See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263354133

The sewability of lightweight fabrics using X-feed mechanism

Article in International Journal of Fashion Design Technology and Education · June 2014
DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2014.906661

CITATIONS READS
4 6,158

2 authors:

Prabir Jana Noshad Ali Khan

NIFT N.i.f.t
45 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Prabir Jana on 08 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Prabir Jana]
On: 21 August 2014, At: 01:43
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology

and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20

The sewability of lightweight fabrics using X-feed

mechanism
a a
Prabir Jana & Noshad Ali Khan
a
Department of Fashion Technology, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Hauz Khas
Campus, New Delhi 110016, India
Published online: 17 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Prabir Jana & Noshad Ali Khan (2014) The sewability of lightweight fabrics using X-feed mechanism,
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 7:2, 133-142, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2014.906661

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2014.906661

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 2014
Vol. 7, No. 2, 133–142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2014.906661

TECHNICAL NOTE
The sewability of lightweight fabrics using X-feed mechanism
Prabir Jana∗ and Noshad Ali Khan
Department of Fashion Technology, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Hauz Khas Campus, New Delhi 110016, India
(Received 4 June 2013; accepted 17 March 2014 )

The drop-feed mechanism in sewing machines is universally used for apparel manufacturing, and is also one of the common
reasons for ply slippage. Typical Corporation, China, had invented a new feed mechanism called X-feed. To explore the
efficacy of X-feed mechanism in controlling ply slippage and seam appearance in lightweight fabrics, an experiment was
conducted covering all possible seam types achievable in garment manufacturing. Four different lightweight fabrics in six
different pattern shapes are sewn in 10 different combinations of superimposed seam using both drop-feed and X-feed sewing
machines. Except feed mechanism, all other parameters that may affect ply slippage and seam appearance were kept constant.
The X-feed mechanism resulted in a flatter seam appearance with an average of 4.3 pucker rating in comparison to 3.8 of
drop feed, lesser amount of ply slippage at 1.24% to drop feed’s 3.08% and lesser occurrence of ply slippage at 24.34% to
drop feed’s 60.18%.
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014

Keywords: feed mechanism; ply slippage; seam appearance; drop feed; X-feed

1. Introduction
The physical appearance of a seam in any garment is directly
proportional to the perceived quality of the garment. In
this respect, a flat seam is universally accepted as one of
the most important parameters (Jana & Garg, 2005) that
define quality in a garment, unless a specific type of gar-
ment demands otherwise, for instance, a casual wear like
jeans (Jana & Garg, 2005). A wavy seam appearance is
considered to be puckered and is therefore unacceptable in
good quality garments. Another important yet common rea-
son for seam puckering is the drop-feed mechanism (Jana
& Garg, 2005). It has also been reported that shortcomings
in existing drop-feed mechanisms militated against the suc-
cessful sewing of lightweight and dimensionally unstable
fabrics (Jana & Garg, 2005). As many as seven different feed
mechanisms are available in commercial sewing machines
(Anon, 1983), and the drop feed is the most commonly used
system for sewing fabrics for apparel (StitchWorld, 2012).
Typical Corporation, China, has invented a new feed mech-
anism with a split bottom feed for needle-feed machines.
This feed mechanism is called needle feed and alternat-
ing drop-feed (patent applied for) mechanism - hereinafter
called X-feed - first seen during CISMA 2011 (StitchWorld,
2012). This article aims to explore the advantages offered by
an X-feed mechanism in terms of sewability, in comparison
to the standard drop-feed mechanism. Sewability is evalu-
ated in terms of two parameters, namely seam appearance
and ply slippage.
2. Objective
The objective of this paper is to determine whether the use
of the X-feed offers any substantial benefit over the use of
drop feed while sewing lightweight dimensionally unstable
fabrics.
3. Literature survey
3.1. Feed mechanism in sewing machine
The needle penetrates the fabric for stitch formation and
intermittent feeding of fabric is necessary to ensure that
stitch formation takes place in a continuous longitudinal
form (Anon, 1988; Carr & Latham, 1996; Solinger, 1988).
The universally used feed mechanism in sewing machines
for manufacturing fashion and commodity apparel called
the drop-feed accounts for more than 90% of sewing
machines installed in factories. According to Solinger, there
are five basic categories of prime-feed mechanisms (1988),
whereas Carr and Latham (1996), Juki (Anon, 1997) and
Brother (Anon, 2000) mention six different feed types. Pfaff
(Anon, 1983) classified feed mechanisms into seven differ-
ent types, and currently, all seven different feed mechanisms
are available in industrial sewing machines.
Drop feed is a commonly used feed mechanism for
sewing fabrics for apparel, while needle feed and unison
feed take care of the heavy duty non-apparel segment (car
seat cover, shoes, upholstery, luggage, etc.). Variable top
feed is used for specialised operations involving lightweight

∗ Corresponding author. Email: prabirjana@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 134 P. Jana and N.A. Khan
Figure 1. Drop-feed system. Source: Pfaff Special Machine
Catalogue.
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014
fabrics, like guaranteeing zero inter-ply slippage (centre
back seam in blazers/coats) or measured inter-ply full-
ness (sleeve setting of blazers/coats). The popularly used
drop feed has an inherent problem of inter-ply slippage that
makes it inappropriate for long seams and slippery fabrics
and many common problems like puckering and rope effect
along the seam line also crop up due to inter-ply slippage.
Although needle feed can control inter-ply slippage, it can-
not be used for lightweight fabrics. The feed dog moves
the fabric by a predetermined amount between successive
stitches (Carr & Latham, 1996). The three sewing machine
parts which together constitute the drop-feed mechanism
are the presser foot, throat plate and feed dog (Carr &
Latham, 1996).
3.2. Drop-feed mechanism
In a drop-feed mechanism, the feed dog feeds the fabric
from the bottom when the needle is at the top dead centre.
As only the bottom ply is in contact with the teeth of the
feed dog and the top ply is expected to slide (along with
the bottom ply) below the presser foot with negligible fric-
tion, there is no explicit binding force between both plies
(Figure 1). Depending on the surface characteristics of the
fabric in question, the drop-feed mechanism is subject to
severe inter-ply slippage (for slippery fabric or fabrics with
very low frictional value) or negligible inter-ply slippage
(for very high surface friction value). When the needle is
at the top dead centre and stitch interlacing takes place,
the feed dog is also at its highest point and the fabric is
controlled by the presser foot clamping the fabric and by
the feed dog. There is no possibility, therefore, of the fab-
ric bulging as a consequence of the tension of the sewing
thread.
When two or more thicknesses of fabrics are being sewn
together, regardless of whether they are separate fabrics or
folded sections of the same fabric, a problem arises in that
Figure 2. Compound feed system. Source: Pfaff Special Machine
Catalogue.
the friction between the bottom ply and feed dog is greater
than that between intervening plies (Carr & Latham, 1996).
The tendency of the lower ply moving ahead satisfactorily
with the feed dog and the upper ply being retarded by the
presser foot is known as inter-ply shift, differential feeding
pucker or just feeding pucker (Carr & Latham, 1996). A
well-trained machinist/sewing operator should be able to
minimise inter-ply slippage by careful handling and should
anticipate the resulting slower operation (Carr & Latham,
1996).
3.3. Compound feed mechanism
A compound feed is the combined simultaneous feed action
of a needle feed and drop oscillation feed and is useful for
sewing with minimal inter-ply friction coefficient (Solinger,
1988). In the compound feed mechanism, the needle and
feed dog together feed the fabric when the needle is down
and inside the fabric. As the fabric is transported by the feed
dog from the bottom while the needle is inside the fabric,
there is no inter-ply slippage. However, when the needle
is up and stitch tightening is taking place, the feed dog is
down and the fabric is not being supported from the bottom
by the feed dog. This mismatch leads to the possibility of
the fabric bulging/buckling, caused by the tension of the
sewing thread in case the fabric plies are not stiff enough.
Although compound feed can control inter-ply slippage,
it cannot be used for lightweight fabrics (Carr & Latham,
1996) (Figure 2).
3.4. X-feed mechanism
The X-feed from Typical Corporation is characterised by a
split bottom feed. The feed dog is split into two independent
feed dogs; during the first half of the stitch length, the needle
and the yellow feed dog transport the material (Figure 3(a)).
While the needle leaves the material and moves forward,
 International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014
Figure 3. A–3F X-feed system. Source: Typical Sewing Corporation.
the feed dog moves down and towards the sewing direc-
tion. The blue feed dog now takes over the transport of the
second half of the stitch length and brings the stitch to its
end (Figure 3(b)). Due to the alternating movement of both
feed dogs, material transport is continuous and smooth.
The needle first enters the material. Both feed dogs are at
the same level (Figure 3(c)). The needle and yellow feed dog
then feed the material and the blue feed dog moves towards
the sewing direction below the stitch plate (Figure 3(d)).
As the needle leaves the material, the blue feed dog takes
over the transport and both feed dogs are at the same level
(Figure 3(e)). In the final stage, the blue feed dog transports
the material (Figure 3(f)), while the needle and the yellow
feed dog move towards the sewing direction. Though the
blue feed dog is transporting the material in the sewing
direction, the thread take-up lever is pulling the thread, an
effect that stretches the stitch like in a puller feed machine.
The machine sews with 35% lower thread tension, giv-
ing very uniform seams and results in continuous and
smooth feeding in comparison to the intermittent feeding of
drop feed (Stitchworld, 2012). Stitch quality is also highly
improved even on thin materials apart from heavy materials.
There is nearly no interplay slippage while sewing ‘difficult
to sew’ material and there is a harmonic sewing feeling for
the operator (Stitchworld, 2012). In the X-feed mechanism,
the needle and one feed dog transport the fabric up to the
needle penetration point and then the drop feed takes over
and transports the fabric plies (which are already joined
by stitching) from the bottom. As in this stage fabric plies
135
are supported from both sides (feed dog from bottom and
presser foot from top), there is no chance of fabric bulging
due to stitch tightening.
3.5. Lightweight fabrics
Although there is no standard classification for light- and
medium-weight fabrics, sewing machine manufacturer Juki
suggested that the term ‘lightweight’ be applied to fabrics
weighing less than 80 g/m2 and ‘medium duty’ to fabrics
weighing 100–200 g/m2 (Hama, 1998). Juki also suggested
(Hama, 1998) the application of parameters like the ideal
needle bar stroke as less than 30 mm, thread take-up stroke
of 57–57.5 mm, presser foot lift of 4–9 mm, feed dog pitch
of 1.15 mm (Jana & Garg, 2005) and needle plate hole of
1.8 mm. The needle hole should be only about 30% larger
than the size of the needle (Carr & Latham, 1996).
While sewing medium to heavyweight fabrics, the
needle-feed mechanism can be used instead of drop-feed
mechanism to minimise or neutralise inter-ply slippage,
precluding feed pucker. In a similar situation in the case of
lightweight fabrics, the needle-feed mechanism cannot be
used as the low stiffness of lightweight fabrics will succumb
to bulging/buckling in the absence of feed dog support
during stitch tightening. Thus, sewing of lightweight dimen-
sionally unstable fabrics poses a special challenge, given the
existing feed mechanisms.
It has been established from the available literature
that while drop feed is prone to inter-ply slippage (Carr
 136 P. Jana and N.A. Khan
& Latham, 1996), compound feed leads to buckling of
lightweight fabrics during stitch tightening (Carr & Latham,
1996). Both problems lead to feed pucker in seam appear-
ance and are thus not suitable for sewing lightweight fabrics.
The X-feed mechanism addresses the problems of ply slip-
page in the first part of feeding and fabric buckling due to
stitch tightening during the second part of feeding. The first
part of feeding occurs when the needle is inside the fabric
(thus negating any possibility of inter-ply slippage) and in
the second part of feeding, fabric layers are well supported
by the feed dog and presser foot on both sides preventing
any buckling during stitch tightening. A practical experi-
ment has been designed in this study to see whether the
X-feed can reduce feed pucker.
3.6. Evaluation of seam appearance and seam pucker
Seam appearance is commonly measured using the AATCC
88B seam pucker scale. According to the AATCC, seam
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014
appearance can be classified into five grades: Grade 1
refers to the worst seam appearance, i.e. heavily puck-
ered, whereas Grade 5 refers to the best seam appearance,
which has negligible or no pucker. The scope and purpose
of AATCC 88B is to evaluate the smoothness appearance
of seams in fabrics, and fabrics of any construction may be
evaluated (Anon, 1985).
Seam pucker is defined as the wrinkled appearance of
a fabric in which no uniform relaxation or shrinkage has
occurred (Institute, n.d.), or the problem in which unseamly
creases are made near the seam line (Anon, 1997). It is con-
sidered as one the most important visual parameters of seam
appearance. Seam pucker can be categorised into inherent
pucker and pucker due to process/machine parameters, pat-
tern shape and differential shrinkage (Jana & Garg, 2005).
Inherent pucker is caused by the structural jamming of
fabric while accommodating one or more of various incon-
gruous parameters like thicker needle, thicker thread, higher
stitches per centimetre, 301 stitch types, denser weave, etc.,
irrespective of the process parameters (Jana & Garg, 2005).
Since the experiment referred to the above was designed
to measure the resultant pucker on account of two different
feed mechanisms of the machine, it was ensured that all
other parameters which could cause seam pucker were kept
constant.
4. Methodology
The objective was to evaluate the amount of feed pucker
that appeared in lightweight fabric while sewing different
types of seams and evaluate ply slippages that occurred
while sewing superimposed seams using both drop-feed and
X-feed mechanisms under standard sewing conditions.
4.1. Design of experiment
Two sewing machines, one with normal drop-feed mecha-
nism and another with X-feed mechanism were selected for
Figure 4. Photographic standards of AATCC 88B seam pucker
scale.
testing along with four different types of lightweight dimen-
sionally unstable fabrics. It was planned to sew the fabrics
in different grain directions: length and widthwise, bias,
convex and concave curves. All possible types of super-
imposed seam used in garment making were categorised
into 10 distinct generic sewing categories. Twenty differ-
ent sewing parameters were standardised between the two
sewing machines so that the only variable parameter was the
feed mechanism. Both the sewing machines were first set
individually for best seam appearance. All sewing parame-
ters were measured objectively and frequently crosschecked
for deviation, if any.
Fabric swatches 50.8 cm long and 6.35 cm wide were cut
length and widthwise and bias direction; convex swatches
of 50.8 cm curved length were cut length and widthwise
and concave swatches of 50.8 cm curved length were cut
lengthwise (Figure 5). Ten samples each of straight seams
(seam code S001–S006) and six samples each of curved
seams (seam code S007–S010) were sewn using both feed
mechanisms, while maintaining similar sewing parameters.
All sewing was done by an experienced sewing machinist
(co-researcher Noshad Ali Khan) at constant atmospheric
conditions. The samples were then evaluated for seam
pucker by three persons: one student with industrial engi-
neering experience (A.A.), one student with merchandising
experience (S.M.) and one industry executive (R.R.), who
performed quality inspections as part of their job profiles.
Each evaluator evaluated the sewn samples independently,
using the AATCC 88B seam pucker scale (Figure 4). To
eliminate any chance of bias, all samples were colour-coded
and evaluators were not informed about which colour repre-
sented what feed type. It was decided to evaluate the upper
face of the seam, as it is the upper face that is generally
visible – barring a few cases – in the garment when worn.
All evaluators were briefed that there would be two
sets of sewn samples whose seam appearance was to be
checked and evaluated against the visual standard AATCC
88B seam pucker scale. The evaluators were neither told
about the characteristics/advantages/disadvantages of the
 International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education
Figure 5. Six different pattern components used for sewing.
X-feed system nor they were briefed about the project detail
and objective since it was believed that awareness about
the project objective and features of X-feed could influ-
ence their judgement. Moreover, a pre-decided pattern was
followed for evaluating the pucker value to preclude any
influence and bias, as the experiment was based on visual
examination and judgement. The effect of both feed types
for any particular seam was examined in sequence before
moving on to the next seam type. For example, both drop-
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014
feed and X-feed sewn sample of S001 were evaluated one
after another before moving to seam type S002, and so on.
This was done to ensure comparisons were made between
feed types and not between stitch types.
Since it is also claimed that the X-feed mechanism
reduces and/or eliminates the ply difference between top
ply and bottom ply, one experiment was designed where
fabric swatches of more than 50.8 cm by 6.35 cm were to
be sewn in length + length, width + width as well as in
length + width directions. Both the ply ends were matched
together at the sewing start point, and ply difference was
measured at sewing end point using a millimetre scale up
to an accuracy of half a millimetre.
4.2. Sewing machines
Two sewing machines, one with standard drop-feed mech-
anism and the other with X-feed mechanism, were selected
for testing. Both machines selected for the test had micro-
lifter mechanisms. A micro-lifter reduces the impact of
the presser foot while coming down and hitting the fabric
(Jana & Garg, 2005). Therefore, machines with micro-lifter
mechanisms were selected to reduce/eliminate the effect of
other pucker-causing machine parameters/variables on the
experiment, except the feed mechanism.
The Juki DDL 9000 DS is a direct drive full dry
head single needle lockstitch machine with drop-feed
Table 1. Fabric parameters.
Fabric Fibre
Descriptions code content (Gm/m2 )
Cream–Khaki stripe F001 100% viscose rayon
Grey cotton voil F002 100% cotton
Flower print F003 100% cotton
Yellow solid colour F004 100% viscose rayon
georgette
137
mechanism for medium weight fabrics. The maximum
speed of the machine is 4000 stitches per minute (SPM)
with a stitch length of 5 mm. The stroke of the needle bar is
30.7 mm and maximum fabric clearance from the knee lever
is 15 mm.
The Typical GC 6760 (MD3-XC) is a direct drive,
semi dry head, single needle lock stitch machine with
patented X-feed mechanism for medium-weight fabrics.
The machine is equipped with an automatic enclosed lubri-
cation system, a maximum sewing speed of 4500 SPM
and maximum stitch length of 4.5 mm. The maximum fab-
ric clearance from the knee lever is 13 mm and it has an
adjustable take-up lever (58–62 mm) to optimise stitch qual-
ity on different, highly flexible materials. The stroke of the
needle bar is 33 mm and of the take-up lever is 2.6 mm.
4.3. Fabric parameters
Five different types of lightweight, dimensionally unsta-
ble fabrics were selected. The fabric characteristics are
tabulated as under (Table 1).
4.4. Seam characteristics
Fabrics in different pattern components are used in differ-
ent grain directions while making any garment: lengthwise,
widthwise, bias, convex and concave curves. For exam-
ple, the centre front edge of a shirt front will be in a
lengthwise grain direction, the top edge of shirt-back in
widthwise grain, the shirt-sleeve sides in bias grain, the
sleeve crown in convex curve and crotch area of trouser leg
in a concave curve direction. In the process of sewing mul-
tiple plies using a superimposed seam, fabrics of different
combinations of grain directions are being joined together.
For example, sleeve joining in a shirt armhole is a join-
ing of the convex with the concave; the back yoke join in
a shirt is a joining of the lengthwise with the widthwise
grain and so on. Therefore, all possible combinations of
superimposed seams used in garment making were cate-
gorised into 10 distinct generic categories. Each generic
category was given a seam code for easy referencing later.
The table 2 lists seam code in Column 1, the lower and
upper plies with grain directions in Column 2 and one
example of a superimposed seam is listed in Column 3
(Table 2).
GSM EPI (ends PPI (picks Yarn count Yarn count
per inch) per inch) (Ne) warp (Ne) weft
94 110 74 90 65
58 136 84 110 95
89 84 66 70 65
48 120 92 60 60
 138 P. Jana and N.A. Khan

Table 2. Seam characteristics. fabrics (Jana & Garg, 2005). Since diagonal and diamond
feed dogs were not available for the X-feed machine, it was
Seam Generic sewing types Actual example in
decided to use ordinary parallel feed dogs in both machines.
code (lower ply + upper ply) garment making
Although 1.15 mm feed dog pitch is enough for lightweight
S001 Length + length Front placket in shirt/blouse fabrics (Jana & Garg, 2005), 0.8 mm feed dog pitch was
S002 Width + length Yoke attach with back in men’s used for both machines. Feed dog pitch used in DDL9000
shirt was 0.8 mm (30 teeth in 24 mm length) and for the Typi-
S003 Bias + bias Joining panels in panelled skirt
S004 Bias + length Bias placket with front cal GC 6760 MD3-XC, it was 0.8 mm (34 teeth in 27 mm
S005 Bias + width Mandarin collar with back neck length). The height of the teeth in the feed dog for both
line machines was 0.8 mm. The number of rows in the feed dog
S006 Width + width Profile stitching of cuff width is also important (Jana & Garg, 2005) and the feed dog used
S007 Length + convex Nehru cap top with body for both machines had three rows with the middle row split
S008 Convex + concave Sleeve join at armhole
S009 Length + concave Frill attach
into front and rear sections. The centre row feed dog for
S010 Convex + convex Hood centre back join X-feed machine had only the rear section.

4.5. Sewing parameters 4.5.4. Machine speed

Sewing parameters are defined by parameters like thread Maximum achievable speed for both sewing machines was
set at 1500 SPM to achieve a longer sewing burst.
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014

tension, feed dog, needle plate, machine speed, presser foot

type and pressure, needle type, needle thread tension, bob-
bin thread tension, presser foot pressure, stitches per unit
length, threading path characteristics, thread count, etc.
4.5.1. Thread tension
While sewing lightweight fabrics using 150 core spun poly–
poly thread, the ideal tension for needle thread suggested
(Jana & Garg, 2005) is 60 cN and that for bobbin thread,
20 cN. Both needle thread tension and bobbin thread tension
were to be measured using a thread tension metre manufac-
tured by Schmidt, Germany (Model no. DX2-400). While
needle thread tension was to be measured with the thread
take-up lever at its highest position and the thread pulled
horizontally, Bobbin thread tension was to be measured by
pulling the thread horizontally along the machine bed. The
thread was to be pulled with uniform tension, i.e. without a
sudden jerk. Once the setting for best seam appearance was
achieved, thread tension was to be measured and recorded.
It is worth mentioning here that the needle thread and bobbin
thread tensions for both machines were different.
4.5.2. Throat plate
The needle hole should be only about 30% larger than
the size of the needle (Carr & Latham, 1996). Nee-
dle hole diameter for the throat plate used for both the
machines was 1.2 mm, needle type used was the spe-
cial application needle (SAN10) from GrozBeckert, Ger-
many, and the needle point type was the FFG (Anon,
2012) with a needle size of 65.
4.5.3. Feed dog
While there are different types of feed dogs available for
lockstitch drop-feed machines, diagonal and diamond types
of teeth were considered appropriate for sewing lightweight
4.5.5. Presser foot type and pressure
Since presser foot types without clearance grooves reduce
the possibility of pucker (Jana & Garg, 2005), the presser
foot used in both cases did not have clearance grooves. Pres-
sure of the presser foot was measured by NIPPO pressure
and tension gauge (model no. NPT 2010). Presser foot pres-
sure was set at 2.27 kg for the best seam appearance in the
X-feed machine and 1.57 kg for the best seam appearance
in the drop-feed machine.
4.5.6. Stitches per unit length
The stitches per unit length factor was kept uniform at 5
stitches per centimetre for the experiment across all 4 fabric
and 10 different seam types.
4.5.7. Threading path characteristics
It is known that the wider the angle formed by the preceding
and succeeding thread guides to take-up lever at its highest
point, the lower the tension pucker (Jana & Garg, 2005).
The thread guides were set apart by 2.6 cm at maximum
setting for both the X-feed as well as drop feed machines to
get best seam appearance.
4.5.8. Thread count
Poly–poly core spun thread (polyester fibre in core as well
as polyester fibre in sheath) from Gutermann of ticket no.
A200 was used for the experiment across all 4 fabric and
10 different sewing types.
The following table shows the summarised machine and
process parameters while the experiments were underway
(Table 3).
 International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 139

Table 3. Process parameters. A total of 230 samples were sewn, 115 each in drop
feed and X-feed in 2 fabric categories for ply slippage test-
Machine with Machine with
ing. Out of these, 62 were length + lengthwise, 43 were
Parameters drop feed X-feed
width + widthwise and 10 were width + lengthwise. Ply
1 Bobbin thread tension 30 40 difference was measured as the difference of the top and
(cN) bottom plies at the end point of sewing. When the bottom
2 Feed dog type Parallel ordinary Parallel ordinary ply was shorter than the top ply at the end of sewing, a com-
3 Feed dog pitch (mm) 0.8 0.8
4 Feed dog height (mm) 0.8 0.8 mon phenomenon in drop feed, ply difference was measured
5 Machine speed (SPM) 1500 1500 as positive and when the bottom ply was longer than the top
6 Needle bar stroke 30.7 33 ply, the ply difference was measured as negative. The quan-
(mm) tum of ply slippage was calculated by dividing the absolute
7 Needle hole dia. of 1.2 1.2 ply difference amount by the length of seam and expressed
throat plate/feed
dog (mm)
as a percentage. Ply slippage occurrence was calculated by
8 Needle brand Groz Beckert Groz Beckert dividing the number of occurrences of positive ply differ-
SAN 10 SAN 10 ence by the total number of sewn samples and expressed as
9 Needle type DBX1 DPX5 a percentage.
10 Needle point type FFG FFG
11 Needle size (metric 65 65
system) 6. Data analysis
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014

12 Needle thread tension 40 55 6.1. Observed pucker rating value

(cN)
13 Presser foot type Without Without Average pucker rating given by the three independent eval-
clearance clearance uators and pucker difference value calculated are tabulated
groove groove in Tables 5–7.
14 Pressure of presser foot 1.57 2.27 In the case of evaluator SM, the difference in pucker
(kg)
rating (pucker difference value) in 8 out of 40 cases came
15 Stitches per centimeter 5 5
16 Take-up lever stroke 62 62 negative; for evaluator AA, it was 3 out of 40 cases and for
(mm) evaluator RR, 1 out of 24 cases.
17 Thread guide space at 2.6 2.6 While analysing seam wise in the case of bias + length
take-up lever (cm) (S004), bias + width (S006), width + width (S007) and
18 Thread count 200 200
convex + convex (S010) generic sewing types, the mea-
Thread brand Gutermann Gutermann
19 Micro-lifter Present Present sure of pucker by all three evaluators across all four fabric
20 Distance between 20 20 types always resulted in positive pucker difference values.
needle point and It may be surmised that in these four seam types, X-feed
table edge at resulted in a better seam appearance than drop feed with
operator (mm)
certainty.
While analysing fabric-wise, pucker difference value
was found positive in 25 out of 26 cases for printed fab-
5. Data collection ric (F003), in 20 out of 26 cases for grey (F002), in 21 out
A total of 613 samples were sewn using the two different of 26 cases for striped viscose (F001) and in all 26 cases for
feed types as per the following break up (Table 4): georgette fabric (F004).
The maximum number of samples in any fabric + In total, in 92 out of 104 cases (approximately 88%)
seam code + feed type was 10 and the minimum 5. across fabric and seam types, the pucker difference value
Three independent evaluators SM, AA and RR evalu- came positive proving that overall, X-feed resulted in a
ated the samples and rated the pucker value of seam line as better seam appearance than drop feed (Table 8).
per AATCC standard 88B. While SM and AA evaluated all While analysing results seamwise, S003 (bias + bias)
10 seam types, RR evaluated only 6 seam types (seam code was found to have an average pucker rating of 4.9 and
S001–S006). The average seam pucker ratings given by the 5.0 for drop feed and X-feed, respectively, whereas S008
three evaluators are tabulated infra. As seen, the higher the (convex + concave) had an average pucker rating of 3.7
pucker rating, the better (flatter) the seam appearance. and 3.8 for drop feed and X-feed, respectively. This implies
The pucker ratings given by the three quality controllers that the appearance of these two seam types is almost simi-
were tabulated in MS-Excel. The difference of average lar, although X-feed showed a negligible 0.1 better pucker
pucker rating for all 10 seam types and across four different rating on the average. Seam type S009 (length + concave)
fabric types was calculated. If the pucker rating is higher in also showed almost equivalent pucker rating for drop feed
X-feed than the corresponding pucker rating in drop feed, as well as X-feed, although a negligible 0.1 negative pucker
then the difference in pucker value is indicated as positive rating difference was observed on the average (3.5 for drop
and vice versa. feed and 3.4 for X-feed).
 140 P. Jana and N.A. Khan

Table 4. Sewn sample matrix.

Print Grey Stripe Solid

Seam code Generic sewing types Drop feed X-feed Drop feed X-feed Drop feed X-feed Drop feed X-feed

S001 Length + length 8 10 8 10 8 10 9 9

S002 Width + length 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
S003 Bias + bias 8 8 8 8 6 6 8 8
S004 Bias + length 10 7 10 8 9 8 10 10
S005 Bias + width 10 10 10 10 6 6 8 8
S006 Width + width 10 8 10 10 10 10 8 8
S007 Length + convex 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6
S008 Convex + concave 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
S009 Length + concave 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5
S010 Convex + convex 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5

Table 5. Evaluator SM.

Print Grey Stripe Solid

Seam Generic sewing Drop Pucker Drop Pucker Drop Pucker Drop Pucker
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014

code types feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference

S001 Length + length 4.4 4.3 −0.11 4.1 4.0 −0.10 3.5 3.2 −0.28 2.6 3.6 0.96
S002 Width + length 4.0 4.5 0.50 3.0 4.0 1.00 4.0 3.6 −0.40 2.7 3.6 0.90
S003 Bias + bias 4.8 5.0 0.25 4.6 5.0 0.38 5.0 5.0 0.00 5.0 5.0 0.00
S004 Bias + length 3.8 4.3 0.49 3.5 4.1 0.63 3.2 3.3 0.05 3.9 4.1 0.22
S005 Bias + width 3.8 4.7 0.90 4.0 4.6 0.60 4.0 4.8 0.83 3.3 3.9 0.63
S006 Width + width 4.0 4.7 0.67 3.5 4.1 0.60 3.7 4.8 1.08 3.3 4.0 0.67
S007 Length + convex 3.7 4.2 0.50 4.2 4.0 −0.17 3.7 4.0 0.33 4.0 4.0 0.00
S008 Convex + concave 3.5 3.8 0.33 4.2 4.0 −0.17 4.5 4.3 −0.21 4.0 4.0 0.00
S009 Length + concave 3.3 3.8 0.50 3.8 3.7 −0.17 3.0 3.0 0.00 4.0 4.0 0.00
S010 Convex + convex 4.0 4.8 0.83 4.0 4.8 0.83 4.0 4.5 0.50 4.0 5.0 1.00

Table 6. Evaluator AA.

Print Grey Stripe Solid

Seam Generic sewing Drop Pucker Drop Pucker Drop Pucker Drop Pucker
code types feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference

S001 Length + length 4.9 5.0 0.11 3.3 4.0 0.70 3.2 3.5 0.30 2.5 3.6 1.06
S002 Width + length 5.0 5.0 0.00 3.6 3.9 0.30 3.9 3.8 −0.10 2.6 3.9 1.30
S003 Bias + bias 4.9 5.0 0.11 5.0 5.0 0.00 5.0 5.0 0.00 4.9 5.0 0.13
S004 Bias + length 4.5 5.0 0.50 3.3 3.9 0.58 3.2 4.9 1.68 3.5 4.2 0.70
S005 Bias + width 4.7 5.0 0.30 3.9 4.8 0.90 4.2 5.0 0.83 2.8 4.1 1.38
S006 Width + width 4.5 5.0 0.50 2.9 3.9 1.00 4.6 5.0 0.40 2.6 3.5 0.88
S007 Length + convex 3.3 4.5 1.17 3.2 3.7 0.50 3.2 4.3 1.17 3.5 4.0 0.50
S008 Convex + concave 3.3 3.3 0.00 2.8 3.3 0.50 3.5 3.8 0.33 4.0 4.0 0.00
S009 Length + concave 3.7 3.7 0.00 3.2 2.7 −0.50 3.9 2.8 −1.06 3.2 3.2 0.00
S010 Convex + convex 4.7 5.0 0.33 4.0 4.8 0.83 4.2 4.8 0.67 4.2 5.0 0.80

All remaining seam types showed consistently higher
pucker rating for X-feed than for drop feed. S010 (convex +
convex) showed the highest positive pucker difference of
0.8 and S002 (width + length) showed the lowest positive
pucker difference of 0.4. The average pucker rating for the
whole sample across 3 evaluators, 4 fabric types and 10
seam types showed 3.8 for drop feed and 4.3 for X-feed, a
significant 0.5 positive pucker difference.
6.2. Ply slippage
Ply slippage was measured on two counts: the amount of
ply slippage and the occurrence of ply slippage. The aver-
age amount of ply slippage and occurrence of ply slippage
for two fabric categories (F001 and F002) in three differ-
ent sewing directions (length + length, width + width and
width + length) are tabulated below. In the case of X-feed,
 International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 141

Table 7. Evaluator RR.

Print Grey Stripe Solid

Seam Generic sewing Drop Pucker Drop Pucker Drop Pucker Drop Pucker
code types feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference feed X-feed difference

S001 Length + length 3.3 4.1 0.77 3.0 4.1 1.10 2.8 4.0 1.20 3.0 4.0 1.00
S002 Width + length 4.0 4.1 0.10 4.0 4.1 0.10 3.8 4.2 0.40 3.5 4.0 0.50
S003 Bias + bias 4.9 4.9 0.00 5.0 4.9 −0.13 5.0 5.0 0.00 4.9 5.0 0.13
S004 Bias + length 3.6 4.6 1.00 3.2 4.6 1.40 3.5 3.8 0.25 3.4 4.0 0.63
S005 Bias + width 3.9 4.9 0.99 3.7 4.9 1.21 4.0 4.7 0.67 3.4 4.4 1.00
S006 Width + width 3.9 4.2 0.32 3.8 4.2 0.42 4.0 4.7 0.70 3.6 3.8 0.21

Table 8. Average pucker rating value.

Generic Average Average

Seam sewing pucker rating pucker
code types for drop feed rating for X-feed

S001 Length + length 3.4 3.9

S002 Width + length 3.7 4.1
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014

S003 Bias + bias 4.9 5.0

S004 Bias + length 3.5 4.2
S005 Bias + width 3.8 4.6
S006 Width + width 3.7 4.3
S007 Length + convex 3.6 4.1
Figure 6. Ply difference while sewing lengthwise.
S008 Convex + concave 3.7 3.8
S009 Length + concave 3.5 3.4
S010 Convex + convex 4.1 4.9

width in fabric category F002 and F001, ply slippage only

5 out of 62 in length + length, 8 out of 43 in width + width
and 4 out of 10 in width + length samples showed a nega-
tive ply difference and were ignored for further calculation
(Table 9).
While sewing lengthwise, drop-feed samples had shown
1.17–3.94% ply slippage while X-feed samples had shown
only 0.37–1.49% ply slippage. While sewing widthwise,
the drop-feed machine had shown approximately 2.10–
5.86% ply slippage, while the X-feed machine had shown
negligible amounts of ply slippage (0.70–0.91%). The
ply difference while sewing in the length + width direc-
tion (keeping widthwise as the lower ply) had shown
2.33% and 0.89% ply slippage for drop feed and X-feed,
respectively.
While sewing length + length in fabric category F002
and F001, ply slippage only occurred in 14% and 48% cases,
respectively, for X-feed, whereas the same was 20% and
96%, respectively, for drop feed. While sewing width +
occurred in 19% and 23% cases, respectively, for X-feed,
whereas the same was 40% and 88%, respectively, for drop
feed. Even for width + length sewing, the occurrence of
ply slippage was five times in the case of drop feed when
compared with X-feed. Across two fabric categories and
three sewing directions, drop feed had shown ply slippage
in 60.18% cases while X-feed had shown ply slippage in
only 24.34% cases (Figure 6).
It is interesting to note that negative ply difference
occurred only in the case of X-feed mechanism in 17%
of the cases. The reason behind the negative ply difference
could be the feed mechanism itself, i.e. while the blue feed
dog was taking over from the yellow feed dog, a slight pull
exerted by the operator handling operations at that moment
would result in the stretching of the lower ply. Although a
highly experienced operator was used for the experiment
and no handling manipulation was allowed, manual error
cannot be ruled out.

Table 9. Ply slippage.

Length + length Width + width Length + width

Fabric Drop feed (%) X-feed (%) Drop feed (%) X-feed (%) Drop feed (%) X-feed (%)

F001 Ply slippage amount 3.94 1.49 5.86 0.91 2.33 0.89
F002 1.17 0.37 2.10 0.70
F001 Ply slippage occurrences 96 48 88 23 50 10
F002 20 14 40 19
 142
Figure 7. Curved shape of sewn samples by drop-feed system at
bottom.
6.3. Other observations
Apart from seam pucker and ply slippage evaluation, the
Downloaded by [Prabir Jana] at 01:43 21 August 2014
sewn samples were also visually analysed for distortion
and other abnormalities. In almost all fabric types, either
length + length (S001) or width + width (S006) sewing
caused distortion in sewn samples. As shown in the dia-
gram, in the case of the drop feed, the sewn side became
shorter than the other side, resulting in a curved appearance
of samples. This generally happens due to the high tension
in the sewing thread in the seam. It was, however, inter-
esting to note that even though needle and bobbin thread
tensions were comparatively higher in X-feed than in drop
feed, the samples sewn using X-feed did not show any bend-
ing. Also, the sewn samples of the other types (S002–S005)
did not show any distortion (Figure 7).
The operator also reported ease of control of lateral
movement of fabric in the case of sewing with X-feed vis-
á-vis the drop feed. The distortion and lateral movement of
samples was outside the scope of the experiment and was,
therefore, not explored further.
7. Conclusion
This research conclusively proves two things: The X-feed
mechanism results in a flatter and pucker free seam appear-
View publication stats
P. Jana and N.A. Khan
ance (average 4.3 pucker rating) in comparison to drop-feed
mechanism (average 3.8 pucker rating) and is better in han-
dling slippage between top and bottom plies when compared
with the drop-feed mechanism. While the X-feed ensured an
average ply slippage of 1.24% (minimum 0.37% to max-
imum 1.49%) in a variety of sewing cases, the drop feed
resulted in an average ply slippage of 3.08% (minimum
1.17% to maximum 5.86%). The occurrence of ply slip-
page is also significantly lower (24.34%) in X-feed than in
drop feed (60.18%).
The negative ply difference, which occurred only in neg-
ligible cases of X-feed mechanisms, may be attributed to
either ply stretching due to a shift between split feed dog or
operator negligence and may be ignored. Despite the fact
that the presser foot pressure was higher in the X-feed mech-
anism, the results of ply slippage were markedly better. This
facet is a very good indication that presser foot pressure is
not biasing results which may be attributed to the X-feed
mechanism.
References
Anon. (1983). Technical bulletin. s.l.: Pfaff Industrial.
Anon. (1985). AATCC technical manual. s.l.: American Associa-
tion of Textile Chemists and Colorists.
Anon. (1988). Basic knowledge of sewing. s.l.: Juki Corporation.
Anon. (1997a). Advanced sewing techniques. s.l.: Juki Corpora-
tion.
Anon. (1997b). Industrial sewing machine handbook. s.l.: Juki
Corporation.
Anon. (2000). Industrial sewing machine handbook. s.l.: Brother
Industries.
Anon. (2012). Info: Technical information sewing 17. Albstadt:
Groz Beckert.
Carr, H., & Latham, B. (1996). The technology of clothing
manufacture (2nd ed.). London: Blackwell Science.
Hama. (1998, October 2). Machine point: Solutions for success
by Juki. GMT R&D News, p. 19.
Institute, T. T. (n.d.). Textile terms and definitions. Manchester:
The Textile Institute.
Jana, P., & Garg, Y. P. (2005). Pucker free seams (1st ed.). New
Delhi: Contact Communications.
Solinger, J. (1988). Apparel manufacturing handbook (2nd ed.).
s.l.: Bobbin Media Corporation.
StitchWorld. (2012, February). X-feed from typical: The ultimate
feed system. StitchWorld, pp. 23–24.