Introduction - Quer Engl

USTER® STATISTICS 2001
Structure
0.1
Editorial 0.3
1 About the Origin and the Significance of the

USTER® STATISTICS 0.4
1.1 Introduction 0.4
1.2 USTER® STATISTICS as Benchmarks 0.5
1.3 USTER® STATISTICS for Yarn Contracts and Product Specifications 0.5
®
1.4 USTER STATISTICS for Textile Machinery Manufacturers 0.6
1.5 Users’ Contributions Towards Improving the USTER® STATISTICS 0.6
2 Quality Characteristics of the USTER® STATISTICS 2001

and Their Significance 0.7
3 Restrictions 0.14
3.1 Restrictions Imposed by the Raw Material 0.14
3.2 Restrictions Imposed by the Final Product 0.15
3.3 Restrictions Imposed by the Yarn Design 0.15
3.4 Missing Correlation Between Different Quality Characteristics 0.15
3.5 Outliers and Frequent Defects in a Spinning Mill 0.16
3.6 Restrictions in Guarantee Agreements 0.16
3.7 Reproducibility and Variability of Measurements 0.16
4 The Making of the USTER® STATISTICS 0.18
5 Interpreting and Applying the USTER® STATISTICS 0.19
6 Changes to the USTER® STATISTICS 1997 0.21

6.1 New Fiber Quality Characteristics 0.21
6.2 Distinction Between Knitting and Weaving Yarns 0.21
6.3 New Yarn Quality Characteristics 0.21
7 Validity 0.22
8 Disclaimer 0.23
© Copyright 2001 Zellweger Luwa AG
9 Testing Conditions and Sample Sizes 0.24
10 Nomograms of the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 1.1 – 30.xx

0.2
11 Appendix 11.1
11.1 Fiber Properties 11.1
11.1.1 Fiber Bundle Testing 11.1
11.1.2 Single Fiber Testing 11.3
11.1.3 Ambient Laboratory Conditions for Fiber Testing 11.4
11.2 Fiber Processing 11.5
11.3 Sliver Testing 11.7
11.4 Roving Testing 11.7
11.5 Yarn Testing 11.7
11.5.1 Count Variation Testing 11.9
11.5.2 Mass Variation Testing 11.9
11.5.3 Yarn Hairiness Testing 11.10
11.5.4 Imperfections Testing 11.11
11.5.5 Yarn Diameter, Cross-section Shape and Density Testing 11.12
11.5.6 Yarn Trash and Yarn Dust Testing 11.12
11.5.7 Tensile Properties Testing 11.13
11.5.8 HV Tensile Properties Testing 11.15
11.5.9 Ambient Laboratory Conditions for Yarn Testing 11.16
11.6 Useful Conversions 11.17
11.6.1 English/Metric Conversions 11.17
11.6.2 Count Conversions 11.18
11.6.3 Staple Conversion Chart 11.18
11.6.4 Special Conversions 11.18
11.7 References 11.19
Editorial
0.3
W e are pleased to be able to present to you this compact disk with the
new USTER® STATISTICS 2001. They represent a long series of cotton fiber, yarn
and roving tests. The assessments for the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 were be-
gun in 1997 and concluded in 2001. They include the most comprehensive range
of reference figures which have ever been made available to the textile industry
and encompass more than 700 graphs.
The reference figures of the new sensors of the USTER® AFIS and the USTER®
TESTER 4 are a novelty in the USTER® STATISTICS 2001. Moreover, a distinction
between knitting yarns and weaving yarns was made for the first time in re-
sponse to frequently voiced requests from the textile industry. Following the
introduction of compact spinning machines, compact yarns were tested inten-
sively which enabled us to include reference figures for compact yarns, too.
The samples were collected from all major textile industry segments. Since com-
pact spinning was an absolute novelty, we would like to point out that the com-
pact yarns tested were mainly spun in Europe. The USTER® STATISTICS indicate
the origin of each yarn type. For the first time, we succeeded in obtaining a
sufficient number of samples from China for these reference figures.
Reference figures are important for every industrial process. Since the introduc-
tion of ISO 9000, they gained in significance in the textile industry as bench-
marks in the spinning process over the last few years. In this respect, the
USTER® STATISTICS can make a major contribution, because the modern
USTER® laboratory testing instruments can automatically rate the tested quality
according to the USTER® STATISTICS. Reference figures are also a useful tool
when determining yarn quality profiles in negotiations with business partners.
The USTER® STATISTICS 2001 will contribute to turning the use of raw materials
and the production of yarns into an increasingly professional process during
which nothing will be left to chance. As a result, disastrous economic and finan-
cial consequences for textile manufacturers can be reduced to a minimum.
We thank all customers who contributed to this collection of benchmarks by

supplying samples and the laboratory operators for their enormous efforts to
carry out all the tests. In addition, we thank Ms. Gabriela Peters for coordinating
and conducting the tests and analyzing the huge amount of data. We are grateful
to Ms. Anja Schleth, Zellweger Uster, Knoxville, for reviewing the manuscript
and to Mr. Lin Ting-Kun, Zellweger Uster, Shanghai, for the Chinese test results.
Richard Furter
1 About the Origin and the
Significance of the USTER® STATISTICS
0.4
1.1 Introduction
The USTER® STATISTICS are quality reference figures which permit a classifica-
tion of fibers, slivers, rovings and yarns with regard to world production. The last
USTER® STATISTICS for cotton fibers and yarns were published in 1997. In 1999,
the USTER® STATISTICS for slivers followed, but were determined on-line using
the USTER® SLIVERDATA system. The USTER® STATISTICS 2001 again address
cotton fibers, rovings and yarns. We will later turn to the restrictions regarding
the use of the USTER® STATISTICS. We recommend to read these restrictions
carefully and adhere to them. When used properly the USTER® STATISTICS will
continue to be appreciated as reference figures by all groups of interested peo-
ple.
The USTER® STATISTICS are first and foremost a practical guide to ‘good textile
practices’ in the field of yarn manufacturing. The evidence of specific defects or
shortcomings in overall yarn quality, which may become apparent through using
the STATISTICS as a comparative standard, can be translated into immediate
corrective action in the manufacturing process. Reliable and unequivocal cause/
effect relationships have been established over the years and documented in the
application literature. Legions of textile technologists and USTER® instrument
users in mills around the world put that experience into action in their daily rou-
tine. In the previous edition of the USTER® STATISTICS, we introduced a graph
which illustrated the improvement in yarn evenness between 1949 and 1997.
Now, four years later, we publish the same diagram again (fig. 1). Four additional
data points were added to the curves, i.e. the evenness values of the 50% line of
the USTER® STATISTICS 2001. This graph records the mass unevenness CVm. A
further improvement in yarn evenness is discernible in fig. 1.
Improvement in Yarn Evenness between 1957 – 2001
22
Ne 20 (Nm 34, 29.5 tex)

20 100% Cotton, carded
100% Coton, cardé
100% Baumwolle, kardiert
CVm [%]
18
Coefficient de variation
Weaving yarn
Coefficient of variation
Fil à tisser
Variationskoeffizient
Webgarn
16
Ne 60 (Nm 100, 10 tex)

14 100% Cotton, combed
CVm [%]
100% Coton, peigné

100% Baumwolle, gekämmt Knitting yarn
Fil à tricoter
Strickgarn
12
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year Année Jahr
Fig. 1
0.5
For the first time, the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 distinguish between knitting
yarns and weaving yarns.
Of course, quality is multi-faceted, and while evenness has improved, other pa-
rameters have deteriorated to some degree. However, more than other quality
parameters, yarn evenness is closely associated with both the design and man-
agement of the entire manufacturing process. Thus, besides being a result of
technological advancements, evenness has also improved as a result of more
elaborate quality control and quality management practices. It is of paramount
importance for the spinning industry to closely monitor these trends and to pre-
pare for a timely and appropriate response. Once lagging behind, a mill will have
to invest heavily to move on and catch up and to eventually keep pace with the
global development of yarn quality.
1.2 USTER® STATISTICS as Benchmarks

The USTER® STATISTICS have been made for quality benchmarking on the cor-
porate level. Benchmarking is a total quality management tool and denotes the
procedure of identifying and quantifying topnotch or world-class performance
(benchmarks) in a particular business or product category and comparing the
data with the performance of the own company or product. Established bench-
marks and quality standards substantiate the feasibility of attaining greater profi-
ciency and of narrowing the performance gap. They legitimize the implementa-
tion of strategies to enhance the manufacturing process as a result of hard facts
rather than management intuition [1, 2]. In other industries, the availability of
reliable competitor information for comparative analyses in benchmarking is a
major obstacle. Thanks to the USTER® STATISTICS, data on the quality levels
achieved by the top manufacturers in the textile industry are public domain and
easily accessible.
1.3 USTER® STATISTICS for Yarn Contracts and

Product Specifications
The USTER® STATISTICS regularly serve as the platform for yarn contracts and
product specifications in the framework of commercial transactions. This prac-
tice is commonly accepted by the manufacturers, merchants, and processors of
yarns. Many sales yarn spinners, weavers, and knitters have formulated quality
requirements based on the USTER® STATISTICS. By experience they have deter-
mined what quality levels are appropriate for what application. As a more general
guideline to the prevailing quality requirements, literature is available which ad-
dresses the subject of yarn specifications for an array of applications and end
uses in both knitting and weaving [3, 4, 5, 6]. Much of the experience disclosed
through these publications emanated from applying the USTER® STATISTICS.
Buyers and salesmen involved in the traditional commodity type trade or in direct
purchasing and sales are certainly among the most enthusiastic users of the
USTER® STATISTICS. They appreciate the STATISTICS as a means of categoriz-

ing many different qualities by face value. An indistinct yet popular belief prevails
in the international markets for reasonably priced yarns that largely correspond
to the 25th percentile of the USTER® STATISTICS to be in high demand. Every
now and then, such a belief manifests an utter quality overkill with regard to the
actual processing and end use requirements; in other cases, such specifications
may well be justified.
0.6
In the long run, however, the market as a whole is and will continue to be driven
by the rule of supply and demand, irrespective of where, when, and by whom
the STATISTICS are referred to in order to advertise or bargain. Good grades on
the overall quality, though, will always serve as a passport to both the domestic
and international markets.
1.4 USTER® STATISTICS for Textile Machinery

Manufacturers
Textile machinery manufacturers as well as manufacturers of accessories for
textile machines have frequently been using the USTER® STATISTICS to appraise
the impact on quality of their new developments in the field of machine technol-
ogy or monitoring and control systems. While machine performance in terms of
productivity or efficiency is easily expressed in absolute numbers, the STATIS-
TICS are frequently referred to when it comes to quality aspects. The other side
of the coin is that the machinery manufacturers have also been forced into the
routine of giving performance guarantees based on the USTER® STATISTICS.
Again, this particular issue falls into the category of restrictive uses and will be
addressed later.
1.5 Users’ Contributions Towards Improving

the USTER® STATISTICS
Because of the constructive criticism that we received from among the industry,
the USTER® STATISTICS for fiber and yarn quality have substantially improved
over the years. We are invariably grateful for constructive contributions.
2 Quality Characteristics of the USTER®
STATISTICS 2001 and Their Significance
0.7
In addition to the well-known quality characteristics, the USTER® STATISTICS

2001 introduce new quality parameters which were generated using the new
sensors of the USTER® AFIS single fiber testing system and of the USTER®
TESTER 4.
The following list encompasses all quality characteristics featured in the USTER®
STATISTICS 2001. It is subdivided into tables for fibers and tables for yarns.
All definitions of fiber quality characteristics which require an explanation are

described in detail in fig. 2 through 5.
Description of cotton fiber quality characteristics (USTER® HVI SPECTRUM)
Quality char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

acteristics tion
Micronaire Mic Indicates fiber fineness —-
Upper Half UHML Corresponds to the mm
Mean Length classer's staple.
Definition according to Fig. 2
Uniformity UI Measure for variations of %
Index fiber length, length uniformity
Bundle Strength Breaking tenacity g/tex
tenacity measured on fiber bundle
Reflexion Rd Degree of reflexion of %
the cotton. The higher
this value, the better the
cotton is rated.
Yellowness +b Assessment of color, %
degree of yellowness
Trash CNT Number of trash particles —-
per defined area
Trash Area Percentage of trash %
per defined area
0.8
Description of cotton fiber quality characteristics (USTER® AFIS)

acteristics tion
Neps Neps/g Number of neps 1/g
per gram
Seed-coat SCN/g Number of seed-coat neps 1/g
neps per gram
Short fiber SFC(n) Short fiber content %
content SFC(w) by number (n)
and by weight (w).
Upper Quartile UQL(w) Corresponds to the mm
Length classer's staple.
Fiber fineness Fine Fineness of fibers mtex
Immature IFC Immature fiber content. %
fibers Percentage of immature fibers.
Definition according to Fig. 4, Fig. 5
Maturity Mat Ratio of mature to —-
immature fibers.
Trash particles Trash/g Number of trash particles 1/g
per gram
Dust particles Dust/g Number of dust particles 1/g
per gram
Visible foreign VFM Visible foreign matter %
matter
0.9
The fiber length diagram determined by means of the USTER® HVI instrument is
not an end-aligned staple diagram and is called fibrogram. Fig. 2 is a schematic
fibrogram of cotton and shows the determination of the upper half mean length.
Upper Half
Mean Length
Mean length
0% 50% 100%
Fig. 2 Fibrogram
The USTER® AFIS instrument measures each fiber separately and, therefore, all
information for an end-aligned staple diagram is available. Fig. 3 illustrates how
the «Upper Quartile Length» (UQL) and the short fiber content are determined
using the USTER® AFIS. The UQL is the fiber length at 25%. The term «upper
quartile» indicates that the value is calculated in the upper quarter of the staple
diagram.
Fiber length
L2,5%(n) L5%(n) Short fiber content SFC
UQL(w) L(n,w)
L½"
0% 25% 50% 100%
Fig. 3 Staple diagram

Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the definition of the measured values in relation to the
maturity characteristics. The respective parameters can be explained using
Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows the cross-section of a cotton fiber.
0.10
Perimeter P Perimeter P
Lumen
Area A1 Area A2
Fig. 4
To compute the mean degree of thickening theta, a circular cross-section of the

measured fiber having a perimeter P is calculated, and subsequently area A1 is
divided by area A2.
Fig. 5 shows a maturity measurement using the USTER® AFIS as well as the
values computed for theta.
Cumulative percent Theta Maturity
Mature
fibers (R)
Thinwalled
fibers
Immature
fiber
content (IFC)
Mature fibers (R)
Thinwalled fibers
Immature fibers (IFC)
Fig. 5
For this example, the following apply:
Mature fiber content R = 37.6%

Immature fiber content IFC = 10.3%
5− ,)& 37.6 − 10.3

Maturity (according to Lord): 0 = + 0 .7 = + 0.7 = 0.83
200 200
0.11
Description of yarn quality characteristics (USTER® TESTER 4)

acteristics tion
Count variations CVcb Count variations between %
packages
Mass variations CVm Coefficient of variation %
of mass
Mass variations CVmb Coefficient of variation %
of mass between packages
Imperfections Thin Number of thin places, 1/1000 m
Thick thick places and neps
Neps
Hairiness H Absolute value of hairiness. —-
Measurement of the entire
fiber length.
Standard deviation sH Standard deviation of hairiness —-
of hairiness within a package
Coefficient of CVHb Variation of hairiness %
variation between packages
of hairiness
Trash Dust Dust and trash in yarns. 1/1000 m
Trash Counts refer to 1000 m of yarn.
Coefficient of CVd Variation of the %
variation yarn diameter
of the diameter
Shape Shape Shape of the yarn cross- —-
section.
Ratio of the axes of an ellipse.
Density D Density of the yarn g/cm3
0.12
Description of yarn quality characteristics (USTER® TENSORAPID 3)

acteristics tion
Strength FH Breaking force cN
Tenacity RH Breaking force referred cN/tex
to the yarn count
Coefficient of CVRH Variation of the individual %
variation of values of the tenacity
tenacity
Elongation eH Yarn elongation at %
breaking force
Coefficient of CVeH Variation of the individual %
variation of elongation values
elongation
Work done WH Work performed during cNcm
to break tensile testing of yarns
at breaking force
Coefficient of CVWH Variation of the individual %
variation of values of work done
work done to break
0.13
Description of yarn quality characteristics (USTER® TENSOJET)
Quality Char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

acteristics tion
Strength FH Breaking force cN
Tenacity RH Breaking force referred cN/tex
to the yarn count
Coefficient of CVRH Variation of the individual %
variation of values of the tenacity
tenacity
Elongation eH Yarn elongation at %
breaking force
Coefficient of CVeH Variation of the individual %
variation of elongation values
elongation
Work done WH Work performed during cNcm
to break tensile testing of yarns at
breaking force
Coefficient of CVWH Variation of the individual %
variation of values of work done to
work done break
Weak places FHP=0.1 0.1% of all tests cN
in the yarn / have a strength below
strength this value
Weak places eHP=0.1 0.1% of all tests %
in the yarn / have an elongation below
elongation this value
3 Restrictions
0.14
This section addresses the restrictions that apply to the use of the USTER® STA-
TISTICS and we would like to repeat our advice that this be read carefully and
adhered to. Both deliberate and unintentional misuse of the STATISTICS have in
some instances in the past resulted in lengthy and costly disputes – all of which
could have been avoided if all parties involved would have had the same clear
understanding of the concept underlying the STATISTICS. The reading of this
section is a must for those who are not familiar with that concept, with the
STATISTICS as such, or with the proper interpretation of the data.
3.1 Restrictions Imposed by the Raw Material

Four primary variables have a decisive impact on corporate success in our textile
environment as well as in any other industrial venture: man, machine, material,
and know-how or information in general. Among these four key elements, the
raw material is the crucial component which largely dictates quality but also pro-
ductivity and cost in yarn manufacturing. By virtue of their design, the USTER®
STATISTICS for spun yarns do not provide direct access to information about the
raw material used for spinning. However, those differences in raw material us-
age are indirectly reflected in the data. A high-quality yarn can only be spun from
high-quality raw materials and since the raw material frequently accounts for
more than 50% of the total manufacturing costs in the medium to fine count
range, the utilization of high-quality, high-priced raw materials will be proportion-
ally reflected in the yarn price [7]. Any measures taken in the field of raw mate-
rials will not only have a considerable impact on quality but also on a mill’s com-
petitiveness and bottom-line profitability.
In those rare cases where the STATISTICS have been corrupted, the motives
have always been related to what evidently is the single most important driving
force in the global textile scenario: price. The USTER® STATISTICS, however,
provide a dependable indication of quality, exclusively. Although quality is a
somewhat elusive term, it is nevertheless a result of tangible assets and thus to
a certain degree interrelated with the sales price of a product.
The USTER® STATISTICS should not be interpreted as saying 5% is «good». In

contrary, the 5% line might be indicative of high cost, high price, luxuriousness –
even a tendency to price oneself out of the market. By the same token, 95%
should not imply «poor» – it might be indicative of a very attractive price and just
the right quality for the target markets. A «good» spinner is actually one who is in
a position to achieve an acceptable quality level from a less expensive fiber – the
genuine mastery of spinning. The trouble starts when the USTER® STATISTICS
are referred to in order to corroborate complaints about a low rating in certain
quality categories. This complaint may be directed at the «good» spinner who
produces a reasonably priced yarn from a reasonably priced fiber. Yarn price,
however, is directly proportional to fiber quality and fiber quality in turn dictates
yarn quality to a great extent. Consequently, pushing yarn quality towards better
values would simply cannibalize the price advantage. The USTER® STATISTICS
should be employed as what they really are: a global survey of yarn quality as
produced in every part of the world. Whether or not these qualities are produced
economically from adequate raw materials and offered at a legitimate price is
certainly beyond the scope of the STATISTICS.
0.15
3.2 Restrictions Imposed by the Final Product

It lies in the nature of the matter that end uses remain somewhat vague when
yarns are marketed via merchants or importers. It is rare for any merchant to
have firm orders before entering into a contract. Consequently, the focus is on
obtaining qualities that are likely to meet the requirements of any potential cus-
tomer and which can be successfully marketed in many places and at any given
point in time. In the current buyer’s market, merchants have a large number of
alternative sources to choose from. Yet, to minimize risk, commodity type yarns
with high volume of trade are preferred. Under these circumstances, specified
and actual quality requirements seem to have very little in common.
3.3 Restrictions Imposed by the Yarn Design

When properly tailored to the anticipated end use, yarns will exhibit inherent
strengths and weaknesses: As opposed to weaving yarns, for instance, knitting
yarns produced from cotton, man-made fibers, or blends thereof are spun at low
twist multipliers. They will rarely display a high breaking tenacity. If they did, they
would probably result in stiff, harsh fabrics. A somewhat lower breaking tenacity
must also be expected from knitting yarns spun from low-tenacity or pill-resis-
tant man-made fibers which are specifically designed for that purpose. Such low-
tenacity fibers, however, usually result in excellent yarn elongation. Knitting
yarns also possess a higher hairiness. While this would be detrimental to weav-
ing yarns, the knitted fabric enjoys a greater cover and a softer hand. To make it
clear: It is technically impossible and fatal with respect to the end use to demand
that a yarn be perfect in all categories, say above the 25% line of the USTER®
STATISTICS. The proper way out of this dilemma is for the yarn producer and the
yarn processor to jointly develop detailed specifications or requirement profiles
for specific end uses. Many good examples of this partnership approach have
become known and the USTER® STATISTICS can be of tremendous help in realiz-
ing such projects.
3.4 Missing Correlation Between Different

Quality Characteristics
Unfortunately, the USTER® STATISTICS still mislead some people into thinking in
causal relationships that do not exist in reality. Several quality parameters dis-
played in the STATISTICS are believed to be highly correlated but the fact is that
they are not. High breaking tenacity, for instance, is not necessarily linked to high
breaking elongation; rather, yarn elongation is determined by spinning speed,
spinning geometry, and the resultant specific spinning tension. Likewise, a very
even yarn may well have a high nep count. End uses calling for a relative free-
dom of neps cannot be satisfied by using yarns with a good USTER® CV. The
opposite is sometimes the case: Few neps in a very uniform yarn tend to visually
stick out like a black sheep. Yarns with a little higher CVm or greater hairiness
tend to conceal neps in the overall irregularity, much like the often quoted needle
in a haystack. If there is a problem with neppy appearance and no way to reduce

nep counts, try to go a little higher with the CVm.
0.16
3.5 Outliers and Frequent Defects in a Spinning

Mill
It is a popular illusion that yarns with a high rating according to the USTER® STA-
TISTICS are always above and beyond suspicion. A good overall quality does not
only encompass excellent mean values but also low variability of the quality at-
tributes as well as unconditional consistency. Only one bad package in the creel
of a knitting machine or in warping is bound to ruin several hundred yards of
greige fabric. We have come a long way in gaining control over sporadic yarn
defects by on-line quality monitoring and over scattered weak places by applying
the USTER® TENSOJET. Every now and then, however, various off-quality situa-
tions tend to recur with malicious persistence in spite of the blind faith often put
in the USTER® STATISTICS ratings. These include outliers, mix-ups, overlength/
underlength or damaged packages, problems with package unwinding behavior,
missing transfer tails, improper waxing, shedding and fly, dye streaks (barré),
white specks, contamination with foreign fibers – just to name a few. Quality in a
broader sense has many dimensions: A truckload of 5% USTER® STATISTICS
yarn that arrives too late at the weaver’s loading ramp will not be considered a
quality product. Timing is vital due to the seasonal characteristic of the textile
business with its frequent peak demands and, of course, due to the increasing
popularity of just-in-time and quick response production.
3.6 Restrictions in Guarantee Agreements

The issue of performance guarantees negotiated between yarn producers and
machinery manufacturers has already been briefly touched upon. Such perfor-
mance guarantees based on the USTER® STATISTICS must be considered a du-
bious practice when the effect of raw material, machine settings, maintenance,
ambient conditions, and operator proficiency is neglected. A legitimate perfor-
mance guarantee should include references to in-depth technological trials con-
ducted prior to preparing such a document. It should also embrace technically
sound prohibitive clauses that serve to preclude misunderstandings – or even
worse – litigation between machinery manufacturers and yarn producers. In the
majority of all cases, it is not the machine that produces poor quality. If it would
not have to process a capricious material like textile fibers, the average textile
machine would probably run uninterruptedly for ten, fifteen years or more with-
out any major problems at all. Before making claims against machinery manufac-
turers, the potential source of the quality problem as well as its true nature and
extent should be investigated thoroughly and objectively.
3.7 Reproducibility and Variability of

Measurements
Last but not least, a few comments on reproducibility and variability of measure-
ments. No matter what measuring instrument is used – from yardstick to atomic
clock – there will always be a certain measurement error. This is also true for
textile testing. There are three types of measurement errors: avoidable error,
systematic error (bias), and random error. Avoidable error encompasses the fail-
ure to choose an appropriate measurement method or to properly operate a
measuring instrument. In the textile laboratory, this is of little significance but
selecting instrument settings and sample conditioning present a potential source
of avoidable error. Systematic error includes calibration error, instrument toler-
0.17
ances, and the fluctuation of ambient conditions. This type of error can be quan-
tified fairly accurately. Random error is the most critical component in textile
testing. It is predominantly caused by the variability of the tested material itself.
Its magnitude can be approximated by statistical calculations – the confidence
interval of the mean. The absolute error of a measurement is the total of all three
types of errors. A measurement should therefore always be reported as x±Dx,
i.e. the mean value plus/minus the total error to indicate that the true measure-
ment value is located somewhere within that interval. All USTER® instruments
calculate the confidence intervals automatically and they are part of the test re-
port. The confidence interval covers the random error component; information
on the systematic error, i.e. instrument tolerances, is provided in our application
handbooks.
When comparing actual measurements with the data illustrated in the USTER®
STATISTICS, it is of utmost importance that the total measurement error is kept
to an absolute minimum to warrant compatibility. If this is not the case, false
conclusions may be drawn from such a comparison.
There are five things that can be done to minimize the measurement error:
• proper conditioning under constant standard atmospheric conditions

• exact calibration of the instrument
• correct settings of the instrument
• adequate sample size
When actual measurements are then compared with the USTER® STATISTICS,
they would appear in the nomogram as a short vertical line – not as a dot. The
top and bottom ends of that line represent the upper and lower limits of the
confidence interval with the mean exactly in the middle. We cannot eliminate the
random error; however, the confidence interval quickly becomes smaller when
the sample size is increased. For detailed information on recommended sample
sizes and testing conditions, please refer to section 9.
In the context of commercial agreements via yarn contracts and product specifi-
cations, it frequently transpires that disputes result from discrepancies between
measurements performed by the purchaser and by the supplier and from the
subsequent comparison of disparate measurements with the USTER® STATIS-
TICS. When such incidents are examined more closely, the result often is that
the basic conditions listed above have been ignored or have simply not been
identical in both testing locations. In other cases, the problem could be quickly
resolved by applying the t-test procedure. It proved that the differences were not
statistically significant but strictly random due to a pronounced sample variability.
The t-test procedure along with further detailed explanations is outlined in our
application handbooks. A simplified t-test can be performed by comparing the
confidence intervals: If the confidence intervals of two means overlap, then the
observed difference between the two means is random or statistically insignifi-
cant; if they are separated, the difference is considered statistically significant.
Applying the concept of the confidence interval can be both very helpful and
revealing. It pinpoints the highly variable characteristic of textile materials which
should always be taken into consideration.
4 The Making of the USTER® STATISTICS
0.18
The USTER® STATISTICS are not established by merely collecting data. They are
established by testing actual yarn and fiber samples that we procure on a truly
global scale via our agents, overseas partners, or direct contacts with our inter-
national clientele. A total of 6140 samples have been tested in our ISO 9001
certified textile laboratory in Uster, Switzerland, and the samples from China
have been tested in our subsidiary in Shanghai. The geographical distribution of
the origin of all samples procured for the USTER® STATISTICS is illustrated in Fig.
6. The vast majority of samples were processed in Uster. The total volume of
samples was tested between spring 1997 and spring 2001.
Western Europe Eastern Europe

North America Europe de l'Ouest Europe de l'Est
Amérique du Nord Westeuropa Osteuropa
Nordamerika
35% 1%
9%
Asia Pacific
Asie Pacifique
Asien-Pazifik
31%
South America
Amérique du Sud 15% Africa & Middle East
Südamerika Afrique & Proche Orient
Afrika & Naher Osten
9%
Fig. 6 Geographical distribution of the origin of all samples procured for the USTER®
STATISTICS 2001
All data were entered into a databank and application software specifically devel-
oped for this purpose was employed to compute the percentile curves and to
plot the nomograms. The lion’s share of the total time spent was definitely de-
voted to thoroughly testing the samples in the laboratory. Our databank has
grown to an enormous size and consists of far more quality parameters than
have been published in this edition of the USTER® STATISTICS.
5 Interpreting and Applying the
USTER® STATISTICS
0.19
The USTER® STATISTICS manual consists of several parts, each addressing a

specific quality aspect in the sequence from fiber to yarn. The different sections
are arranged according to spinning system and raw material composition or yarn
style. Each section is subdivided into distinct quality attributes (e.g. mass varia-
tion, tensile properties, etc.) which are measured with different USTER® instru-
ments. A measurement can consist of several individual parameters. Mass vari-
ation, for instance, includes CVm and the between-sample variation CVmb. These
parameters are presented in graphical form. The origin of the samples processed
to establish the raw data is illustrated by a pie chart. These pie charts are provid-
ed with each quality attribute but not with each parameter because the measure-
ments were performed simultaneously on the same samples. A register is pro-
vided for quick reference to the sections of interest and after leafing through the
pages a couple of times, you will find it easy to work with the USTER® STATIS-
TICS.
The most important element of the USTER® STATISTICS are the nomograms
with the percentile curves. The width of the percentile curves intentionally im-
poses certain restrictions on accuracy – a subtle reminder of the pronounced
variability of most textile measurements. Depending on the quality parameter
displayed on the ordinate (vertical or y-axis), the curves are plotted over staple
length, process stage, yarn count, or defect category and the abscissa (horizon-
tal or x-axis) is calibrated accordingly. The x-axis should be the starting point of
any analysis. The percentile curves refer to the percentage of the total world
production which equals or exceeds the measurement value given for a particu-
lar yarn or fiber description. An example:
The coefficient of yarn mass variation of an Ne 20 (Nm 34, 30 tex) 100% combed
cotton ring-spun yarn for knitted fabrics is measured at CVm = 13.6±0.2% by the
USTER® TESTER. A vertical line drawn from the x-axis at Ne 20 intersects with
the two horizontal lines drawn from the y-axis at 13.4% and 13.8% (lower and
upper confidence limits) right at the 25th percentile line. Hence, only 25% of all
Ne 20 combed cotton ring-spun yarns produced worldwide have a CVm of 13.6%
or better. Vice versa, 75% of the total world production of comparable Ne 20
yarns exhibit a CVm greater than 13.6%.
The 50th percentile curve, commonly referred to as the 50% line, corresponds to
the median. In general terms, the median is the middle number when the mea-
surements in a data set are arranged in ascending (or descending) order, i.e.
50% of all observations exceed this value and the other 50% lie below. Depend-
ing on whether the frequency distribution of a given quality parameter is sym-
metric or skewed, the median may or may not be different from the mean.
In some instances, adjacent percentile curves fell very close together. To avoid
the formation of a solid red block, both the 25% line and 75% line were omitted,
thus maintaining the clarity of the illustration.
The nomograms in the fiber properties section as well as the ones in the fiber-to-
yarn and yarn quality sections for combed cotton ring-spun yarns comprise two
independent sets of percentile curves. The two sets of curves each characterize
a distinct cluster or isolated population within the same graph. We will look at the
cotton fiber properties first to explain the reasons for this differentiation: The
horizontal position of the split point at a staple length of 30...31 mm marks the
approximate center of the transition zone from both short and medium-staple
cottons on one hand to long and extra long-staple cottons on the other. With that
transition, several factors change fundamentally. These factors include genetic,
botanical, and physiological differences, agricultural methods, environmental in-
fluences, harvesting and ginning practices, all of which have a decisive impact on
fiber properties. On the yarn side, things are much simpler. Here, the division
between Ne 41 (Nm 70, 14 tex) and Ne 47 (Nm 80, 12.5 tex) indicates the yarn
count threshold for using longer staple, high-grade cottons with an overall supe-
rior fiber quality, for increasing comber noil extraction, and for modifying the
0.20
overall processing conditions accordingly. Selecting higher quality cotton fibers

and adjusting the processing conditions is necessary to raise the spin limit to-
wards the finer counts. Naturally, in the fiber-to-yarn nomograms for combed
roving, the two clusters occur as well. The curves had to be split at exactly the
same position on the yarn count axis. The graphs provide an opportunity to study
these effects of raw material selection and processing.
6 Changes to the
0.21
6.1 New Fiber Quality Characteristics

Three new measurement values have been included in the tests using the AFIS
single fiber testing instrument. These are the maturity and the immature fiber
content as well as the fiber fineness.
6.2 Distinction Between Knitting and Weaving

Yarns
For the first time, the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 distinguish between weaving
and knitting yarns. The borderline between weaving yarn and knitting yarn has
been determined to be the following twist multiplier:
• Combed cotton yarn ae = 3.7 (am = 112)

• Carded cotton yarn ae = 3.9 (am = 119)
Yarns with twist multipliers below these values have been classified as knitting
yarns.
6.3 New Yarn Quality Characteristics

The two optical sensors OM and OI were used in the tests using the USTER®
TESTER 4. They record the following quality characteristics: Variation of the yarn
diameter, shape of the yarn cross-section, yarn density and the number of dust
and trash particles in the yarn.
When the first USTER® STATISTICS for imperfections were published in 1957, a
decision was taken after prolonged testing to define the following thresholds:
thins –50%, thicks +50%, neps +200%. These values refer to the mean number
of fibers in a cross-section of a yarn.
As explained in Fig. 1, the mass unevenness improved to such an extent in the

past 40 years that often no counts can be found in combed cotton yarns in the
middle and coarse range. Therefore, a decision was taken to include the next
lower thresholds in the USTER® STATISTICS 2001, i.e. the settings: thins –40%,
thicks +35%, neps +140% and for rotor yarns and airjet yarns +200%.
In addition, not only the tenacity but also the strength of yarns were determined
during the tensile tests for the USTER® STATISTICS.
Nowadays, variations of quality characteristics are increasingly determined using

the coefficient of variation CV. Therefore, the unevenness U was not published in
the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 anymore. The conversion factor CV = 1.25 U can
be used here for mass variations with normal distribution.
7 Validity
0.22
The information provided with this edition supersedes all the descriptions per-
taining to yarn quality published in previous editions of the USTER® STATISTICS.
The quality of industrially manufactured goods is a moving target. It depends on
a multitude of factors, most of which are an intrinsic function of time. The depen-
dence on time is predominantly related to the state of technology of the produc-
tive assets and the technological know-how prevalent in the industry. Time is
also a factor in determining the overall economic environment, the supply and
demand situation, as well as general consumer attitudes and behavior. All of the
above, acting jointly or separately, may have an effect on the quality of raw ma-
terials, semi-processed, or finished textile goods. Consequently, the validity of
the information provided in the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 is confined to the peri-
od of time actually covered by the data. The data are essentially of historical
nature by the time this document is published. Naturally, such information will
not sustain its initial significance as time progresses and eventually become ob-
solete unless it is updated at some point in the future. Therefore, the information
presented in this document in either verbal, numerical, or graphical form is sub-
ject to change at any time without prior or public notice. Conventional wisdom
proves, however, that the USTER® STATISTICS maintain their significance over
an extended period of five years or more.
With no exceptions, all the information provided in the USTER® STATISTICS 2001
relates to data which have been established using USTER® products. USTER®
products are designed, manufactured, and distributed by Zellweger Uster, Swit-
zerland, and Zellweger Uster Inc., USA, or authorized licensees, exclusively. Any
attempt to utilize the information provided in this document in conjunction with
data originating from sources other than USTER® instruments may result in
some form of failure or damage. The USTER® STATISTICS are intended for use
as a manual of comparative statistics complementing the operational installa-
tions of USTER® products at the customer site. For technical details on how to
ensure proper agreement between the data presented in this document and data
established with other USTER® instruments, please refer to the appendix.
8 Disclaimer
0.23
This publication and the information provided therein is for intended use only and
subject to change at any time without prior or public notice. Zellweger Uster will
not assume liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from unintended
use of this publication or the information provided therein. The use of this infor-
mation for product specifications in commercial contracts is discouraged unless
clear reference is made to this publication or parts thereof and clear numerical
specifications and tolerances are provided in the contract. The use of this infor-
mation for arbitration purposes is discouraged unless clear reference is made to
this publication or specified parts thereof and clear numerical specifications and
tolerances are provided in legally valid contractual documents pertaining to the
characteristics of the goods in question. The use of this information for perfor-
mance guarantees relating to textile plants, textile machines, or parts or acces-
sories thereof is discouraged unless clear reference is made to this publication or
parts thereof and clear numerical specifications, tolerances, and restrictive
clauses pertaining to other known influences on the specified performance are
provided in the guarantee documents.
9 Testing Conditions and Sample Sizes
0.24
All tests in relation to the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 were carried out under con-
stant climatic conditions. The temperature was 20 °C, the relative humidity
65%. The following table lists the testing conditions and the sample sizes.
Parameter Abbrevia- Unit Instrument No. of Tests

tion samples within
Micronaire Mic --- USTER® HVI 1 10
Upper Half UHML mm USTER® HVI 1 10
Mean Length UI % 1 10
Bundle tenacity Strength g/tex USTER® HVI 1 10
Color Rd % USTER® HVI 1 10
+b --- 1 10
Trash CNT --- USTER® HVI 1 10
Area % 1 10
Neps Neps/g 1/g USTER® AFIS 1 10
SCN/g 1/g 1 10
Length SFC(n) % USTER® AFIS 1 10
SFC(w) % 1 10
UQL(w) mm 1 10
Maturity Fine mtex USTER® AFIS 1 10
IFC % 1 10
Mat --- 1 10
Trash Trash/g 1/g USTER® AFIS 1 10
Dust/g 1/g 1 10
VFM % 1 10
0.25
Parameter Abbrevia- Unit Instrument No. of Tests

tion samples within
Count CVcb % USTER® 10 1
variations TESTER 4 FA Sensor
Mass CVm % USTER® 10 1
variations CVmb % TESTER 4 10 1
CS Sensor
Testing speed: 400 m/min
Duration of test: 2.5 min
Hairiness H --- USTER® 10 1
sH --- TESTER 4 10 1
CVHb % OH Sensor 10 1
Imper- Thin places 1/1000 m USTER® 10 1
fections Thick places 1/1000 m TESTER 4 10 1
Neps 1/1000 m CS Sensor 10 1
Trash Dust 1/1000 m USTER® 10 1
Trash 1/1000 m TESTER 4 10 1
OI Sensor
Diameter CVd % USTER® 10 1
variation Shape --- TESTER 4 10 1
Density g/cm3 OM Sensor 10 1
Tensile FH cN USTER® 10 20
properties RH cN/tex TENSORAPID 3 10 20
CVRH % 10 20
eH % 10 20
CVeH % 10 20
WH cNcm 10 20
CVWH % 10 20
®
HV tensile FH cN USTER 10 1000
properties RH cN/tex TENSOJET 10 1000
CVRH % 10 1000
eH % 10 1000
CVeH % 10 1000
WH cNcm 10 1000
CVWH % 10 1000
FHP=0,1 cN 10 1000
eHP=0,1 % 10 1000
11 Appendix
11.1
The following paragraphs provide useful background information on the different

measurements introduced in the USTER® STATISTICS 2001. It is not our inten-
tion to give detailed explanations of the instruments, measurement methods, or
the technological significance of each measurement, since they have been de-
scribed in chapter 2. Many instrument users are well acquainted with these as-
pects to begin with and specialized literature which focuses on these topics is
readily available. This appendix primarily serves to clarify certain questions that
may arise when studying the USTER® STATISTICS and it gives valuable, practical
hints as to the origin, interpretation, and use of certain data. Needless to say that
if you have any specific needs, please do not hesitate to contact us or your near-
est Zellweger Uster representative office.
11.1 Fiber Properties

The USTER® STATISTICS on raw cotton fiber properties have been established
with USTER® HVI and USTER® AFIS instruments. The corresponding nomograms
have been developed from a representative cross-section of nearly 1,200 differ-
ent international cottons. All percentile curves are plotted over staple length.
Staple length is the fundamental characteristic of cotton as a textile fiber. In the
USTER® STATISTICS nomograms, HVI and AFIS parameters or the percentiles
indicating a certain share of the world cotton production can be determined for a
given staple length. Staple length is usually specified in the contract as classer’s
or trade staple. Upper half mean length (UHML) describes the equivalent staple
length of cottons classified by HVI. An alternative is to use the 25% staple length
by weight (UQL(w)) measured with AFIS. This measurement also closely corre-
sponds to the classer's staple.
The pie charts indicating the distribution of sample origins are missing in the fiber
properties section. The reason for that is very simple: The source of each sample
is known to us, of course, but in many cases, the true geographic origin of the
cottons was not. A sample may have been furnished by a German mill, for in-
stance, but the respective cotton bale may have come from Central Asia or
somewhere else and these details have not always been disclosed to us.
Please note that the data in the USTER® STATISTICS cover several crop years.
The average fiber quality of cottons from a certain growing region changes from
one year to another as a result of the prevalent environmental conditions during
the growing season. With the consideration of more than one crop year, howev-
er, these differences are leveled out.
11.1.1 Fiber Bundle Testing

The USTER® HVI (High-Volume Instrument) system is designed to measure large
quantities of bale cotton samples within a minimum time frame. This exclusive
feature offers the possibility of classing entire cotton crops on an annual basis,
the activities of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) being an outstanding
example for such an immense project. HVI systems are also utilized to class
complete warehouse inventories or commercial bale shipments at either the cot-

ton producer’s, merchant’s, or spinner’s end of the business. Determining cotton
fiber properties on a per-bale basis is a necessary prerequisite for computerized
bale management in the spinning mill. Some 1,300 HVI systems are installed in
over 65 countries worldwide, serving the purposes outlined above. Typical HVI
measurements include Micronaire, fibrogram length and length uniformity, 1/8
inch gauge length bundle tenacity, reflectance and yellowness on Hunter’s scale
as well as optical trash particle counts and trash area.
11.2
There is still some confusion about the use of calibration cottons. However,
since 1998 only HVI Calibration Cotton is available from the US Department of
Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Services (USDA-AMS) in Memphis, Tennes-
see, USA. The USDA discontinued the provision of ICC. Using HVI-CC and ICC
for calibration results in different test results which are not comparable with
each other and do not correlate with each other in any way. If the system is
calibrated using HVI-CC, the upper half mean length (UHML), the mean length
(ML) and the uniformity index (UI) are obtained. Strength results with this calibra-
tion are on a higher level than with ICC calibration cotton. Nowadays, Zellweger
Uster recommends to use only HVI-CC for calibration, and all tests within the
framework of the USTER® STATISTICS were conducted using an HVI-CC calibrat-
ed system.
The USDA supplies special cottons for Micronaire calibration, since the Micron-
aire range provided by HVI-CC cottons is not nearly large enough. Special calibra-
tion tiles are available to calibrate the colorimeter and the grade boxes along with
a dot matrix tile are used for trash meter calibration (USTER® HVI SPECTRUM
only dot matrix tile and self-defined cottons). The calibration tiles mentioned are
part of a USTER® HVI SPECTRUM shipment.
Both the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Servic-

es in Memphis, Tennessee, and the Fiber Institute in Bremen, Germany, conduct
regular HVI round tests on an international basis. Participation in such programs
is highly recommended for the monitoring of service personnel and instrument
performance, i.e. the consistency of the measurements and the compatibility
with other laboratories.
Cotton fiber testing with USTER® HVI systems is a standardized procedure and is
described in detail in ASTM D-4605. Further explanations of the individual func-
tional elements of the system, the significance of the measurements, and the
proper calibration and operation of the instrument are given in the operating in-
structions. Adequate sample conditioning and maintaining constant standard at-
mospheric conditions in the laboratory during testing is of extreme importance
because of the hygroscopic nature of cotton fibers. Please refer to section
11.1.3 of this appendix for more information on ambient laboratory conditions for
fiber testing.
References to fiber testing standards:
ISO 2403, ASTM D-1448: Micronaire reading of cotton fibers

ASTM D-1447: Fibrograph measurement of length and length uni-
formity
ASTM D-1445: Breaking strength and elongation (flat bundle method)
ASTM D-2253: Nickerson/Hunter colorimeter
ASTM D-2812: Non-lint content of cotton
ASTM D-4605: High-volume instrument testing (SPINLAB system)
11.3
11.1.2 Single Fiber Testing

The USTER® AFIS (Advanced Fiber Information System) is a sophisticated and
versatile laboratory instrument for single fiber testing. A pair of pin-type opening
rollers, partially surrounded by carding segments, individualize the fibers and
separate non-fibrous components. The fiber individualizer unit utilizes the princi-
ple of aero-mechanical separation to extract trash particles, large seed coat frag-
ments, and other types of foreign matter from the original fiber specimen. These
objects are conveyed through the trash channel. ndividual fibers, neps, and small
seed coat fragments (seed coat neps) pass through the fiber channel. Electro-
optical sensors are installed in both the trash and the fiber channel and advanced
signal processing technology is applied to identify and characterize several thou-
sand individual cotton fibers, fiber entanglements, and foreign matter. The mod-
ular concept of the USTER® AFIS system provides comprehensive information
on the frequency distribution of pertinent dimensional parameters: single fiber
length and the size of neps, trash, and dust particles. The novel features of the
AFIS instrument comprise the assessment of single fiber fineness and maturity
distributions as well as the discriminative detection of seed coat fragments. The
USTER® AFIS has gained international recognition as the most sensible answer
to process control and quality monitoring needs in yarn manufacturing. Some
560 USTER® AFIS units are installed in 50 countries.
The abundance of information provided by the USTER® AFIS is a result of deter-

mining the complete frequency distribution of each measurement. Such distribu-
tions include information on the mean values, standard deviations, the number
of observations, and several other parameters that can be calculated using these
few basic characteristics of a frequency distribution. However, in the USTER®
STATISTICS on fiber quality of cotton in bale form, only the mean values of the
following measurements are considered: The number of neps and of seed coat
neps per gram of cotton, the percentage of fibers shorter than ½ inch (12.7 mm)
by number and by weight (short fiber content, SFC(n),(w)), trash and dust parti-
cle counts per gram, visible foreign matter (VFM), the number of immature fi-
bers, fiber count and maturity.
Proper calibration of the instrument is a necessary prerequisite to make correct

comparisons between the actual USTER® AFIS measurements and the USTER®
STATISTICS. The calibration of an USTER® AFIS should be left to authorized Zell-
weger Uster service personnel. We recommend that reference samples, e.g.
round test samples, be used to monitor the consistency of the measurements
and to contact the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected chang-
es or long-term drift should occur. The Fiber Institute in Bremen, Germany, con-
ducts AFIS round tests on an international basis. Participation in such programs
is highly recommended for closely monitoring the performance of service per-
sonnel and of the instrument, i.e. the consistency of the measurements and the
compatibility with other laboratories. This, of course, includes compatibility with
the USTER® STATISTICS as well.
11.4
Nep testing with the USTER® AFIS system is a standardized procedure and is
mospheric conditions in the laboratory during testing is important. Please refer to
section 11.1.3 of this appendix for more information on ambient laboratory condi-
tions for fiber testing.
ASTM D-5866: AFIS nep testing
11.1.3 Ambient Laboratory Conditions for Fiber Testing

Cotton fibers are highly hygroscopic and their properties change notably as a
function of the moisture content. This is particularly critical in the case of dyna-
mometric properties, e.g. cotton fiber strength. As a result, conditioning and
testing must be carried out under constant standard atmospheric conditions. The
standard temperate atmosphere for textile testing involves a temperature of
20±2 °C (68±4 °F) and 65±2% relative humidity. In tropical regions, maintaining
a temperature of 27±2 °C (81±4 °F) at 65±2% relative humidity is legitimate, but
then the absolute moisture content of the conditioned air is different. Modern air
conditioning systems, however, are capable of achieving 20±2 °C (68±4 °F) and
65±2 % relative humidity in most any location in the world and in the interest of
international harmonization, these ambient conditions should be realized when-
ever possible. Prior to testing, the samples must be conditioned under constant
standard atmospheric conditions until in moisture equilibrium with the surround-
ing air. To attain the moisture equilibrium, a conditioning time of at least 24 hours
is required, 48 hours is preferred. For samples with a high moisture content,
conditioning time should be at least 48 hours unless the samples are precondi-
tioned, so that the moisture equilibrium is later approached from the dry side.
During conditioning, samples should be arranged in single layers in perforated
trays to allow conditioned air to circulate freely. The moisture content of the
samples to be tested should not differ from that of the cottons used for calibrat-
ing the measuring instrument. Therefore, calibration cottons should be subjected
to the same conditioning procedures or, alternatively, stored permanently inside
the conditioned laboratory. Laboratory conditions should be monitored by appro-
priate devices that record both short-term fluctuation and long-term drift.
ISO 139, EN 20 139, DIN 53 802: Standard atmosphere for conditioning and
testing
11.5
11.2 Fiber Processing

In cotton yarn manufacturing, the AFIS length, nep, and trash modules have
been successfully employed to determine raw material properties, to monitor
and optimize production machinery, and to replace static, periodic overhaul
schedules by flexible, targeted maintenance. The performance of the opening
and cleaning line, of cards, and combers can be substantially enhanced by ana-
lyzing the input/output relationship of fiber length and short fiber content, neps,
and trash. This is accomplished by a modification of the corresponding machine
configurations, settings, and speeds. Statistical process control techniques pro-
vide an opportunity for the proper timing of maintenance interventions when the
parameters monitored by the AFIS exceed the established control limits. The
effects of these measures include a substantial improvement of the yarn and
fabric quality and a concurrent reduction of operating cost and waste. By identi-
fying and selecting the most suitable cottons for the processing into yarns with
the desired quality levels, further savings in the field of raw materials can be
generated.
The cotton fiber processing section of the USTER® STATISTICS represents a sta-
tistical analysis of in-process AFIS measurements which have been performed
on a large number of samples drawn at important intermediate processing stag-
es: Bale, card mat, card sliver, comber sliver, finisher drawing, and roving. The
through-the-mill processing sequences in carded and combed ring spinning are
labeled A...G and A...H, in carded open-end spinning A...F and A...H. They are
identified by a legend. At trash/g and dust/g the values for yarns, measured with
the OI sensor of the USTER® TESTER 4, are indicated as well. Since the samples
came from specific mills, a distribution of the sample sources is provided in the
form of a pie chart. This distribution does not relate to fiber origin, i.e. cotton
growing area, but to the locations of the mills that furnished the samples. The
cotton growing area is unknown.
The following is of utmost importance when making a comparison between the

results obtained in actual mill processing and the USTER® STATISTICS: The per-
centile curves in the fiber processing nomograms connect independent data
points. Each data point represents one of the five percentiles (5th, 25th, 50th,
75th, and 95th percentile) which have been calculated from all samples from the
same processing stage. Therefore, the 50% curve, for instance, does not repre-
sent the typical behavior of an average spinning process; rather, it indicates the
theoretical process curve that would be obtained if the parameters measured at
each processing stage would always correspond to the 50th percentile. In prac-
tice, we will rarely encounter a spinning process that will exactly track one of the
percentile curves. In addition, the confidence intervals must be taken into con-
sideration. An example relating to AFIS neps: A mill processes a raw material
with an average of 175±Dx neps/g. This would correspond to the 50th percentile.
After opening and cleaning, we find 230±Dx neps/g in the card mat, which repre-
sents a point between the 25th and 50th percentile curve. Carding removes 78%
of the neps and leaves 50±Dx neps/g in the card sliver. Again, this nep count is
positioned in close vicinity to the 50th percentile curve. Our mill ends up with
28±Dx neps/g in the combed sliver and is back on the 50% curve. The USTER®
STATISTICS on through-the-mill nep levels can also be used in conjunction with a
USTER® LVI 720 stand-alone nep tester.
When making an assessment of the manufacturing process, it is equally impor-

tant to consider the overriding influence of the raw material. Machine perfor-
mance is not independent of the raw material. Experience proves that in the
majority of all cases, poor processing results are to some extent related to the
fibrous material processed. Textile machines are meticulously engineered prod-
ucts. If they are well maintained, operated at moderate speeds and with appro-
11.6
priate settings, they will deliver excellent quality provided sufficient know-how
has also been put into the selection of adequate raw materials. The effect of raw
materials is also indirectly represented in the USTER® STATISTICS nomograms
on fiber processing. It is a well-known fact, for example, that some cottons or
cotton mixes are more prone to nep formation in opening and cleaning than oth-
ers. The tendency towards nep formation is particularly critical with very fine or
immature fibers, i.e. fibers with lower bending rigidity. Likewise, there are cot-
tons which have a tendency to more strongly resist nep removal in carding. Less
mature cottons will also suffer more pronounced fiber damage during mechani-
cal processing and exhibit a higher short fiber content. The absolute breaking
strength of such fibers is much lower due to the lack of cellulose in the fiber cell
wall. The actual reduction of the short fiber content in combing is clearly depen-
dent on the percentage of short fibers present in the raw material and thus in the
lap prior to combing. Furthermore, trash removal efficiency in mill processing is
not only a function of the absolute amount of trash in the raw material but also of
the general cleanability of a cotton mix, which is related to both the fiber proper-
ties and the post-harvest processing history of the cottons. These factors should
be thoroughly investigated before making adjustments in the process or at indi-
vidual machines.

comparisons between the actual AFIS measurements and the USTER® STATIS-
TICS on fiber processing. The calibration of an AFIS should be left to authorized
Zellweger Uster service personnel. We recommend that reference samples, e.g.
round test samples, be used to monitor the consistency of the measurements
and to contact the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected chang-
es or long-term drift should occur. The Fiber Institute in Bremen, Germany, con-
ducts AFIS round tests on an international basis. Participation in such programs
is highly recommended for closely monitoring the performance of the instru-
ment, i.e. the consistency of the measurements and the compatibility with other
laboratories. This, of course, includes compatibility with the USTER® STATISTICS
as well.
Nep testing with the USTER® AFIS system is a standardized procedure and is
mospheric conditions in the laboratory during testing is important.
ASTM D-5866: AFIS nep testing

11.7
11.3 Sliver Testing

The USTER® STATISTICS for slivers based on measurements determined on-line
were completed in 1999 and may be accessed via the Internet under
http://www.uster.com. Therefore, they have not been included in the USTER®
STATISTICS 2001.
11.4 Roving Testing

The USTER® STATISTICS 2001 again include measurements of rovings from cot-
ton and worsted mills which were made in our textile laboratory using the
USTER® TESTER 4.
11.5 Yarn Testing

A new aspect which frequently led to disagreements and uncertainties concerns
different quality requirements in relation to subsequent use of yarns in process-
ing, which are manufactured and traded world wide. Hitherto, no distinction has
been made in the USTER® STATISTICS. This deficiency has been remedied in the
USTER® STATISTICS 2001 edition. For the first time, yarns are shown in different
nomograms according to their subsequent processing purpose, i.e. weaving
yarn or knitting yarn.
As in the USTER® STATISTICS 1997 edition, a distinction has been made be-
tween cotton qualities on bobbins and on packages. Again, reference measure-
ments of yarn mass variations, hairiness and imperfections on bobbins and on
cross-wound packages are available for 100% carded and combed ring-spun cot-
ton yarns. Hereinafter, you will find the considerations at that time that led to this
distinction particularly in the cotton segment.
Practical experience has proven time and time again that winding alters the yarn
surface structure. The impact on yarn evenness (CVm) is very limited but chang-
es in imperfection counts (thin places, thick places, and neps), hairiness (H), and
standard deviation of hairiness (sH) are much more pronounced. Under normal
circumstances, the tensile properties, i.e. tenacity, elongation, and work-to-
break are not affected unless yarns are subjected to excessive winding tension,
which is very rarely the case and certainly not a prudent practice. A clear state-
ment must be made concerning the role of the winding machine: Changes in the
yarn surface structure due to winding cannot be avoided. Nobody would honest-
ly expect a yarn to become better after it has been accelerated from zero to 1200
m/min or more in a few milliseconds while being pulled off the bobbin, dragged
across several deflection bars and eyelets, forced into a traverse motion at
speeds that make it invisible, and finally rolled up into a firm construction called
package or cone. The factors that affect the yarn structure during winding in-
clude the frictional properties of the yarn itself, the bobbin geometry and the
bobbin unwinding behavior, winding speed, winding geometry as well as the
number and design of the yarn/machine contact points. However, much as the
bobbin unwinding behavior today is the limiting factor for winding speed, it is
also the main reason for these changes in yarn structure. Most of the damage
occurs at the moment when the end is detached and removed from the tight
assembly of yarn layers on the bobbin and dragged along the tube at very high
speeds.
11.8
High-speed, automatic winders have frequently been blamed for causing higher
nep counts but this is not a correct statement. Typical nep-type imperfections,
i.e. short mass defects, can be identified as tight fiber entanglements, clumps of
immature or dead cotton fibers, or seed coat fragments. Naturally, such defects
are not produced by the winding machine. The increase in nep counts after wind-
ing is related to the formation of loose fiber accumulations. These fiber accumu-
lations represent a true mass defect, yet their appearance in the yarn and in the
final fabric is clearly different from that of typical fiber entanglements or seed
coat fragments.
When testing 100% cotton yarns in package form for evenness, imperfections,
and hairiness with the USTER® TESTER, some very fine and delicate yarns will
again respond with marginal structural changes. This is not a result of mechani-
cal stress like in winding but a natural reaction caused by the reversal of the yarn
running direction. Directional influences are omnipresent; they become apparent
in all subsequent processing stages. The evidence of changes in the yarn surface
structure due to the winding process or as a result of reversing the yarn running
direction is confined to a few very delicate 100% man-made fiber yarns, core
yarns, and 100% cotton yarns finer than Ne 60 (Nm 100, 10 tex). We recom-
mend, however, that the USTER® STATISTICS on 100% carded and combed cot-
ton ring-spun yarns on cross-wound packages be referred to whenever mass
variation, hairiness, and imperfections of cotton yarns in package form are of
interest. Since the tensile properties are not affected by the phenomena de-
scribed above, the USTER® STATISTICS on ring-spun bobbins should be used for
packages as well. The STATISTICS on count variation and the between-sample
coefficients of variation of evenness and hairiness are only useful when testing
bobbins. Testing packages of ring-spun yarns always involves the risk of catching
the top end of one bobbin and the bottom end of another (plus the splice in
between), which may distort the measurements.
Incorrect comparisons with the USTER® STATISTICS may also result from test-
ing actively conditioned yarns. Active thermal conditioning is performed at the
very end of the manufacturing process to suppress the twist liveliness or the
yarn torque. This is normally accomplished by treating bobbins or packages with
high-temperature water vapor in a conditioning chamber or in a vacuum environ-
ment with low-temperature saturated steam in the gaseous phase. In any case,
the moisture regain of the fibers may alter their physical properties and affect
capacitive yarn testing. In addition, the moisture is not always homogeneously
distributed within a thermally conditioned bobbin or package. Therefore, changes
in tenacity, elongation, and work-to-break as well as evenness, imperfections,
and defect levels must be expected. The bobbin and package samples tested
within the framework of the USTER® STATISTICS have been cleared of all pack-
ing material upon receipt, preconditioned in a dry atmosphere for several days or
weeks, and conditioned to moisture equilibrium under constant standard atmo-
spheric conditions. By doing so, any adverse effects on testing caused by ther-
mal conditioning are completely eliminated. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this
appendix for more information on proper sample conditioning and ambient labo-
ratory conditions for yarn testing.
The influence of the raw material on the quality of spun yarns has been exten-
sively covered on the first pages of these USTER® STATISTICS. It is a true fact of
life that nobody can spin a world-class yarn from coarse wool or short and weak
cotton fibers even if the latest and best machinery is employed. The quality sta-
tus achieved by a spinner always represents the compound effect of the skills of
the work force and the management, the performance of the machines, the
quality of the raw material, and the know-how in processing technology.
11.9
11.5.1 Count Variation Testing

The term count variation (CVcb) denotes the between-sample coefficient of vari-
ation of yarn count in percent. Count variation can be determined semi-automat-
ically with the USTER® AUTOSORTER by reeling 100 m or 120 yards of yarn off
each bobbin or package and placing each skein on the balance. The calculation is
performed by the instrument. The F/A module of the USTER® TESTER 4 provides
a fully automatic determination of the yarn count and count variation.
Count variation is no longer as critical as it used to be some years ago. It is a

well-documented fact that a count variation of CVcb>3.0% can impair fabric ap-
pearance, primarily in knitting. However, the application of feed control systems
from the bale opener to the card, short-term and long-term card autoleveling,
and drawframe autoleveling at ever shorter lengths, in particular, has improved
the situation appreciably.

comparisons between the actual AUTOSORTER or USTER® TESTER 4 measure-
ments and the USTER® STATISTICS on count variation. The calibration of an AU-
TOSORTER or USTER® TESTER should be left to authorized Zellweger Uster ser-
vice personnel. Please contact the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if un-
expected changes or long-term drift should occur. TESTEX AG in Zurich, Switzer-
land, conducts yarn quality round tests on an international basis. Participation in
such a program is highly recommended for closely monitoring the performance
of the serivce personnel and of the instrument, i.e. the consistency of the mea-
surements and the compatibility with other laboratories. This, of course, includes
compatibility with the USTER® STATISTICS as well.
The determination of the yarn count is a standardized procedure and is described

in detail in ISO 2060. Further explanations of the individual functional elements of
the USTER® AUTOSORTER or the USTER® TESTER 4, the significance of the
measurements, and the proper calibration and operation of the instruments are
given in the operating instructions. Adequate sample conditioning and maintain-
ing constant standard atmospheric conditions in the laboratory during testing is
important. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this appendix for more information
on ambient laboratory conditions for yarn testing.
References to count variation testing
ISO 2060, DIN 53 830: Determination of yarn count
11.5.2 Mass Variation Testing

The assessment of mass variation with the USTER® TESTER needs no introduc-
tion. The USTER® STATISTICS on mass variation include nomograms on the co-
efficient of variation of yarn mass (CVm) and the between-sample coefficient of
variation of the CVm (CVmb). A USTER® TESTER 4 has been used for testing of all
yarn samples that have been procured for the USTER® STATISTICS 2001. How-
ever, the STATISTICS on mass variation are fully compatible with the data provid-
ed by the preceding product generations, i.e. USTER® TESTER 1, USTER®
TESTER 2, and USTER® TESTER 3.

comparisons between the actual USTER® TESTER measurements and the
USTER® STATISTICS on mass variation. The calibration of a USTER® TESTER
should be left to authorized Zellweger Uster service personnel. Please contact
11.10
the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected changes or long-term

drift should occur. TESTEX AG in Zurich, Switzerland, conducts yarn quality round
tests on an international basis. Participation in such a program is highly recom-
mended for closely monitoring the performance of the service personnel and of
the instrument, i.e. the consistency of the measurements and the compatibility
with other laboratories. This, of course, includes compatibility with the USTER®
STATISTICS as well.
The determination of yarn unevenness by electronic yarn testing instruments

with capacitive sensors is a standardized procedure and is described in detail in
ISO 2649. Further explanations of the individual functional elements of the
USTER® TESTER, the significance of the measurements, and the proper calibra-
tion and operation of the instrument are given in the operating instructions and in
the application handbook on evenness testing. Adequate sample conditioning
and maintaining constant standard atmospheric conditions in the laboratory dur-
ing testing is important. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this appendix for more
information on ambient laboratory conditions for yarn testing.
References to yarn mass variation standards:
ISO 2649, DIN 53 817: Determination of yarn evenness
11.5.3 Yarn Hairiness Testing

The first statistical information on yarn hairiness was presented in the 1989 edi-
tion of the USTER® STATISTICS. In the following years, the hairiness measure-
ment has become firmly established in the industry. The hairiness module of the
USTER® TESTER 4 consists of an electro-optical sensor which converts the scat-
tered light reflections of the peripheral fibers into a corresponding electrical sig-
nal while the solid yarn body is eclipsed. The hairiness measurement is per-
formed simultaneously with the measurement of yarn evenness and imperfec-
tions. Yarn hairiness is expressed in the form of the hairiness value H, which is
an indirect measure for the number and the cumulative length of all fibers pro-
truding from the yarn surface. This value, along with the within-sample standard
deviation of hairiness (sH) and the between-sample coefficient of variation of
hairiness (CVHb), is covered by the USTER® STATISTICS.
High or low hairiness, even when going to the extremes, is not necessarily a
quality deficiency. The yarn hairiness requirements are strictly governed by the
end use. Yarns with higher hairiness are usually produced for end uses in knit-
ting, such as underwear, knitted outerwear, and sportswear. Most weaving ap-
plications call for a smooth yarn surface, especially with warp yarns. A typical
exception are pile yarns for terry fabrics, which often exhibit a high hairiness.
Greater hairiness can also improve the filling insertion behavior (air friendliness)
of certain yarns processed on high-speed air-jet weaving machines.
One aspect that is not reflected in the USTER® STATISTICS on yarn hairiness is
the occurrence of periodic hairiness defects. While modern yarn monitoring sys-
tems detect mass periodicities with a high degree of accuracy and reliability,
there is no on-line monitoring system for hairiness. Consequently, knowledge of
the average hairiness of a yarn does not preclude the existence of periodic hairi-
ness defects, which adversely affect fabric appearance. In some cases, a high
standard deviation of hairiness is at least an indication of the presence of hairi-
ness periodicities.
11.11

comparisons between the actual USTER® TESTER 4 measurements and the
USTER® STATISTICS on yarn hairiness. The calibration of a USTER® TESTER 4
hairiness module should be left to authorized Zellweger Uster service personnel.
Please contact the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected chang-
es or long-term drift should occur. TESTEX AG in Zurich, Switzerland, conducts
yarn quality round tests on an international basis. Participation in such a program
is highly recommended for closely monitoring the performance of the service
personnel and of the instrument, i.e. the consistency of the measurements and
the compatibility with other laboratories. This, of course, includes compatibility
with the USTER® STATISTICS as well.
Further explanations of the individual functional elements of the hairiness mod-

ule of the USTER® TESTER 4, the significance of the measurements, and the
proper calibration and operation of the module are given in the operating instruc-
tions and in the application handbook on hairiness testing. Adequate sample con-
ditioning and maintaining constant standard atmospheric conditions in the labora-
tory during testing is important. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this appendix
for more information on ambient laboratory conditions for yarn testing.
11.5.4 Imperfections Testing

The USTER® STATISTICS on imperfections include nomograms on the number of
thick places, thin places, and neps per 1,000 m of yarn as determined with the
USTER® TESTER. The sensitivity settings for the detection of imperfections are –
50% for thin places, +50% for thick places, and +200% for neps. As mentioned
under 6.3, the next lower thresholds –40%, +35% and +140% have been includ-
ed in USTER® STATISTICS for the first time. These settings are commonly used
for all yarn types except rotor-spun yarns. The structure of rotor-spun yarns is
intrinsically different from that of conventional ring-spun yarns. Neps in rotor-
spun yarns tend to be spun into the solid yarn body rather than remaining on the
yarn surface, which is typical for ring-spun yarns. Although embedded in the yarn
core, these neps still represent a short mass defect and they will therefore trig-
ger the imperfection counter upon exceeding the preset threshold value. Howev-
er, compared to neps that are attached to the yarn surface, fully embedded neps
are barely perceptible for the human eye. In order to balance the typical visual
appearance of rotor-spun yarns with the imperfection counts of the USTER®
TESTER, the +280% sensitivity setting for neps has become a common conven-
tion for the testing of rotor-spun yarns. In addition to the 280% neps, nep class
+200% has been included for the first time as an additional nomogram for OE
rotor-spun yarns and airjet yarns.
A USTER® TESTER 4 has been used for the testing of all yarn samples that have
been procured for the USTER® STATISTICS 2001. However, the STATISTICS
on yarn imperfections are compatible with the data provided by the preceding
product generations, i.e. USTER® TESTER 1, USTER® TESTER 2, and USTER®
TESTER 3.

comparisons between the actual USTER® TESTER measurements and the
USTER® STATISTICS on yarn imperfections. The calibration of a USTER® TESTER

should be left to authorized Zellweger Uster service personnel. Please contact
the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected changes or long-term
drift should occur. TESTEX AG in Zurich, Switzerland, conducts yarn quality round
tests on an international basis. Participation in such a program is highly recom-
mended for closely monitoring the performance of the service personnel and of
the instrument, i.e. the consistency of the measurements and the compatibility
with other laboratories. This, of course, includes compatibility with the USTER®
STATISTICS as well.
11.12
Further explanations of the individual functional elements of the imperfection

counter of the USTER® TESTER, the significance of the measurements, and the
structions and in the application handbook on evenness testing. Adequate sam-
ple conditioning and maintaining constant standard atmospheric conditions in the
laboratory during testing is important. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this ap-
pendix for more information on ambient laboratory conditions for yarn testing.
11.5.5 Yarn Diameter, Cross-sectional Shape and Density

Testing
The USTER® STATISTICS 2001 include the coefficient of variation of the yarn
diameter, the cross-sectional shape and density. Increasing experience in using
textile measuring instruments resulted in ever-growing demands on yarns and
the appearance of woven and knitted fabrics. Time and again it was noticed that
textile measuring sensors which have been known for a long time can explain a
great deal, but there are still defects in textile formations which are difficult to
interpret. Moreover, quality losses occur during process control which are invari-
ably difficult to explain. Therefore, Zellweger Uster decided some years ago to
develop two more sensors in addition to the well-known sensors used to deter-
mine mass variation and the sensors used to analyze hairiness:
• Optical sensor to measure yarn diameter, cross-sectional shape of yarns, den-

sity and surface structure.
• Optical sensor to determine any remaining yarn trash and yarn dust.
The optical sensor to measure the yarn diameter uses two light sources ar-
ranged at a 90 degree angle to examine the yarn. This arrangement guarantees a
high stability of the measurement, and at the same time it is possible to measure
the roundness of the yarns, since the roundness of yarns also influences the
appearance of textile fabrics.
11.5.6 Yarn Trash and Yarn Dust Testing

The sensor to determine yarn trash and yarn dust is used to detect remaining
trash and dust in the yarn. It is therefore possible to monitor the reduction of the
trash and dust content during the entire spinning process. Trash and dust con-
tained in the yarn is of particular significance for processing yarns on weaving
looms and knitting machines. The two quality characteristics, trash and dust in
yarns, have also been included in the USTER® STATISTICS 2001.
11.13
11.5.7 Tensile Properties Testing

The USTER® STATISTICS on tensile properties are valid for measurements per-
formed with the USTER® TENSORAPID single-end tensile testing instrument.
Nomograms are available for breaking force (FH), breaking tenacity (RH), break-
ing elongation (eH) and work-to-break (WH) as well as for the total coefficients of
variation of each one of these parameters (CVRH, CVeH, CVWH). The total coeffi-
cient of variation describes the overall variability of a tested lot, i.e. the within-
sample variation plus the between-sample variation. If 20 individual single-end
tensile tests are performed on each of ten bobbins or packages in a sample lot,
the total coefficient of variation is calculated from the pooled data of the total
number of tests (200 in this example) that were carried out.
The terminology used for describing the tensile properties may raise some ques-
tions. In the USTER® STATISTICS, we have applied the same terminology that is
used in the international standards on textile testing. However, these standard-
ized denominations are not always clear. The following must be carefully consid-
ered: The breaking tenacity is calculated from the peak force which occurs any-
where between the beginning of the test and the final rupture of the specimen.
The peak force or maximum force is not identical with the force measured at the
very moment of rupture (force at rupture). The breaking elongation is calculated
from the clamp displacement at the point of peak force. The elongation at peak
force is not identical with the elongation at the very moment of rupture (elonga-
tion at rupture). The work-to-break is defined as the area below the stress/strain
curve drawn to the point of peak force and the corresponding elongation at peak
force. The work at the point of peak force is not identical with the work at the
very moment of rupture (work-to-rupture). In the USTER® STATISTICS on tensile
properties, all parameters are derived from the true peak force measurement.
However, as long as the stress/strain curve of a yarn exhibits a linear or progres-
sive characteristic, these differences are irrelevant because the maximum force
is very much the same as the force at the point of rupture. This is the case, for
instance, with 100% cotton yarns. But: When the stress/strain curve shows a
degressive characteristic, the peak force may be higher than the force at rupture
and the elongation at peak force is lower than the elongation at rupture. This is
the case with worsted yarns or yarns which are spun from certain man-made
fibers. When comparing data on tensile yarn properties with the USTER® STATIS-
TICS, the true meaning of these measurements must be known. Some number
which happens to be declared as yarn strength, for instance, must not necessar-
ily be compatible with the USTER® STATISTICS. The application handbook on
tensile testing with the USTER® TENSORAPID is highly recommended to those
who may wish to obtain further information on these topics.
The USTER® TENSORAPID applies the CRE principle of tensile testing. The term
CRE serves as an abbreviation for ‹constant rate of extension›. CRE describes
the simple fact that the moving clamp is displaced at a constant velocity. As a
result, the specimen between the stationary and the moving clamp is extended
by a constant distance per unit of time and the force required to do so is mea-
sured. The following details are of utmost importance in ensuring compatibility
between the data presented in the USTER® STATISTICS and the data on tensile
properties obtained in practice: To be compatible, a measurement must be per-
formed according to the CRE principle. The velocity of the moving clamp, also
referred to as the testing speed, must be exactly 5 m/min. The gauge length, i.e.
the length of the specimen or the distance between the stationary and the mov-
ing clamp should be 500 mm and a pretension of 0.5 cN/tex must be applied.
Testing conditions that deviate from this description will most certainly result in
different measurement values.
CRE single-end testing at 5 m/min is the most widely accepted practice in the
international textile industry and it has therefore been chosen as the testing
mode for the USTER® STATISTICS on tensile properties. However, other meth-
ods are still being applied but their significance is deteriorating rapidly. These
11.14
methods include CRE single-end testing with 20 s time-to-break. Textile materi-

als exhibit a partially viscoelastic behavior and their tensile properties change
notably as a function of the time during which mechanical forces and deforma-
tions are acting upon a fiber, yarn, or fabric. Therefore, the tensile properties of
yarns also change with the testing speed. The difference between a time-to-
break of 20 s and the 0.2…0.4 s required to break a specimen made of fiber-
spun yarns at 5 m/min causes significant differences between the respective
measurement values. Similar discrepancies may occur when comparing CRL
(constant rate of load) single-end measurements from the USTER® DYNAMAT
with the CRE 5 m/min TENSORAPID data provided in the USTER® STATISTICS.
In general, there are two fundamental criteria which affect the compatibility be-
tween different measurements of tensile yarn properties: Criterion number one
is the testing conditions, i.e. the testing principle (CRE, CRL), testing speed,
gauge length, and pretensioning. The second criterion, which also affects the
magnitude of the differences, relates to the specific stress/strain characteristic
of the yarn itself, which is determined by the fibrous materials, the blend ratio,
and the yarn construction. A detailed appraisal of the various tensile testing sys-
tems and the reasons for the differences between the measurements is provid-
ed in the application handbook on tensile testing with the USTER® TENSORAPID.

comparisons between the actual USTER® TENSORAPID measurements and the
USTER® STATISTICS on tensile properties. The calibration of a USTER® TENSO-
RAPID should be left to authorized Zellweger Uster service personnel. Please
contact the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected changes or
long-term drift should occur. TESTEX AG in Zurich, Switzerland, conducts yarn
quality round tests on an international basis. Participation in such a program is
highly recommended for closely monitoring the performance of the service per-
The determination of the CRE tensile properties of yarns by means of electronic

yarn testing instruments is a standardized procedure and is described in detail in
ISO 2062. However: While the basic procedures of automatic CRE single-end
tensile testing are outlined in all applicable national and international standards,
the testing speed of 5 m/min – much to our regret – has not yet been consid-
ered. In spite of this shortcoming, it is definitely the preferred mode of tensile
testing from a global point of view.
Further explanations of the individual functional elements of the USTER® TEN-

SORAPID, the significance of the measurements, and the proper calibration and
operation of the instrument are given in the operating instructions and in the
application handbook on tensile testing. Adequate sample conditioning and main-
taining constant standard atmospheric conditions in the laboratory during testing
is important. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this appendix for more information
on ambient laboratory conditions for yarn testing.
References to tensile testing standards:
ISO 2062, ASTM D-1578, DIN 53 834: Single-end tensile testing

11.15
11.5.8 HV Tensile Properties Testing

The term HV tensile properties is used for describing a novel method of tensile
testing. HV stands for high-volume and high-velocity. The USTER® TENSOJET is
a laboratory instrument which for the first time provides true high-volume and
high-velocity features in tensile testing. With the USTER® TENSOJET, the mech-
anism which is used for applying a tensile force, to extend, and ultimately break
a specimen consists of two pairs of cam-type rollers, arranged at a distance of
500 mm. The top and bottom cam-type rollers are designed to allow an end to be
inserted between the rollers, to be clamped at the nip point, and to be extended
just a fraction of a second later. A force sensor is installed in the yarn channel
which connects the two pairs of rollers. The curvature of the yarn channel caus-
es a flat angle deflection of the yarn at the tip of the sensor so that the radial
component of the tensile force can be measured. The entire measurement cycle
consists of four phases: continuous yarn take-up and intermediate storage, in-
sertion of the end by a compressed air nozzle, clamping and extension to rupture
by the rollers, and removal of the broken end into the waste bin via an air flow.
The USTER® TENSOJET operates according to the CRE principle at a testing
speed of 400 m/min. The actual time-to-break is in the neighborhood of 3 ms for
a 100% cotton yarn. As a result, the instrument is capable of performing 30,000
individual breaks per hour and offers the possibility of testing an enormous
amount of yarn within a very reasonable time frame. Such dramatic increases in
sample size provide a suitable means for the detection and assessment of spo-
radic weak places in the yarn, which dictate the yarn breakage frequency and
machine efficiencies in subsequent processing. High-performance tensile test-
ing with the USTER® TENSOJET is also an almost perfect simulation of the dy-
namic loads which affect a yarn during filling insertion on high-speed weaving
machines.
In the USTER® STATISTICS on HV tensile properties, nomograms are available

for breaking force (FH), breaking tenacity (RH), breaking elongation (eH), and
work-to-break (WH) as well as for the total coefficients of variation of these pa-
rameters (CVRH, CVeH, CVWH). In general terms, the TENSOJET measurements
correspond to those provided in the USTER® STATISTICS on tensile properties as
determined with the USTER® TENSORAPID and the previous paragraph can be
referred to for more detailed explanations. However, due to the significant differ-
ence in testing speed, TENSOJET compared to TENSORAPID measurements
show generally higher force values.
The nomograms on the percentile values of breaking force (FP=0.1) and breaking
elongation (eP=0.1) relate to the occurrence of weak places in spun yarns. The
percentile value 0.1% of the breaking force (FP=0.1) signifies that 0.1% of all
measurements exhibit a breaking force that is equal to or lower than the speci-
fied value. For the USTER® STATISTICS, ten samples of each lot have been se-
lected and 1,000 individual tensile tests have been performed on each bobbin or
package. This is a total of 10,000 measurements per lot. The percentile value
0.1 % of the breaking force indicates that ten measurements (0.1% of 10,000
breaks) lie below that value. An example:
The percentile value 0.1% of the breaking force of an Ne 20 (Nm 34, 29.5 tex),
100% carded cotton ring-spun yarn was measured at FP=0.1 = 400 cN, which
can be converted into RP=0.1 = 13.6 cN/tex. Consequently, 0.1 % of all measure-
ments represent weak places with a breaking force of less than 400 cN or a
breaking tenacity of less than 13.6 cN/tex. If ten bobbins have been tested, each
with 1,000 breaks, this equates to a total of ten such weak places. The percen-
tile value 0.1% of the breaking force FP=0.1 = 400 cN corresponds to the 50th
percentile of the USTER® STATISTICS.
In this context, it is very important to keep in mind that a comparison with the
USTER® STATISTICS on weak places is only permissible if the total number of
breaks performed on a sample lot is exactly 10,000. Percentile values of both the
11.16
breaking force and the breaking elongation that have been determined with few-
er or more than 10,000 breaks cannot be compared with the data provided in the
USTER® STATISTICS.

comparisons between the actual USTER® TENSOJET measurements and the
USTER® STATISTICS on HV tensile properties. The calibration of a USTER ® TEN-
SOJET should be left to authorized Zellweger Uster service personnel. Please
contact the nearest Zellweger Uster service station if unexpected changes or
long-term drift should occur. TESTEX AG in Zurich, Switzerland, conducts yarn
quality round tests on an international basis. Participation in such a program is
highly recommended for closely monitoring the performance of the service per-
Further explanations of the individual functional elements of the USTER® TENSO-

JET, the significance of the measurements, and the proper calibration and opera-
tion of the instrument are given in the operating instructions. Adequate sample
conditioning and maintaining constant standard atmospheric conditions in the
laboratory during testing is important. Please refer to section 11.5.9 of this ap-
pendix for more information on ambient laboratory conditions for yarn testing.
11.5.9 Ambient Laboratory Conditions for Yarn Testing

Some textile fibers are highly hygroscopic and their properties change notably as
a function of the moisture content. Typical hygroscopic fibers are cotton, wool,
rayon, silk, flax, etc. Moisture content is particularly critical in the case of dyna-
mometric properties, i.e. yarn tenacity, elongation, and work-to-break, but yarn
evenness, imperfections, and defect levels are also affected. As a result, condi-
tioning and testing must be carried out under constant standard atmospheric
conditions. The standard temperate atmosphere for textile testing involves a
temperature of 20±2 °C (68±4 °F) and 65±2 % relative humidity. In tropical re-
gions, maintaining a temperature of 27±2 °C (81±4 °F) at 65±2% relative humid-
ity is legitimate, but then the absolute moisture content of the conditioned air is
different. Modern air conditioning systems, however, are capable of achieving
20±2 °C (68±4 °F) and 65±2 % relative humidity in most any location in the
world and in the interest of international harmonization, these ambient condi-
tions should be realized whenever possible. Prior to testing, the samples must
be conditioned under constant standard atmospheric conditions until in moisture
equilibrium with the surrounding air. To attain the moisture equilibrium, a condi-
tioning time of at least 24 hours is required, 48 hours is preferred. For samples
with a high moisture content (thermally conditioned yarns), conditioning time
should be at least 48 hours. The best practice is to precondition such samples in
a dry atmosphere, so that the moisture equilibrium is later approached from the
dry side. During conditioning, the samples must be removed from any boxes or
containers used for transportation, cleared from all packing material, placed in an
upright position to expose the entire bobbin or package surface to the condi-
tioned air, and arranged in such a fashion that ample space is left between the
samples to allow conditioned air to circulate freely. Laboratory conditions should
be monitored by appropriate devices that record both short-term fluctuation and

long-term drift.
References to standards defining the standard atmosphere for conditioning and

testing:
ISO 139, EN 20 139, DIN 53 802: Standard atmosphere for conditioning and
testing
11.17
11.6 Useful Conversions
11.6.1 English/Metric Conversions
English Unit Abbre- Metric Unit Metric Unit Abbre- English Unit
(US) viation viation (US)
Length Length
inch in 2.54 cm centimeter cm 0.3937 in
foot (=12 in) ft 30.48 cm meter m 3.28 ft
yard (=3 ft) yd 0.9144 m meter m 1.0936 yd
mile mile 1609.344 m kilometer km 0.6241 mile
Area Area
square inch in2 6.4516 cm2 square centimeter cm2 0.155 in2
square foot ft2 929.030 cm2 square meter m2 10.76 ft2
square yard yd2 0.836 m2 square meter m2 1.196 yd2
acre ac 0.405 ha hectare ha 2.47 ac
square mile mile2 2589.99 m2 square kilometer km2 0.386 mile2
Volume Volume
cubic inch in3 16.3871 cm3 cubic centimeter cm3 0.061 in3
cubic foot ft3 0.0283 m3 cubic meter m3 35.288 ft3
cubic yard yd3 0.7646 m3 cubic meter m3 1.308 yd3
fluid ounce fl oz 28.4 ml milliliter ml 0.0352 fl oz
pint pt 0.473 l liter l 2.11 pt
gallon gal 3.79 l liter l 0.264 gal
Mass Mass
grain gr 0.0648 g gram g 15.432 gr
ounce oz 28.3495 g gram g 0.0353 oz
pound lb 0.4536 kg kilogram kg 2.205 lb
Force Force
gram-force gf 0.9807 cN centi-Newton cN 1.02 gf
pound-force lbf 4.4483 N Newton N 0.2248 lbf
Pressure Pressure
pound-force/in2 p.s.i. 6894.76 Pa bar (=105 Pa) bar 14.5 p.s.i.
pound-force/ft2 p.s.f. 47.8803 Pa Pascal (N/m2) Pa 0.0209 p.s.f.
Tenacity Tenacity
gram-force/den gf/den 8.838 cN/tex centi-Newton/tex cN/tex 0.113 gf/den
gram-force/tex gf/tex 0.9807 cN/tex centi-Newton/tex cN/tex 1.02 gf/tex
11.18
11.6.2 Count Conversions
tex dtex den Nm NeC NeW NeL grains/yd
dtex den 1000 590.54 885.8 1653.5

tex = gr/yd · 70.86
10 9 Nm NeC NeW NeL
den 10000 5905.4 8858 16535
dtex = tex · 10 gr/yd · 708.6
0.9 Nm NeC NeW NeL
9000 5314.9 7972.3 14882
den = tex · 9 dtex · 0.9 gr/yd · 637.7
Nm NeC NeW NeL
1000 10000 9000 14.1
Nm = tex dtex den NeC · 1.6934 NeW · 1.13 NeL · 0.6048 gr/yd
590.54 5905.4 5314.9 NeW NeL 8.33
NeC = tex dtex den Nm · 0.5905 1.5 2.8 gr/yd
885.8 8858 7972.3 NeL 12.5
NeW = Nm · 0.8858 NeC · 1.5
tex dtex den 1.87 gr/yd
1653.5 16535 14882 23.33
NeL = Nm · 1.6535 NeC · 2.8 NeW · 1.87
tex dtex den gr/yd
tex tex den 14.1 8.33 12.5 23.33
grains/yd = 70.86 708.6 637.7 Nm NeC NeW NeL
Nm = metric count NeC = cotton count NeW = worsted count NeL = linen count
11.6.3 Staple Conversion Chart 11.6.4 Special Conversions
Category inches 32nds decimals mm Rkm = 1.0197 · cN/tex

13 / 16 26 0.81 20.6 cN/tex = 0.9807 · Rkm
short 27 / 32 27 0.84 21.4
7/8 28 0.88 22.2
29 / 32 29 0.91 23.0 Twist Multiplier ae = 0.031 · am
15 / 16 30 0.94 23.8
Twist Multiplier am = 30.25 · ae
31 / 32 31 0.97 24.6
medium 1 32 1.00 25.4
1 1 / 32 33 1.03 26.2
1 1 / 16 34 1.06 27.0 Turns per inch t.p.i. = 0.0254 · T/m
1 3 / 32 35 1.09 27.8 Turns per meter T/m = 39.37 · t.p.i.
1 1/8 36 1.13 28.6

medium to long 1 5 / 32 37 1.16 29.4
1 3 / 16 38 1.19 30.2 Fahrenheit °F = 1.8 · (°C+32)
1 7 / 32 39 1.22 31.0 Centigrade °C = 0.5556 · (°F–32)
1 1/4 40 1.25 31.8
long 1 9 / 32 41 1.28 32.5
1 5 / 16 42 1.31 33.3
1 11 / 32 43 1.34 34.1
1 3/8 44 1.38 34.9
1 13 / 32 45 1.41 35.7
extra long 1 7 / 16 46 1.44 36.5

1 15 / 32 47 1.47 37.3
1 1/2 48 1.50 38.1
1 17 / 32 49 1.53 38.9
1 9 / 16 50 1.56 39.7
1 19 / 32 51 1.59 40.5
1 5/8 52 1.63 41.3
11.19
11.7 References
[1] Richert, U.: Benchmarking. Ein Werkzeug des Total Quality

Management – Teil 1: Begriffe, Ziele und Me-
thoden
QZ Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit 40
Germany (March 1995)
[2] Richert, U.: Benchmarking. Ein Werkzeug des Total Quality

Management – Teil 2
QZ Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit 40
Germany (April 1995)
[3] Anonymous: Textiles and Clothing: An Introduction to Quality

Requirements in Selected Markets
International Trade Centre UNCTAD/GATT
Geneva, Switzerland (1994)
[4] Frey, M.; Douglas, K.: Yarn Quality Characteristics Necessary to Satisfy
the Demands of Subsequent Processing and the
Appearance of the Finished Fabric
Zellweger Uster Special Print SE 478
Uster, Switzerland (1992)
[5] Frey, M.; Douglas, K.: Characteristics of Ring-Spun Yarns for Knitting
Zellweger Uster Special Print SE 481
Uster, Switzerland (1994)
[6] Morris, D. E.: The European Community Market for Cotton

Yarns and Cotton Grey Cloths
International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO
Geneva, Switzerland (1996)
[7] Strolz, H.; Munkholt, P.: 1995 International Production Cost Comparison
International Textile Manufacturers Federation
Zürich, Switzerland (1995)

Introduction - Quer Engl

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction - Quer Engl

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USTER® STATISTICS 2001

1 About the Origin and the Significance of the

2 Quality Characteristics of the USTER® STATISTICS 2001

4 The Making of the USTER® STATISTICS 0.18

5 Interpreting and Applying the USTER® STATISTICS 0.19

6 Changes to the USTER® STATISTICS 1997 0.21

9 Testing Conditions and Sample Sizes 0.24

10 Nomograms of the USTER® STATISTICS 2001 1.1 – 30.xx

We thank all customers who contributed to this collection of benchmarks by

Improvement in Yarn Evenness between 1957 – 2001

Ne 20 (Nm 34, 29.5 tex)

Ne 60 (Nm 100, 10 tex)

100% Coton, peigné

1.2 USTER® STATISTICS as Benchmarks

1.3 USTER® STATISTICS for Yarn Contracts and

USTER® STATISTICS. They appreciate the STATISTICS as a means of categoriz-

1.4 USTER® STATISTICS for Textile Machinery

1.5 Users’ Contributions Towards Improving

In addition to the well-known quality characteristics, the USTER® STATISTICS

All definitions of fiber quality characteristics which require an explanation are

Description of cotton fiber quality characteristics (USTER® HVI SPECTRUM)

Quality char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

Description of cotton fiber quality characteristics (USTER® AFIS)

Quality char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

L2,5%(n) L5%(n) Short fiber content SFC

0% 25% 50% 100%

Fig. 3 Staple diagram

To compute the mean degree of thickening theta, a circular cross-section of the

Cumulative percent Theta Maturity

Mature fibers (R)

Immature fibers (IFC)

For this example, the following apply:

Mature fiber content R = 37.6%

Immature fiber content IFC = 10.3%

5− ,)& 37.6 − 10.3

Description of yarn quality characteristics (USTER® TESTER 4)

Quality char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

Description of yarn quality characteristics (USTER® TENSORAPID 3)

Quality char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

Description of yarn quality characteristics (USTER® TENSOJET)

Quality Char- Abbrevia- Description Unit

3.1 Restrictions Imposed by the Raw Material

The USTER® STATISTICS should not be interpreted as saying 5% is «good». In

3.2 Restrictions Imposed by the Final Product

3.3 Restrictions Imposed by the Yarn Design

3.4 Missing Correlation Between Different

in a haystack. If there is a problem with neppy appearance and no way to reduce

3.5 Outliers and Frequent Defects in a Spinning

3.6 Restrictions in Guarantee Agreements

3.7 Reproducibility and Variability of

• proper conditioning under constant standard atmospheric conditions

Western Europe Eastern Europe

The USTER® STATISTICS manual consists of several parts, each addressing a

overall processing conditions accordingly. Selecting higher quality cotton fibers

6.1 New Fiber Quality Characteristics

6.2 Distinction Between Knitting and Weaving

• Combed cotton yarn ae = 3.7 (am = 112)

6.3 New Yarn Quality Characteristics

As explained in Fig. 1, the mass unevenness improved to such an extent in the

Nowadays, variations of quality characteristics are increasingly determined using

Parameter Abbrevia- Unit Instrument No. of Tests

Parameter Abbrevia- Unit Instrument No. of Tests

The following paragraphs provide useful background information on the different