.
System B appeared to yield the highest H and S3 values
for Ne 20, but this trend changed for Ne 30 and Ne 41 as
system C had the highest values. This is in agreement with the
earlier study of Cheng and Yu [2] as system B was reported to
having quite weak fiber control and therefore poorer fiber
properties for coarse yarns.
On the other hand, yarns produced on system C had the
higher variation in hairiness values. The high CV% of hair-
iness of these yarns has a negative effect on subsequent
processes. This might lead to the conclusion that fiber con-trol
by the compacting action of this system was not very constant
and stable because of the lattice apron design. The surface of
this apron has a porous structure like a net, causing fiber
deposition and blockage at the surface from time to time as
observed during production. However, in system B there was
an air guide element (Figure 7) pro-tecting the pores of the
steel drum from fiber/dust block-age. Similarly there was also
no blockage in system A since the air suction is at the top
through a single line of pores (Figure 8).
 A Comparison of Compact Yarn Properties Produced on Different Systems F. Göktepe et al. 231 TRJ

Figure 6 Different designs of suction slots in three systems. (1), (2), (3):, suction slots.

Figure 7 Air guide element of system B. Figure 8 Perforated apron of system A.

Yarn Irregularity Results

Irregularity test results are given in Figure 9. The test results
show that statistically the system A had the best irregularity
for Ne 20 and Ne 30, whereas system B had the best value for
Ne 41. Clearly, system C had the worst irreg-ularity results as
well as the highest variation for all yarn counts we applied. A
possible explanation for that might be the weak fiber control
by system C due to the blockage of fibers underneath the
perforated apron, as sometimes observed, leading to unstable
compacting power and there-fore uncontrolled spinning
during production.
On the other hand, the reason for the unsatisfactory results
with system B for Ne 20 and Ne 30 might perhaps be the
weak compacting power of this system for the medium to
coarse counts, as similar results have been reported earlier
[2]. System A had worse irregularity values for Ne 41 yarn in
comparison with the system B. This can be explained by the
level of suction power, as it might be higher than the ideal
value for Ne 41, although optimum for Ne 20 and Ne 30
yarns for system A.

Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015

TRJ 232 Textile Research Journal 76(3)
Figure 9 Irregularity values.
Yarn Imperfection Results
The test results for thin places, thick places and neps are
shown in Figures 10–12.
Similar to the irregularity results, system A appears to have
given the best values for Ne 20 and 30 whereas system B gave
the best values for Ne 41 (Figure 10). However, no
statistically significant difference was found between the test
results of systems A and B for Ne 30 and Ne 41. On the other
hand, the yarn produced on system C had the highest variation
for thin places.
When thick place values were analysed (Figure 11), the
results were quite similar to the above findings.
Figure 10 Thin place values.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015
Figure 11 Thick place values.
When the neps values shown in Figure 12 are exam-ined,
system A appeared to have the lowest value for Ne 20 and Ne
30. However, there was no statistically sig-nificant difference
between the three systems for Ne 20, although, on the other
hand, system B gave the best values for Ne 41.
The results above also reveal some limitations for these
systems in general. In system B, the power of the suction
effect may not be strong enough as the distance between the
apron nip line (R) and the front roller nip line is longer than
that of the conventional ring spinning drafting system
[2] (Figure 2) and this distance can not be reduced further
because of the large diameter of the perforated drum. Fib-ers
that are shorter than this distance could not be drafted
properly and this situation may cause increased yarn faults.
Earlier findings such as the increased number of thick
Figure 12 Neps values.
 A Comparison of Compact Yarn Properties Produced on Different Systems F. Göktepe et al.
Figure 13 Yarn tenacity values.
places and neps for compact yarns confirm this point [2, 7].
Consequently, this restricts the raw material properties used in
this system and therefore this system seems to be more
suitable for processing longer cotton fibers, i.e finer yarns.
In system A, on the other hand, the design of condens-ing
zone, especially the distance between the nip points of the
rollers in the condensing zone (Figure 1) may restrict work
with longer staple fibers and so it might be a problem to work
with longer staples, i.e. finer yarns, with this sys-tem.
Yarn Tenacity and Breaking
Elongation Results
Tenacity and breaking elongation test results are shown in
Figures 13 and 14.
Similar to the previous findings, system A appeared to give
the highest tenacity in comparison with the other two systems
for Ne 20 and 30 yarns whereas system B gave the highest
tenacity for Ne 41. However, all the yarns pro-duced by
system C had the lowest tenacity of all in parallel to the trend
in irregularity results. The same trend was observed for
breaking elongation values. With system B, yarns that had the
highest breaking elongation values were obtained. The reason
for this might be that there was no transverse draft in system
B and also the vacuum effect seems to be weaker as explained
in the section on yarn hairiness results above. Therefore, the
degree of paralleli-zation of the fibers in the yarn structure
might be lower than other systems causing higher breaking
elongation. Of course, a further detailed yarn structure
analysis is needed to confirm these comments.
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015
233
TRJ
Figure 14 Yarn breaking elongation values.
Conclusions
This study was carried out to determine the significant dif-
ferences in yarn properties obtained by the most common
compact yarn spinning systems used today.
In terms of hairiness, system A had the lowest Uster
hairiness (H) and S3 values for all yarns in comparison with
the other two systems because of the system design. Inter-
estingly, in general we observed the highest variations with
system C. This is attributed to the blockage due to fiber and
dust observed under the perforated apron, which therefore
caused a continuous change in the condensing area leading
unstable fiber control in the condensing zone.
The test results of irregularity, thin/thick place, neps and
tenacity show that, in general systems A and B led to better
yarn properties in comparison with system C. For Ne 20 and
Ne 30, the best irregularity values were obtained by system A
whereas for the finest yarn we produced (Ne 41), system B
gave the best irregularity. The better results obtained by
system A with Ne 20 and Ne 30 made us consider that the
drafting system design might be more suitable with this
system for these count ranges. However, for finer yarns such
as Ne 41 that was produced here, sys-tem B was superior.
Therefore it was concluded that system B has a less effective
fiber control for coarse to medium counts in comparison with
system A and when the yarn became coarser, the number of
fibers in the yarn cross-sec-tion increased and the condensing
power of system B may not be strong enough to grasp all the
fibers effectively. In addition, the distance between the apron
nip line and the front nip line is longer than that of the
conventional ring spinning drafting system, which made the
yarn irregularity and imperfections results poorer.
TRJ 234 Textile Research Journal 76(3)
On the other hand, system B led to the best values in terms
of breaking elongation, possibly because of there was no
transverse draft in system B, and also because of the weaker
vacuum effect. Therefore, the degree of paral-lelization of the
fibers in the yarn structure might be lower than that of other
systems, causing higher breaking elonga-tion. Of course, a
further detailed yarn structure analysis is needed to confirm
this comment.
Consequently, system B seems to be more suitable for
finer yarns whereas system A gave better results for medium
to coarse counts, i.e. Ne 20 and Ne 30, because of the designs
of the condensing zone and the condensing power. System C
seemed to give unsatisfactory results for all the yarn counts
produced here because of the weak fiber con-trol and the fiber
blockage problem.
Literature Cited
1. Artzt, P., The Special Structure of Compact Yarns-Advantages In
Downstream Processing, ITB Yarn And Fabric Forming, No 2,
41–48, (1997).
2. Cheng, K. P. S., and Yu, C., A Study Of Compact Spun Yarns,
Textile Res. J. 73(4), 345–349 (2003).
3. Stalder, H., Ring Spinning Advance, Textile Asia, March, 43–
46 (2000).
4. Dash, J. R., Ishtiaque, S. M., and Alagirusamy, R., Properties And
Processibility Of Compact Yarns, Indian J. Fibre & Textile Res.
27(4), 362–368 (2002).
5. Krifa, M., Hequet, E., and Ethridge D., Compact Spinning: New
Potential For Short Staple Cottons, Textile Topics 2002–2, 2–8
(2002).
6. Oxenham, W., Trends In Yarn Production – A New Twist, in
“Proceedings of International Isparta Textile Congress,” Istek
2003 Suleyman Demirel University Isparata Turkey, 22–23 May,
pp. 26–50, (2003).
7. Ömeroglu, S., Kompakt Iplikçilik Sisteminde Üretilen Iplik-lerin
Yapisal Özellikleri ve Bazi Üretim Parametrelerinin Etkileri
Üzerine Bir Arastirma, Uludag University, PhD The-sis, Bursa,
Turkey, (2002).
Downloaded from trj.sagepub.com at Karolinska Institutets Universitetsbibliotek on May 24, 2015
8. Clapp, D. M., Suessen Elite Compact Ring Spinning Evaluation,
th
in “14 EFS System Conference,” Fiber Processing Research
Report, Report Number 2001–1 (FLP-00-234), Cotton Incor-
porated, North Carolina, USA pp. 161–168, (2001).
9. Hechtl, R., Compact Spinning System-An Opportunity For
Improving The Ring Spinning Process, Melliand English 77(4),
37–38 (1996).
10. Krifa, M. and Ethridge, D., Compact Ring Spun Yarns: An
Examination of Some Productivity Issues, Textile Topics, 2003–
2, 2–8 (2003).
11. Krifa, M. and Hequet, E., Interaction Between Cotton Fiber
Characteristics and Spinning Process: Conventional Vs. Com-
pact Ring Spinning, in Beltwide Cotton Conferences, January 6–
10, Nashville, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis,
TN, USA, 1978–1982, (2003).
12. Mahmood, N., Jamil, N. A., Nawaz, S. M., and Saleem, M. S.,
Technological Studies On Compact (K-44) Versus Ring (G-33)
Spinning With Reference To Yarn Hairiness, Pakistan Textile J.
July, 53–56 (2003).
13. Artzt, P., Specific Technological Aspects Of The Compact Spin-
ning Process, in “Proceedings of International Isparta Textile
Congress,” Istek 2003 Suleyman Demirel University Isparata
Turkey, 22–23 May, pp. 51–80, (2003).
14. Behera, B. K., Hari, P. K., and Ghosh, S., Weavability Of
Compact Yarn, Melliand International, 9, 311–314 (2003).
15. Nikolic, M., Stjepanovic, Z., Lesjak F., and Stritof, A., Com-pact
Spinning For Improved Quality Of Ring-Spun Yarns, J. Fibres
& Textiles Eastern Eur. 11(4), 43 (2003).
16. Kadoglu, H., Üreyen, M. E., Çelik, P., and Yildirim, D., Pamuk
Ipliklerinde Tüylülügün Nedenleri ve Azaltilma Olanaklari
Üzerine Bir Çalisma, Tübitak Tekstil Araþtirma Merkezi, Project
No: TAM 2002–06, Turkey, (2004).
17. Kumar, G.V., and Zacharia, J., Study on Ring Yarn Hairiness with
Special Reference to the Effect of BTRA Ring Cleaner-cum-
Lubricant, BTRA-Scan 28(3), 6–9 (1997).
18. Usta, I., and Canoglu, S., Influence of Ring Traveller Weight and
Coating on Hairiness of Acrylic Yarns, J. Fibres & Textiles
Eastern Eur. October/December, 20–24 (2002).
19. Yilmaz, D., Farkli Kompakt Ring Iplik Egirme Sistemlerinin ve
Elde Edilen Ipliklerin Özelliklerinin Karþilaþtirilmasi, Süley-
man Demirel University, MSc Thesis, Isparta, Turkey, (2004).