Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research

Vol. 27, June 2002, pp. 135-141

\\

Apron slippage in ring frame: Part II-Factors affecting apron slippage and their
- - --
-- effect on yam qualit
e.\basj & l p ' adav ')
r- Northern India Textile Research Association, Sector-23, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad 201 002, ndia

and
\ S M Ishtiaque
1-.
r "
Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi I IO 016, India
'-
Received 6 September 2000; revised received and accepted 22 February 2001

LThe effect of various roving and drafting parameters like roving hank, roving TM, top arm pressure, spacer size and
break draft on apron slippage has been studied. It is observed that both bollom apron slippage and apron-to-apron slippage
change with the change in the above parameters. With the change in these parameters, when the apron slippage increases the
yarn quality in general deteriorates and vice versa.
Keywords: Apron slippage. Break draft, Roving T M, Spacer size, Top arm pressure

1 Introduction has also been studied.

A detailed study on apron-to-apron slippage in ring
frame has already been reported I. The phenomenon of
apron-to-apron slippage and its effect on yarn proper-
ties has also been studied. It has been established that
the slippage between bottom apron to top apron dis-
turbs the movement of fibres in the apron zone which
results in deterioration of yarn quality . Apart from the
apron-to-apron slippage, another apron slippage i.e.
slippage between middle bottom roller to bottom
apron, termed as bottom apron slippage, has also been
reported. The bottom apron faces friction from the
bottom apron bridge, the tension bracket and the top
2 The apron-to-apron and bottom apron slippages
apron unit, giving rise to considerable slippage • The
slippage between bottom roller and bottom apron re-
sults in the change in draft distribution which affects
the yarn quality.
Both apron-to-apron and bottom apron slippages
depend on various factors and it is very important to
know the effect of these factors on apron slippage to
improve the yarn quality. In the present work, the ef-
fect of various factors, like roving hank, roving TM,
lap arm pressure, size of spacer and break draft, on
bottom apron and apron-to-apron slippages has been
studied. The effect of these factors on yarn properties
'To whom all the correspondence should be addressed.
Phone : 4783586; Fax: 0091 -0120-4783596;
E-mail: nitra @ndc. vsnl.n eLin
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Preparation of Yarn Samples
All the carded yarns (24 Ne) were spun from 100%
cotton (134 SG) with 4.2 TM at a spindle speed of
10,500 rpm. The details of sampling plan along with
the yarn reference number are given in Table I. The
yarn samples were prepared by changing one parame-
ter at a time, keeping all the other parameters con-
stant. Ten ring bobbins were prepared for each sample
and tested afterwards for different properties.
2.2 Measurement of Apron Slippage
were observed with and without roving in the drafting
zone. In the present study, ten spindles were selected
in such a way that their apron slippage values were
very close to each other so that the mean of these ten
spindles could be taken as representative slippage
value. The details of slippage values both with and
without materials are given in Table 2.
2.2.1 Bottom Apron Slippage
To measure the slippage between bottom roller and
bottom apron, a mark was put on the bottom apron
and another reference mark was put on the frame. The
surface speed of the bottom roller was calculated from
roller rpm and diameter. The time taken to make five
complete revolutions by the bottom aprons was meas-
ured with the help of stop watch. The process was
136 INDIAN J. FIBRE TEXT. RES., JUNE 2002

repeated for five times to get the average time. Then, Bollom apron slippage (Sb), % =
the length of the bottom apron was measured. From Surface speed of - Surface speed of
middle bOllom roller bOllom apron
the values of time and length, the surface speed of x 100
Surface speed of middle bOllom roller
bottom apron was calculated. The bottom apron slip-
page (Sb) was calculated by the following formula:
2.2.2 Apron-to-Apron Slippage
Table I - Sample details The slippage between bottom and top aprons was
Sample Roving Roving Middle Spacer Break
measured by the method described earli er' . The
re f. no. hank TM top roller size draft apron -to-apron slippage (Sa) was calcu lated using the
pressure mm following equation:
kg
Apron-to-apron slippage (Sa), % =
SH I 0.80" 1.5 15 3.5 1.4 BOllom apron surface speed - Top apron surface speed x 100
SH 2 1.10" 1.5 15 3.5 1.4
BOllom apron surface speed
SH J 1.40" 1.5 15 3.5 1.4
ST I 1.10 1.2" 15 3.5 1.4
ST 2 1.10 1.5" 15 3.5 1.4 2.2.3 Backward and Forward Slip
ST) 1.10 1.8" 15 3.5 1.4 In the backward slip, the rovings in the roller nip
SPI 1.10 1.5 13" 3.5 1.4 are held by the back roller, causing the bottom and the
SP 2 1.10 1.5 15" 3.5 1.4 top apron to run more slower than [he bottom roller.
SP3 1.10 1.5 17" 3.5 1.4
On the other hand, the fibre strand in the front roller
SSI 1.10 1.5 15 3.0" 1.4 nip tries to pull the aprons at a faster speed, causing
SS2 1.10 1.5 15 3.5" 1.4
SS) 1.10 1.5 15 4.0" 1.4
forward slip of apron. In the present study, alway s
backward slippage of aprons is observed which is due
SOl 1.10 1.5 15 3.5 1.1 "
S02 1.10 1.5 15 3.5 1.25" to the fact that the number of fibres in the back roller
SO) 1.10 1.5 15 3.5 1.4" nip are much higher than that in the front roller nip.

2.3 Measurement of Yarn Characteristics

Sample codes SH , ST, SP, SS and SO arc the samples prepared by
changing roving hank, roving TM, top arm pressure, spacer size
and break draft respecti vel y.
"Yariable parameter.
The irregularity and imperfections of all the yarns
were tested on Uster Tester-3 at speed of 400 m/min
for I min. The thin places, thick places and neps per

Table 2 - Effect of different factors on apron slippage

Sample Middle Apron speed Apron slippage Apron speed wilh Apro n slippage with
ref. no. bOllom roller without roving without roving, % roving, mmls rovi ng, %
surface mrnls
speed BOllom Top BOllom roller Boltom apron BOllom Top Bottom roller BOllom apron
mrnls apron apron to boltom to lOp apron apron apron to bOllom 10 top apron
apron (Sb) (Sa) apron (S b) (S a)

SH I 10.08 9.85 9.73 2.34 1.23 9.51 9.06 5.67 4 .71

SH 2 13.86 13.53 13.37 2.39 1.19 12.59 12.17 9 .1 8 3.35
SH 3 17.65 17.23 17.02 2.36 1.21 16.98 16.55 3.77 2 .54
ST I 13.86 13.53 13.37 2.39 1.19 13.38 12.98 3.49 3.03
ST 2 13.86 13.53 13.37 2.39 1.19 12.59 12. 17 9. 18 3.35
ST) 13.86 13.53 13.37 2.39 1.19 12. 14 11.6 1 12.46 4.34

SPI 13.86 13.32 13.17 3.92 1.14 12.06 11.59 13 .01 3.92
SP 2 13.86 13.53 13 .37 2.39 1.19 12.59 12. 17 9. 18 3.35
SP 3 13.86 13.45 13.31 2.97 1.10 12.93 12.56 6.72 2.85

SSI 13.86 13.40 13.28 3.32 0.96 12.66 12.33 8.68 2.62
SS2 13.86 13.53 13.37 2.39 1.19 12.59 12. 17 9 . 18 3.35
SS3 13.86 13.59 13.38 1.97 1.57 12.72 12. 15 8.28 4.49

SOl 10.89 10.63 10.51 2.45 1.15 10 .20 9.90 6 .33 2 .96
S02 12.38 12.09 11.96 2.30 1.10 11.56 11.17 6 .63 3.38
SO) 13.86 13.53 13.37 2.39 1.19 12.59 12. 17 9.18 3. 35
 DAS el al.: APRON SLIPPAGE IN RING FRAME: PART II 137

kilometer were measured at -50%, +50% and +200%
levels. Yarn tenacity and breaking extension were
measured on SOL Universal Tensile Tester using 50
cm test length and 10 cm/min extension rate. Average
100 readings were taken for tensile testing from each
sample (10 readings from each bobbin x 10 bob-
bins/sample). Hairiness index and diameter U% were
measured in Keisokki Hairiness Tester, LASERS POT
Model LST at a speed of 25 m/min. The details of the
test results are given in Table 3.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 EO'eet of Roving Hank on Apron Slippage
Table 2 and Fig. 1 show that as the hank of the rov-
ing increases the bottom apron slippage (Sb) increases
initially and after 1.1 hank it decreases, whereas the
apron-to-apron slippage (Sa) always decreases. At
lower hank, i.e. for coarser rovings, the thickness of
the fibre strand at middle roller nip point is higher
which increases the effective pressure at that point.
The higher pressure at nip point causes more friction
of bottom apron with bottom roller, which results in
lower bottom apron slippage at roving hank of 0.8 .
When the roving hank becomes finer (1 . 1), the effec-
tive pressure on bottom apron decreases. This leads to
the increase in bottom apron slippage. But, further
increase in roving hank to 1.4 results in the reduction
10 ,--~---------~
........ So
- '- Sa
in slippage. This is due to the reduction in drafting
force at back zone which acts as retarding force on
aprons for finer hank roving. Coarser the roving the
higher will be the drafting force 3 . The apron-to-apron
slippage depends on the thickness of the fibre strand
in the apron zone. For coarser roving, more number of
fibres are in between the aprons, causing less trans-
mission of motion from bottom apron to top apron,
resulting in higher apron-to-apron slippage and vice
versa. The effect of roving hank on yarn quality is
shown in Table 3 and Fig. 1. Keeping the break draft
constant at 1.4, as the roving hank becomes finer the
total front zone draft required to spin 24 Ne yam re-
mains lower.
With the increase in roving hank, as the apron-to-
apron slippage gets reduced, the yarn quality in terms
of irregularity, imperfections and tenacity improves
(Fig. 1). As the apron-to-apron slippage decreases, the
fibre movement gets more and more smooth which
results in improvement in yarn quality. Keeping the
break draft same, as the roving hank becomes finer,
the draft at the main draft region gets reduced to pro-
duce same count of yarn. At lower level of draft, the
control over the floating fibres improves which also
results in improvement in yarn quality. The similar
findings have also been observed by earlier work-
ers4.5. Breaking elongation and hairiness have not
been found affected by roving hank (Table 3).
17.2 . , - - - - -- - - - - ' - - ---,

$. 8 ~ 16.8
4>
rn
>:
'"a. ""Iii
,g. 6 · -g, 16.4
'"c: .~
e
a. · c:
<{ 4 Iii 16
>-

2· 15.6 ' - - - -_ _ --'_ _ _ _ _--.J

1000 11 .2 r - - - - - - -- - - --,

E
<!: 775 )("10.8
'"0
c 2
13(!)
Zo
"t: 550 - ;::104 .
........ Thin places (-50%)
<Il
a. 1i
m
--- Thick places (+50%j
S c
c ......... Ncps (+200%) Gl

--
(;j 325 .... 10
>-

100
---..- - - - 9 .6 ..- - - - - _-'-_ _ _ _---1
0. 8 1.1 1.4 0 .8 1.1 1.4
Roving hank
Fig. I - Effec t of roving hank on apron slippage and yarn irregularity, imperfec tion s and tenacity
138 INDIAN J. FIBRE TEXT. RES ., JUNE 2002

Table 3 - Effect of apron slippage on yarn quality

Sample Apron slippage Irregu- Imeerfections/km Tensile ero~rties Hairiness Diam.
ref. with roving. % lari ty Th in Thiek Neps Tenacity Breaking index U%
no. Sb Sa U% places places (+200%) eN/tex elongation. % (HI)
(-50%) (+50%)
SH I 5.67 4.71 16.77 242 826 779 9.62 4.65 711 16.92
SH 2 9. 18 3.35 15.93 167 82 1 644 10.24 4.93 704 15.66
SH} 3.77 2.54 15.67 131 607 536 10.88 4.88 708 15.41
ST I 3.49 3.03 15.03 159 785 589 11.06 4.84 720 14.94
ST2 9.18 3.35 15.93 167 82 1 644 10.24 4.93 704 15 .66
STJ 12.46 4.34 16.22 165 830 674 9.92 5.03 697 15.89

SPI 13.01 3.92 17. 12 275 945 657 9.43 4.62 682 17 .0 1
SP 2 9. 18 3.35 15.93 167 821 644 10.24 4.93 704 15.66
SP J 6.72 2.85 15.71 151 824 520 10. 19 5.15 695 14.92

SSI 8.68 2.62 15.96 102 833 659 10.99 5.27 660 15.82
SS2 9.18 3.35 15.93 167 821 644 10.24 4.93 704 15 .66
SS} 8.28 4.49 17.20 236 897 731 10.28 5.22 688 17. 11

SDI 6.33 2.96 15.80 175 736 682 10.07 4.46 752 15.70
SD 2 6.63 3.38 15.82 146 793 704 10.44 4.72 686 15.63
SD} 9. 18 3.35 15.93 167 821 644 10.24 4.93 704 15.66

14 17

~ Sb
'ii 11 ___ Sa ~16.5
Q)
(J) .~
n. 'a." 8 :;
iii
16
(J)
Vi
c
o .~
c
~ 5 iii 15.5
>-
2 L -_ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ __ ~

15

900 11.2

E
~ 700 ~ 10 . 85
VI )(
c QJ
o ~

:u r- Z
~
~ 500 ~
10.5
4l -+- Thin placs (-50%) ·5
a.
.~ --- Thick places (+50%) '"
c
QJ

~ 300 __._Neps (+200%)

I- 10.15
>-
9.8 L -_ _ _ _ _--'-_ _ _ _ __
100
1.2 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.5 1. 8
RovingTM

Fig. 2 - Effec t of roving TM on apron sl ippage and yarn irregularity . imperfections and tenacit y

3.2 Effect of Roving 'I'M on Apron Slippage
With the increase in roving TM , both apron-to-
apron slippage and bottom apron slippage increase
(Table 2 and Fig. 2). As the roving TM increases, the
6
drafting force also increases and thi s acts as retarding
force on the aprons which results in red uction in their
surface speed. The increase in bottom apron slippage
with the increase in roving TM causes decrease in
break draft and increase in front zone draft, so that th e
comp lete re mov al of roving twist in th e break draft
zone may not be possi ble. At th e sa me time, th e in-
crease in roving TM results in turbulent movement of
 DAS el al.: APRON SLIPPAGE IN RING FRAME: PART II 139

fibres in the apron zone du e to the increase in apron-
to-apron slippage. The increase in roving TM also
increases the inter-fibre friction due to the more inter-
fibre contact force which creates probl e m during
smooth drafting and ultimately deteriorates yarn qual-
ity. Both the above factors are responsibl e for the de-
terioration in yarn quality (Table 3 and Fig. 2). For 24
Ne cotton yarn, the TM of 1.2 is normally on the
lower side, but our repeated experimentation shows
that in the present set-up it gives the optimum results.
3.3 ElTect of Top Arm Pressure on Apron Slippage
The effect of top arm press ure on bottom apron and
apron-to-apron slippage is shown in Table 2 and Fig. 3.
With the increase in top arm pressure, the frictional
contact between bottom roller to bottom apron and
bottom apron to top apron in c reases, which res ults in
better transmi ss ion of mot ion from bottom ro ller to
bottom apron and from bottom apron to top apron.
Due to the better motion tran smiss io n, th e bottom
apron and apro n-to-apron slippages dec rease with the
increase in top arm pressure when there is mate ri al in
drafting zo ne. No clear tre nd is observed in apro n slip
when there is no mate ri al. At th e hi gher top arm pres-
sure, the bottom apro n and apron-to-apron s lippages
get reduced and at the same time the re will be better
gripping of fibres at roller nip as well as within the
apron zone, which avoids fibre slippage during draft-
ing . These factors result in improve ment in yarn qual-
ity in terms of evenness, imperfections and tenacity
(Table 3 and Fig. 3).
3.4 Effect of Spacer Size on Apron Slippage
Tabl e 2 and Fi g. 4 show the effect of apron spacer
size on bottom apron and apron -to-apron slippages.
With the increase in apron spacer size, the pressure
between aprons in the drafting zone dec reases whi ch
results in increase in apron-to-apron slippage, but no
clear trend is observed in bottom apron slippage. As
the apron-to-apron slippage increases with the in-
crease in apron spacer size, there appears uncontroll ed
moveme nt of fibres in the apron zone. The wider
apron spacer size also results in uncontrolled fibre
movement in the mai n draft zone due to the improper
co ntrol over the fibres at th e apron ex it point. Both
th ese factors res ult in deteriorat ion in yarn qu ality
which is evident from T able 3 and Fig. 4 . The simil ar
tre nd was also reported by earli e r workers 7.8•
3.5 Effect of Break D.·aft on Apron Slippage
Tabl e 2 and Fig . 5 show the effect o f break draft on
bottom and apron-to- apron s li ppages. As the break
draft increases, the botto m apro n s lippage inc reases .
This may be due to th e inc rease in draftin g force with

14
17

'i 11
--Sb
~
~
Q)
--- Sa
'E- 16.6
'"
ro
Q.
.~

:;
.9- 8
c
.~ 16.2
o
c
~ 5 ~ 15.8

2 L -_ _ _ _ _ __ _ ~~ _ _ _ __ __ _ ~

15.4 '---------'---------~

950 'F.::::=-- -- - - - - -- --, 10.4 r-------------~

E
~ 750 -x 10.15
c
.2 2!
U Zu
~ 550 'E- 9.9
OJ
Q. - - Thin places (·50%) o
S - - Thick place (+50%) '"cOJ
~ 350 I-- 9.65
- - Neps (+200%)
>-
150 L -_ __ _ _ _--=:!===~ _ __!
9.4
13 15 17 13 15 17
Top ann prcss ur~ (kg)

Fig. 3 - Effec t of top a nn press ure o n apro n s lippage a nd yarn irregul a rity, impe rfec ti o ns and te nac ity
140 INDIAN J. FIBRE TEXT. RES. , JUNE 2002

17.5 , - - - - - - - - - -_ _-:-_
10

~ :!!. 17
Q) 8 ::J
0>
co
a. --Sb ~
.Q- ;;;
Ui ---Sa ~ 16.5
c
6
0
Q. .~
<t: c
4 ~ 16 f-.- -- -----<I

2 15.5 ' - - - - -- - - - 4 ._ _ __ _ ---.l

1000 11.2 ,--------------~

~ 775 ~ 10.9
-;;; )(
<I>
.Q
13
OJ
~
u
~ 550 ~ Thin places (-50%) 1S 10.6
a. 'u
co
.!:' ---- Thick places (+50%) c
<:
~ 325 - - Neps (+200%) '"
I-- 10.3

100
3.0
k=========-____-.J 3.5 4. 0
10 L -_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

3.0
~

3.5
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ~

4 .0
Spacer size (mm)

Fig. 4 - Effect of spacer size on apron slippage and yarn irreg ulari ty, imperfections and tenaci ty

10 ,---- - - - - -- - - - - - - - , 15.95 ,----- -- - -- -- -- -,

~
--Sb /
.,
;j 8 ----- Sa
~
15.9
.~
~ L--- ;;;
.9- 6 ~ 15.85
"iii
c
e .~
c
:t 4 ;;; 15.8
>-

2 '-------~-------.J 15.75 '---------'------~

1000 10.6 ,--- - - - - - -- - ---,

~
E
-;;; 775 ~ 10.45
x
c Q)

U
0
- ~o
~ 550 -+-- Thin places (-50%) ~ 10.3
<I> u
a. ----- Thick places <II
c:
.!:' ~50%)
Q)
c 325 -r- eps (+200%) I-- 10.15
;;;
>-
100 10 '--- - - - ---'-- - - - - -
1.10 1.25 1AO 1.10 1.25 1.40
13reak draft

Fig. 5 - Effect of break draft 011 apron slippage and yarn irregulari ty, imperfections and tenacity

the increase in break dra ft at reasonably low level of break draft increases, the drafting force increases,
draft rati0 3 , i.e. from 1. 1 to I A. But, on the other whic h is responsib le for the increase in apron-to-
hand , the apron-to-apro n slippage initia ll y increases ap ron slippage in itia ll y but, at the sa me time, th e
an d the n decreases after break dra ft of 1.25. The thick ness of the fibre strand within the apron zone
amount of brea k draft a ffects both twist and size of reduces with th e break draft , resultin g in red uction in
th e s lubbin g sandwiched between aprons. As the apron to apron s lippage in the later stage . Al so, the
 DAS et al.: APRON SLIPPAGE IN RING FRAME: PART II
optimum break draft gives both the optimum fibre
arrangement as well as minimum fibre spread at the
front roller nip. The former contributes better yarn
uniformity and strength and the latter reduces the end
breakage rate and hairiness through increased fibre
density in the cross-section of the emerging strand of
fibres at the delivery roller.
Table 3 and Fig. 5 show the effect of break draft on
yarn irregularity, imperfections and tenacity. With the
increase in break draft, the apron slippage is found to
be increased, but the changes in U% are non-
significant. No clear trend is observed in yarn imper-
fections and tenaci ty .
4 Conclusions
Both the bottom apron slippage and apron-to-apron
slippage change with the change in various factors,
like roving hank, roving TM, top arm pressure, apron
spacer size and break draft, and hence the yarn qual-
ity. The observations made within the experimental
range are given below:
4.1 As the roving hank becomes finer, both the apron
slippages get reduced and hence the yarn quality, in
general, improves.
4.2 With the increase in roving TM, the bottom apron
and apron-to-apron slippages increase. The irregular-
ity, imperfection and tenacity also get deteriorated as
the apron slippage increases with the increase in rov-
ingTM.
141
4.3 The increase in top arm pressure results in im-
provement in yarn properties, which is due to the re-
duction in apron slippage with top arm pressure.
4.4 With the increase in spacer size, the apron-to-
apron slippage increases, but no clear trend is ob-
served for bottom apron slippage. For wider apron
spacer, the deterioration in yarn properties has been
observed.
4.5 As the amount of break draft increases, the bot-
tom apron slippage also increases, but the apron-to-
apron slippage initially increases and then decreases.
The yarn irregularity deteriorates with the increase in
break draft, but no clear trend is observed for imper-
fections and yarn tenacity .
4.6 Apron slippage does not have any significant ef-
fect on breaking elongation and yarn hairiness.
References
Das A, Ishliaque S M & Yadav P, III dian J Fibre Text Res, 26
(2002)38.
2 Singh A K, Effect ofspeed-J;'(//lIe aproll slippage 011 ya m qllal -
ity, M.Tech. lhesis, Indian Insli lule or Technology , Delhi ,
1999.
3 Plonsker H R & Backer S, Text Res J, 37 (1967) 673.
4 Audiverl R & Vidiella J E, Text Res J, 32 (1962) 652.
5 Newlon FE & Burlcy S T, Text World, March (1964) 42.
6 Hannah M, J Textillst , 41 (1950) T57.
7 Aucliverl R, Villaronga M & Coscolla R, Text Res}, 37 (1967) I.
8 Balasubramanian N, Text Res J, 39 (1969) 155 .