Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of crease resistant treatment on sewability and seam properties of cotton shirt fabrics. The effects of the fabric construction (plain, twill, and satin weaves), the concentration of crease resistant chemical, and the stitch density were investigated in terms of seam quality and sewability. Seam efficiency was calculated and the appearance of seams and creases were evaluated using standard methods. Furthermore, the sewability of the fabrics was measured with an L&M sewability tester. The results were then statistically evaluated. It was found that crease resistant treatment improved the seam efficiency, sewability, and appearance of creases, whereas no positive effect on seam appearance was observed.

Keywords

Cotton Shirt Fabric Creases Resistance Seams Sewability Wet Processing

Introduction

Shirts are an essential part of men's clothing. Fabrics commonly used in shirts are made from 100% cotton or cotton/polyester blends. Use of cotton fabrics in shirts leads to wrinkling and shrinkage. To eliminate these problems, it is vital to apply finish to the fabrics. Finishing processes are used to improve the final appearance, handle, and functionality of the fabrics.¹Finishing is commonly categorized as chemical or mechanical processes. The textile industry has a need for innovative chemical finishes. One of the most useful functional properties to be imparted on cotton products is crease resistance.^2–5

A severe limitation of fabrics made of all or mostly cellu-losic fibers is their tendency to wrinkle. Crease resistance is imparted to cellulosic fibers by restricting the slippage of molecular chains through crosslinking.^6,7 In the 1980s, the market for crease resistant finishes was dominated by N, iV-l,3-dimethylol-4,5-dihydroxethylene urea (DMDHEU), using magnesium chloride as the acid catalyst to initiate chemical crosslinking of cellulose chain molecules. It is still the most widely-used crosslinking agent. Its advantages include imparting good durable press properties at low cost, being less detrimental to fabric strength, having less discoloration, being post-curable, and yielding low chlorine retention characteristics when compared to other agents.

Crosslinking occurs within accessible fiber regions, providing fiber resistance to deformation and improved elastic recovery from deformation. Crosslinking prevents fiber molecule movement during stress and hinders shrinkage and wrinkle formation. Crease resistant treatments are widely applied on cotton fabrics by the pad-dry-cure method.^8–10

DMDHEU reacts with cellulose in the presence of a catalyst to form crosslinks between individual cellulose chain molecules during crease resistant treatment. The reaction mechanism for the crosslinking of DMDHEU and cellulose is well known and shown in Fig. 1.^7,11–13

Fig. 1

Crosslinking of cellulose with DMDHEU.

Finishing treatments influence not only fabric properties, but also the sewing quality of the garments. Good seams are essential for durability, quality, and aesthetic appearance of garments.¹⁴ Seam quality is evaluated based on various parameters such as seam efficiency, elongation, bending, stiffness, abrasion resistance, density, slippage, puckering, tightness, thickness, and damage. However, among these various quality parameters, puckering, efficiency, and sewability are the most important for evaluation of seam quality¹⁵

Seam puckering in a garment is the uneven appearance of a seam on a smooth fabric. Puckering appears along the seam line of garments when the sewing parameters and sewn material properties are not properly selected. This results in a reduction of garments’ aesthetic value.^16–20 Seam efficiency is a useful parameter that demonstrates seam performance as measured by the ratio of sewn and unsewn fabric strengths.¹⁴ Sewability can be defined as the ease of sewing and the ability of material to be seamed effectively without fabric damage while providing suitable end-use performance. In addition to other seam quality parameters, needle penetration force (NPF) is also important in determining fabric sewability. A fabric requiring a high NPF is more susceptible to fabric damage, with a negative effect on garment quality.²¹

There are many articles on seam quality parameters, however studies related to the effects of textile finishing treatments on fabric sewability and seam quality are limited.^22–31 Therefore, we previously investigated the effect of softening treatments on sewability and seam quality of cotton woven fabrics.³² The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of crease resistant treatments on sewability and seam properties of cotton shirt fabrics, a topic of vital importance for apparel manufacturers.

Experimental

Materials

In this study, the effect of the woven fabric construction, chemical concentration, and stitch density on seam quality and sewability performances were investigated using three different constructions (i.e., plain, twill, and satin) of 100% cotton shirt fabrics. All fabrics were desized, scoured, and bleached before crease resistant treatments. The characteristics of these fabrics are shown in Table I.

Table I

Test Woven Fabric Characteristics

Fabric Construction	Plain	Twill	Satin
Fabric weight (g/m²)	127	128	141
Warp and weft yarn linear density (Ne)	40/1	40/1	40/1
Warp density (threads/cm)	53	49	62
Weft density (threads/cm)	29	32	33

Crease resistant treatments were applied to the fabrics by padding using a Rapid Model PA-1 marked laboratory pad-der (Labortex) for impregnation and an Ataç GK 4 marked laboratory stenter (Ataç Machine) for drying and curing. The recipes used in the experiments are given in Table II. Two commonly-used chemical concentrations (40 and 80 g/L) were chosen. The untreated fabrics (UT) were used as control fabrics. Crease resistant treatments were not applied to control fabrics and all investigated parameters were compared to those of the control fabrics.

Table II

Crease Resistant Treatment Recipes

Chemicals	Recipe Code
Chemicals	B1	B2
Modified DMDHEU (Crease resistant chemical)	40 g/L	80 g/L
MgCl₂ (Catalyst)	5 g/L	10 g/L
Aminofunctional polysiloxane (Silicone softener)	15 g/L	30 g/L
Impregnation conditions	pH 4.5 (with Acetic acid) Pick up: 75% Drying: 100 °C for 2 min Curing: 150 °C for 5 min

The finished samples were seamed with lock stitches using a Juki DLL-5550-6 industrial sewing machine at room temperature. Cotton sewing thread (35 tex) and a 90's ball point needle were used.

Testing

Seam Efficiency

The seam efficiency of fabric was determined to measure the loss in fabric strength caused by needle damage. This involves sewing a seam on the fabric, breaking the fabric at the line of stitching, and establishing a ratio between the original and the seamed fabric strength. The sewing and fabric strength values of all the samples were measured using a Lloyd LR5K universal tensile tester.

Samples were seamed according to the ASTM D1683³³standard at two different stitch densities (4.5 (D1) and 3.5 (D2) stitches/cm) in warp and weft directions. After strength measurements, the seam efficiencies E (%) of all samples were calculated using Eq. 1.

E = 100 \cdot \frac{S_{S}}{F_{b}}

(Eq. 1)

seam efficiency was characterized by the ratio of sewn seam strength (S_s) to fabric tensile strength (F_b).³³

NPF Determination

NPF tests were performed using an L&M Sewability Tester (John Godrich), which was developed in the Clothing Section of the Textile Department at the University of Leeds in the UK (Fig. 2). This equipment simulated a sewing machine without sewing thread working at a rate of 100 penetrations/min. It measured a standard reproducible sewability of fabrics by monitoring the force developed as a 90's ball point needle penetrated into the fabric. A threshold value was determined based on the fabric mass area. Good sewability is indicated by low NPF values. In this study, the threshold value was set to 75 cN and the average force to penetrate the fabric was recorded.^21,26,34

Fig. 2

The L&M Sewability Tester.

Seam Appearance

Untreated (UT) and treated samples were seamed at a 4.5 stitch/cm stitch density. Ten, the fabrics were washed five times in a Wascator machine according to BS EN ISO 26330 (5A program)³⁵ standard and dried. All the samples were conditioned for 24 h under standard atmospheric conditions (temperature of 20 ± 2 °C and relative humidity (RH) of 65 ± 2%). Seam appearances were compared with standard photos given in AATCC Test Method (TM) 88B and seam puckering was evaluated (Fig. 3). Grade 5 represented the best level of seam appearance, and Grade 1 represented the worst.³⁶

Fig. 3

Photographic comparative ratings for single needle seams.35

Crease Appearance

UT and treated samples were washed and dried five times in a Wascator machine according to BS EN ISO 26330 (5A program) standard. All samples were conditioned for 24 h under standard conditions. The samples were evaluated for crease appearance by comparing with AATCC TM 88C standard replicas (Fig. 4). Grade 5 represented the best level of crease retention, and Grade 1 represented the worst.³⁷

Fig. 4

AATCC Crease Appearance Replicas.36

Seam Efficiency Performance

For the seam efficiency performance tests, 18 different fabrics were used. For NPF, seam appearance, and crease appearance evaluations, nine different fabrics were tested. All applications and tests were performed three times with each fabric sample and the mean values of the results were calculated. The test results were statistically evaluated with analysis of variance and multiple comparison tests. The fabric construction, chemical concentration, and stitch density parameters were evaluated independently.

Results and Discussion

Seam Efficiency

UT and fabrics treated with the crease resistance chemical at two concentrations (B1: 40 and B2: 80 g/L) were seamed at two different stitch densities (D1: 4.5 and D2: 3.5 stitches/cm) in both warp and weft directions. The seam strength and fabric tensile strength values are given in Table III.

As seen in Table III, tensile strength values of the fabrics in warp directions were higher than that those in weft directions; however, seam strength values were close to each other in all samples. Tensile strength values of the fabrics decreased in order of plain, twill, and satin fabrics in warp directions.

Table III

Seam Strength and Fabric Strength Values

Fabric Construction	Samples^aWarp		Seam Strength (N)		Fabric Strength (N)
Fabric Construction	Samples^aWarp		Weft	Warp	Weft
Plain	UT	D1	110.34	99.47	424.75	185.72
	UT	D2	95.00	88.40	424.75	185.72
	B1	D1	109.45	109.40	305.83	140.32
	B1	D2	90.89	106.53	305.83	140.32
	B2	D1	116.34	107.41	307.26	125.67
	B2	D2	86.17	99.56	307.26	125.67
Twill	UT	D1	102.9	110.61	426.88	206.75
	UT	D2	90.51	98.24	426.88	206.75
	B1	D1	103.26	108.75	267.46	131.32
	B1	D2	90.00	89.80	267.46	131.32
	B2	D1	109.47	88.41	205.74	94.14
	B2	D2	90.22	87.54	205.74	94.14
Satin	UT	D1	104.21	110.01	383.65	174.97
	UT	D2	91.72	105.14	383.65	174.97
	B1	D1	128.22	121.30	248.71	208.27
	B1	D2	85.54	92.45	248.71	208.27
	B2	D1	122.40	65.76	181.58	112.44
	B2	D2	82.08	84.68	181.58	112.44

UT = untreated, B1 = treated at 40 g/L, B2 = treated at 80 g/L, D1 = 4.5 stitches/cm, D2 = 3.5 stitches/cm

Seam efficiencies of the plain, twill, and satin fabrics are indicated in Fig. 5. Seam efficiency values in weft directions were higher than those in warp directions, since the seam efficiency was inversely proportional to the fabric strength for the thread used in this study, as given in Eq. 1. The crease resistance treatment and its increase in concentration affected seam efficiency values positively. Therefore, commonly-used crease resistant treatments of shirt fabrics resulted in easy sewing operations due to limited fiber movement. As the stitch density was reduced, the sewing threads held more warp/weft yarns together. Not only was the seam strength reduced, but the seam efficiency also decreased.

Fig. 5

Seam efficiency values of plain, twill, and satin fabrics.

To define the effects of the investigated parameters statistically, an analysis of variance test (ANOVA) was performed (Table IV). Fabric type, stitch density, crease resistance, and chemical concentration had statistically significant effects on the seam efficiency values of the fabrics in warp directions, whereas in the weft directions, only chemical concentration was found significant.

Table IV

ANOVA for Seam Efficiency

Parameters	Seam Efficiency in Warp Direction		Seam Efficiency in Weft Direction
Parameters	F	p	F	p
Fabric type	11.896	0.000^a	3.053	0.056
Crease resistance chemical concentration	41.684	0.000^a	21.803	0.000^a
Stitch density	37.135	0.000^a	2.022	0.161

Statistically significant according to α = 0.005

To compare all parameter levels, multiple comparison tests were performed. According to the result of the Levene homogeneity test, used to define whether the variances were equivalent or not, a Tamhane or SNK (Student Newman Keuls) test was performed.³⁸ According to Levene's test of equality of error variances, in both warp and weft directions, the variances were found to be equal (in warp direction p = 0.051, in weft direction p = 0.063). Therefore for the comparison of fabric types and concentrations, a SNK multiple comparison test was used. In the warp direction, the differences among fabric seam efficiencies were statistically significant, so three subsets were formed; whereas, in the weft direction, all the fabrics were included in the same subset, since the 95% significant intervals of each fabric results overlapped (Table V). As seen from the mean values, seam efficiency increased with the plain, twill, and satin fabrics, respectively, in the warp direction. The seam efficiency of the fabrics was improved at the higher chemical concentration.

Table V

Multiple Comparisons of Seam Efficiency Values

Fabric Type	Seam Efficiency in Warp Direction				Seam Efficiency in Weft Direction
	N	Subsets			N	Subsets
	N	1	2	3	N	1
Plain	18	30.18	—	—	18	70.63
Twill	18	—	36.30	—	18	73.41
Satin	18	—	—	42.30	18	63.34

Crease Resistance Chemical Concentration	Seam Efficiency in Warp Direction				Seam Efficiency in Weft Direction
	N	Subsets			N	Subsets
	N	1	2	3	N	1	2	3
UT^a	18	24.41	—	—	18	54.59	—	—
40 g/L	18	—	37.36	—	18	—	70.51	—
80 g/L	18	—	—	47.01	18	—	—	82.28

UT = untreated

NPF

The NPF values for the UT and treated fabrics in both directions were determined using an L&M Sewability Tester. The results are given in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

NPF values of plain, twill, and satin fabrics.

As observed in Fig. 4, NPF values for treated fabrics were less than that for UT fabrics. Both the movement and extensibility of fibers were limited inside the fabric due to the chemical treatment. This caused a decrease in NPF values during sewing. The best results were obtained with satin fabrics, which had a fatter, smoother surface and fewer intersections of warp and weft yarns when compared to the plain and twill fabrics. Moreover, while the needle penetrated inside the satin fabrics, the force, generated by the reaction of the fabric against the needle, decreased due to greater yarn skips.

To define the effects of fabric type and chemical concentration statistically, ANOVA was performed (Table VI). In both warp and weft directions, fabric type and chemical concentration had statistically significant effects on NPF values. To compare the levels of all parameters, an SNK test was carried out (Table VII). NPF values increased from satin to twill to plain, respectively, in both directions. The crease resistance treatment had an obvious influence on the sew-ability, however, the fabrics treated at two different chemical concentrations were in the same subset, since the difference between the mean values were not statistically important.

Table VI

ANOVA for NPF

Parameters	NPF in Warp Direction		NPF in Weft Direction
Parameters	F	p	F	p
Fabric type	139.856	0.000^a	51.885	0.000^a
Crease resistance chemical concentration	25.213	0.000^a	14.089	0.000^a

Statistically significant according to α = 0.005

Table VII

Multiple Comparisons of Seam Efficiency Values

Fabric Type	NPF in Warp Direction				NPF in Weft Direction
	N	Subsets			N	Subsets
	N	1	2	3	N	1	2	3
Satin	9	10.33	—	—	9	8.55	—	—
Twill	9	—	24.22	—	9	—	25.55	—
Plain	9	—	—	35.55	9	—	—	32.77

Crease Resistance Chemical Concentration	NPF in Warp Direction			NPF in Weft Direction
	N	Subsets		N	Subsets
	N	1	2	N	1	2
40 g/L	9	20.00	—	9	18.66	—
80 g/L	9	20.55	—	9	18.44	—
UT^a	9	—	29.55	9	—	29.77

UT = untreated

Seam Appearance

Seam appearance on the UT and treated fabrics (single seam, 4.5 stitches/cm) were evaluated and the grades indicated in Table VIII.

Table VIII

Seam Appearance

Sample^a	Grades
Sample^a	Plain	Twill	Satin
UT	4	4	3
B1	4	2.5	3
B2	4	3	3

UT = untreated, B1 = treated at 40 g/L, B2 = treated at 80 g/L

With regards to fabric type, the seam appearance of plain fabrics was better than that for the twill and satin fabrics. The denser and more stable structure of plain fabrics compared to twill and satin fabrics led to better aesthetic seam performance, resulting in less seam puckering. Crease resistance treatment did not affect the seam appearance of plain and satin fabrics, whereas for twill fabrics, it had a negative influence.

Crease Appearance

Crease appearance of UT and treated samples were evaluated with standard replicas and the results are given in Table IX.

Table IX

Crease Appearance

Sample^a	Grades
Sample^a	Plain	Twill	Satin
UT	1	1	2
B1	2	3	3
B2	3	4.5	4

UT = untreated, B1 = treated at 40 g/L, B2 = treated at 80 g/L

Crease resistance treatment improved the crease appearance after washing cycles were completed. The best results were obtained with twill fabrics, especially at higher chemical concentrations. In plain and satin fabrics, a 2-grade improvement was achieved. Since the crease-resistant chemicals were bonded to the fibers with crosslinking, the mobility of the fibers was restricted. When the treated fabric was subjected to mechanical force, the fiber resistance increased and fiber shearing was reduced, resulting in fewer creases.

Conclusion

The finishing process is the final step in textile production before garment manufacturing and therefore has an essential effect on sewing operations, especially on seam quality and garment sewability properties. The effect of crease resistant treatment on cotton shirt fabrics, with regards to sewability and seam properties, was studied. The effects of fabric construction (i.e., plain, twill, and satin), chemical treatment concentration, and stitch density were investigated.

In shirt production, side seams, arm side seams, and arm joined seams, which are long seam lengths, lie in warp directions. In this direction, easy sewing is important for manufacturers. The results show that the greatest seam efficiency was obtained with satin fabrics in the warp direction as well, however, in the weft direction, there was no statistically significant differences between the fabrics. Crease resistant treatment had a positive effect on seam efficiency. At the higher chemical concentration, better results were obtained. benefiting crease resistant-satin shirt production. As the stitch density decreased, seam efficiency values decreased as well.

Lower NPF values led to better sewability properties of the test fabrics. Crease resistant treatment led to easier sewing operations in all fabrics tested, noticeably in the satin test fabrics. However, use of the higher chemical treatment concentration had no significant effect, meaning that the lower concentration (40 g/L) was sufficient for good performance.

The best seam appearance was obtained with plain fabrics. Crease resistance treatment had no positive effect on the seam appearance of plain and satin fabrics, whereas in twill fabrics, the effect was negative.

After crease resistant treatment, a nearly 2-grades improvement in crease appearance was achieved for all fabric types tested. Increased chemical treatment concentration also improved crease resistance.

Shirt buying consumers prefer fabrics that require less ironing. According to the results of this study, use of crease resistant chemical treatments on shirts generally provides an easier sewing process. These shirts have lower NPF values, providing higher seam efficiency and better seam appearance, benefit-ting both consumers and apparel manufacturers.

References

Sand

; Brückmann

; Zyschka

Melliand International 2001, 7, 71–73.

Tomasino

Chemistry & Technology of Fabric Preparation & Finishing; Department of Textile Engineering: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1992; pp 80–81.

Allam

O. G.

Open Journal of Organic Polymer Materials 2011, 3, 8–19.

Walters

; Santillo

; Johnston

An Overview of Textiles Processing and Related Environmental Concerns; Technical Note 08, Greenpeace Research Laboratories: Exeter, UK, 2005; pp 25–26.

Technical Bulletin, Functional Finishes for Cotton Products; Cotton Incorporated: Cary, NC, USA, 2004; pp 1–3.

Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe 2010, 18 (3), 86–88.

Orhan

Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon 2013, 23 (2), 152–158.

Bajaj

Indian Journal of Fiber & Textile Research 2001, 26, 162–186.

Chen

J.C.

; Chen

C.C.

Textile Research Journal 2007, 77 (11), 843–852.

10.

Sunder

E.A.

; Nalankilli

Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research 2012, 37, 364–371.

11.

Kut

; Güneşoğlu

; Orhan

Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe 2010, 18 (6), 91–93.

12.

Lam

Y.L.

; Kan

C.W.

; Yuen

C.W.

Textile Research Journal 2010, 81 (14), 1419–1426.

13.

Bajaj

Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2002, 83, 631–659.

14.

Sülar

; Meşegül

; Kefsiz

; Seki

The Journal of The Textile Institute 2015, 106 (1), 19–30.

15.

Ebrahim

S. F.

Life Science Journal 2012, 9 (2), 831–836.

16.

Mandal

MSc Thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2008.

17.

Lojen

D.Z.

; Gersak

International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology 2001, 13 (3/4), 240–250.

18.

Hennig

JSN International 2002, 7, 22–29.

19.

Gersak

International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology 2004, 16 (1/2), 238–251.

20.

J.L.

; Ma

; George

; Wong

S.K.

; Zhang

Textile Research Journal 2006, 76 (9), 665–673.

21.

Haghighat

; Etrati

S.M.

; Najar

S.S.

Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 2014, 9 (2), 47–60.

22.

Gürarda

Textile Research Journal 2008, 78, 21–27.

23.

Dobilaite

; Juciene

International Journal of Clothing Science Technology 2006, 18 (5), 335–345.

24.

Grancarić

; Ujević

; Tarbuk

; Šajatović

In Proceedings, 7th Symposium Novel Technologies and Economic Development, Leskovac, Serbia, 2007, pp 238–247.

25.

Bharani

; Shiyamaladevi

P.S.S.

; Mahendra

G. R. V.

Research Journal of Engineering Sciences 2012, 1 (2), 41–50.

26.

Gürarda

; Meriç

Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe 2007, 15 (4), 73–76.

27.

Carvalho

; Silva

L.F.

; Monteiro

; Rocha

In Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Chengdu, China, 2008, pp 1–8.

28.

Migania

; Weissb

; Massafrac

M.R.

; Merloa

; Colleonia

; Rosacea

Applied Surface Science 2011, 257, 3904–3912

29.

Grancarić

A.M.

; Ujević

; Hussain

; Nazir

; Brlobašić

Š.

; Blaženka

In Proceedings, 46th International Federation of Knitting Technologists Congress IFTK 2012, Sinaia, Romania, 2012, pp 884–889.

30.

Yücel

Ö.

Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fak. Dergisi 2006, 21 (3), 533–540.

31.

Fan

; Lu

; Macalpine

J.M.K.

; Hui

C. L. P.

Textile Research Journal 1999, 69, 467–472.

32.

Dalbaşı

E.S.

; Güner

; Çoban

; İlleez

A.A.

; Gürkan

Ü. P.

AATCC Review 2013, 13 (5), 43–49.

33.

ASTM D1683-07, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 7.01, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.

34.

Godrich

L&M Sewability Tester Manual, 2010.

35.

BS EN ISO 6330:2012; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.

36.

AATCC TM 88B-1984, AATCC Technical Manual; Vol. 64, AATCC: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 1989, pp 125–126.

37.

AATCC TM 88C-1987, AATCC Technical Manual; Vol. 64, AATCC: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 1989, pp 127–128.

38.

The SPSS® Book, A Student Guide To The Statistical Package For The Social Sciences ®; iUniverse: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2001; pp 42–46.

Seam Properties and Sewability of Crease Resistant Shirt Fabrics

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Experimental

Materials

Testing

Seam Efficiency

NPF Determination

Seam Appearance

Crease Appearance

Seam Efficiency Performance

Results and Discussion

Seam Efficiency

NPF

Seam Appearance

Crease Appearance

Conclusion

References