Textile Research Journal Article

A Comparison of Compact Yarn Properties Produced

on Different Systems
Fatma Göktepe1, Demet Yilmaz
Abstract It is well known that yarn produced and Özer Göktepe
using the compact spinning technique, which has Textile Engineering Department, The University of
been introduced as one of the best spinning inno- Suleyman Demirel, Isparta, Turkey
vations of 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.1
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
 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.
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 system A, the delivery top roller (41) and perfo-
rated apron are the condensing components and are called
the “compacting element”. After drafting, the fiber bundle
is sucked through the slot in the H1–H2 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 point (3–31) until they reach the nip point (3–32).
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 3 The basic principle of system C.
front rollers (S1) and ending at the delivery nip line formed
by the delivery top roller (S4). The form of the groove
changes according to yarn count and raw material. The
condensing zone consists of a grooved tube (S), lattice
apron and the delivery top roller (4). Drafted fibers pass to
the condensing zone and are held on the surface of the
perforated apron firmly. The fibers are seized by the air
current and transported from the S1 end to the S4 end of
the suction slot.
Figure 2 The basic principle of
system B.
Yarn Production
We produced 100% cotton combed compact yarns of Ne
20/1, Ne 30/1 and Ne 41/1 on each system. This count range
was chosen since it covers the majority of the yarn pro-
duced although the compact system is mainly designed for
finer counts.
It was necessary to use different roving for Ne 41 to be
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
 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 Table 1 The fiber properties.
Ne 1.0 roving count.
For yarn production, the yarn preparation processes Mean values
were followed closely. During yarn spinning, the same rov- Properties
Agean cotton Greek cotton
ings were fed in the same order to the spindles of each of
the different compact yarn spinning machines to eliminate Staple Length (mm) 30.1 28.2
any variation between roving bobbins. On each machine, Micronaire 4.6 4.2
U.I. 85.6 82.6
the same 10 spindles were also used during the production
Strength (g/tex) 30.6 27.9
of different yarn counts to eliminate any possible variation
Breaking Elongation (%) 6.7 11.6
between spindles. SFI 7.3 6.9
In addition, all yarn samples were produced with the +b 8.0 7.6
same spinning parameters, namely the same twist multi- Rd 76.5 74.85
plier, draft and spindle speed, etc. We also tried to use CG 31–2 41–1
same traveler for each, but there had to be slight differ- SCI 153 128.6
ences in travelers because of the differences between
ring diameters and profiles of the three compact spin-
ning machines. However, the most suitable traveler types was used [16–18]. However, when we examined the test
having similar wire profile and shape were chosen by fol- results, it was found that the highest hairiness values
lowing the manufacturer’s recommendations to provide occurred with system C although the traveler used for this
the highest performance for each ring profile and yarn count at system C was the heaviest. Similarly, the lowest
count. In terms of traveler number, similar numbers hairiness results were obtained at system A for Ne 41
were used during the production of Ne 20 and Ne 30 although the lightest traveler was used there. As a result,
counts, but for Ne 41 yarn, there were differences as the the effect of the traveler weight for Ne 41 seemed to be
lightest traveler was used for System A whereas the heavi- insignificant.
est one was used for System C. As it is well known, the The fiber properties and spinning parameters are given
yarn hairiness values decrease as the heavier traveler 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
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.
Figure 5 Zweigle hairiness (S3) values.
the suction is through narrower grooves situated under-
neath the perforated drum and lattice apron, respectively
(Figure 6).
In system A, the roller 41 has a larger diameter in com-
parison with the roller 31 (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.
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.
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.
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).
8. Clapp, D. M., Suessen Elite Compact Ring Spinning Evaluation,
in “14th 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).