CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology

CHARACTERISING THE STABILITY OFTHE SURFACE FINISH ON WOOL FABRICS

C. Le, N. Ly, D. Phillips, A. De Boos

Textile and Fibre Technology, Belmont, Victoria, Australia

Many operations in finishing contribute to what is termed the ‘surface finish’; a

feature of wool fabrics that is of considerable commercial significance to the
finisher, the tailor and the consumer. Such operations normally include high-speed
scouring and milling, cropping, pressing and decatising. For wool fabric, where
any ‘finish’ imposed in processing can be held by either temporary or permanent
set (or both), the stability of the finish imparted is also an important issue.

A technique is described in this paper, in which the ‘finish’ and the stability of
that ‘finish’ are characterised in terms of two properties: Effective Flat Set and
Stable Flat Set. Both properties are determined from the surface thickness and the
relaxed surface thickness of the fabric measured before and after any pressing or
decatising operation. The data is normally graphically represented and the
position of the fabric on the graph gives information on the type and stability of
the surface finish on the fabric.

The technique is particularly useful in evaluating the finish imparted by final

pressing and decatising operations. The technique can also be used to optimise the
operation of pressing and decatising machines.

‘Surface finish’ is a particularly important feature of the handle of wool fabrics and an
attribute that is prized by processors and consumers. For this reason, a variety of machines
and processes are used to control the surface finish of high quality wool fabrics. An
understanding of the actions of those finishing processes which affect surface finish, and the
use of test methods to characterise that finish, are of considerable commercial significance to
the finisher, the tailor and the consumer.

The finishing operations that contribute to the surface characteristics of wool fabrics, include:

• high-speed scouring and milling, which create a fibrous surface as well as

modifying other properties of the fabric, notably shear rigidity and specific volume
(1,2)
• cropping and singeing, which are designed to remove fibrous protrusions from the
body of the fabric and thereby create a smooth surface,
• raising and teaselling, which draw fibres to the surface of a fabric to create a pile,
• pressing and decatising, which are designed to flatten the fabric and create a
smooth surface.
Many techniques have been developed to characterise the differing aspects of the surface of
fabric. The behaviour in lateral compression has been studied using measurements of
thickness, compressibility, the work to compress and energy released in recovery (3).
Resiliency or recovery from this deformation can be described in terms of residual thickness,
loss of energy in the compress-release cycle (3) or as some measure of stress relaxation under
load. The measurement of surface thickness, as described in the SiroFAST system (4) for
fabric objective measurement, is an alternative measure of compressibility and is derived
from more fundamental studies of fabric lateral compression. These studies described two
components of the thickness of fabrics; the ‘core’ and ‘surface’ thickness (5). Other more
complex mathematical models have also been described (6).

Frictional measurements are also used to characterise the surface of fabrics. Several devices
have been proposed to measure the surface frictional properties of fabric. These instruments
measure friction against a plastic measuring head, against another surface of the same or a
different fabric or against a series of wires designed to look like a human fingerprint (3). Both
contact and non-contact techniques (eg laser) have also been developed to describe the
geometry of the fabric surface (7-9).

Any ‘finish’ imposed on wool fabric during dry finishing processes can be held by either
temporary or permanent set (or both). The stability of the surface characteristics imparted is
an important issue for both finishers and their customers. When the finish is held only by
temporary set, then the handle and flat appearance of the fabric, especially in jacket sleeves,
can be lost during the steaming operations in garment manufacture, dry cleaning or during
wear. An important feature of high temperature or pressure decatising is that the process
imparts permanent set to the wool fibres so that the finish is more stable to garment
manufacture, wetting, and the conditions found in normal consumer use.

There are a limited number of techniques that can be used to determine the permanence of the
finish on wool fabrics. The surface properties described above can be re-measured after a
relaxation process and any change measured. Alternatively, permanent set can be measured
directly using yarn snippets taken from creases deliberately held in the fabric during the
finishing process (10). Permanent set is normally determined from the angle formed by the
yarn snippets after their release in water at 70oC for 30mins.

This paper describes a technique for characterising the ‘finish’ on wool fabrics (including
blends) and the stability of that ‘finish’ in terms of two new properties: Effective Flat Set
(EFS) and Stable Flat Set (SFS). These properties are determined from the surface thickness
and the relaxed surface thickness of the fabric measured before and after any pressing or
decatising operation. Information on the repeatability of the data obtained using various
methods to relax the fabric specimens is also presented.

Experimental Methods

A wide range of fabrics and finishing conditions were used in this work. Details are given in
the tables and text of the paper. Permanent set was calculated from the mean angle of yarn
snippets (A) taken from a crease deliberately imposed in the fabric during the pressing or
setting process (10). The angles were measured after relaxation of the yarn snippets in water
at 70oC for 30min.

Permanent set (%) = (180 – A) x 100

180
2
All measurements of fabric thickness were conducted after conditioning the specimens at
65%rh, 20oC for in excess of 16hrs. Fabric thickness and surface thickness were measured
using the SiroFAST-1 thickness meter using the methods described in the SiroFAST manual.

Surface Thickness: ST = T2 – T100

where, T2 is the fabric thickness at 2 gf/cm2 (0.196 kPa)

and, T100 is the fabric thickness at 100 gf/cm2 (9.81 kPa)

Finish Stability Ratio (FSR - called ‘Finish Stability’ in the SiroFAST User’s manual) was
determined as follows;

FSR (%) = ST x 100

RST

where RST is the surface thickness of the fabric after it had been relaxed in water at 20oC for
30 min and air dried or in steam from an open trouser press while enclosed, but not sealed,
with a perspex lid.

Effective Flat Set(EFS) is a new parameter developed to characterise the surface finish on
fabrics. This parameter was determined from the relaxed surface thickness of the fabric before
a pressing or decatising operation and its surface thickness after that process. The pressed
fabrics were also then relaxed in water or steam and the thickness re-measured. The results
from the relaxed fabrics were used to calculate the Stable Flat Set(SFS) as follows:

EFS (%) = RSTo - STp x 100 SFS (%) = RSTo - RSTp x 100
RSTo RSTo

where RSTo is the relaxed surface thickness of the fabric before a pressing operation,
STp is the surface thickness after the pressing or decatising operation
and RSTp is the relaxed surface thickness of the pressed fabric

Temporary Flat Set may also be calculated (TFS = EFS-SFS). The measurements of Effective
and Stable Flat Set may also be plotted on a chart as shown in Figure 1. The lines of constant
Finish Stability Ratio are also shown on the diagram. Included on the diagram are the data
obtained using a number of commercial fabrics and as well as those obtained using a number
of commercial processes on a single fabric.

Results and Discussion

An example of the change in the surface thickness of wool fabrics during finishing is shown
in Figure 2. As has been previously published, there is a significant increase in thickness after
piece dyeing and a reduction in fabric thickness after pressing and decatising operations (11),
(12). The ‘finish’ imparted to a fabric in pressing and decatising operations depends on the
extent to which the fabric is compressed during the operation.

3
 100

C om m erc ial P roc es s es C om m erc ial F abric s

80 K D -hi
STABLE FLAT SET (%)

60 K D -low

C D (P )
40 P oorly piec e-dyed

O pen-blow

20
CD
CD
C alendering
FS R = 8 0 % FS R = 6 0 % FS R = 4 0 % FS R = 2 0 %
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
EFFE C TIVE FLAT SE T (% )

Figure 1 The use of Effective Flat Set(EFS) and Stable Flat Set(SFS) to characterise
Surface Finish (CD-Continuous decatiser, CD(P)-continuous decatiser
under pressure)

0.3
Surface Thickness (mm)

0.2
before relax
after relax
0.1

0
Crab Scour Dye KD
Process

Figure 2 Change in Surface Thickness during Finishing (wool plain weave185 g/m2)

4
Fabrics that are heavily pressed have low thickness (and surface thickness) and develop a
smooth firm handle. Depending on the conditions used, this handle can also be characterised
as stiff. Where the compression of the fabric is smaller, such as when rotary pressing is
avoided or when a ‘molleton’ wrapper is used in decatising, the fabric is normally less smooth
but more supple.

The change in surface thickness after a subsequent wet relaxation is also shown in Figure 2
and was dependent on the stability of the finish. This, in turn, depended on the conditions of
processing, particularly in pressing and decatising.

Measurement of Effective and Stable Flat Set. Although measurements of thickness (or
surface thickness) can be used to evaluate some aspects of the finish imposed on individual
fabrics (13), they are less useful when fabrics of widely differing thicknesses are compared.
Moreover thickness cannot be used to obtain a direct measure of the permanence of the finish
on a fabric. The use of EFS, which has a range of 0-100% for all fabrics, gives information on
the amount by which the thickness of the fabric has changed in the pressing operation and
allows the assessment of surface finish, independent of the initial thickness of the fabric. In
combination with SFS, the EFS measurement gives, on a scale common to all fabrics, a
measure of the finish imposed and the stability of that finish.

Included in Figure 1 are data from one fabric finished using a variety of machines as well as
data from a number of commercial fabrics, which were sampled prior to and after pressing
and decatising operations. Fabrics with a flat smooth surface (well pressed) are characterised
by a high EFS. If the finish is stable, the fabrics are plotted close to the diagonal line where
SFS = EFS.

The advantage of EFS/SFS measurements over the use of Finish Stability Ratio (FSR –
described in Expt section) can also be seen in Figure 1. The Finish Stability Ratio of fabric
treated in one of the conventional continuous decatisers (CD) is very similar to that of fabric
treated in the pressure decatiser under mild conditions (KD-low). However, the finishes
imparted by the alternative machines are considerably different.

Table I Effect of Relaxing Conditions on Effective and Stable Flat Set

Conditions used to relax fabric Setting conditions

Mild Severe
EFS SFS EFS SFS
Open steam (30 sec) 63 51 81 79
Enclosed steam (30 sec) 66 43 81 75
Wet out (20C, 30 min), air dry 61 43 82 75
Wet out (20C, 30 min), oven dry 67 46 84 76
• Average value taken from a range of fabrics
• All fabrics preconditioned in a standard atmosphere (20oC, 65%rh) for 24hrs
• All testing carried out using SiroFAST-1 thickness meter

The numerical value of both Effective and Stable Flat Set depended on the conditions used to
relax the fabric, ie to release temporary set (Table I). These conditions affected both RSTo and
RSTp. Unless the unset fabric was already fully relaxed, the more severe the relaxation
conditions that were used, the higher the apparent value of EFS. The value of SFS depended

5
on the relative change of RSTo and RSTp but, in most cases, the more severe the relaxation
conditions, the lower the SFS. SFS cannot exceed EFS.

The repeatability of these measurements was established in an inter-laboratory trial involving

11 companies in 8 countries. “Repeatability” is the value below which the absolute difference
between two single test results obtained on the same sample by the same operator in the same
laboratory may be expected to lie (95% probability). The repeatability of the tests (shown in
Table II) using steam as the relaxation medium was marginally better than that obtained when
water was used to relax the fabric.

Table II Repeatability of EFS/SFS Measurements

Relaxation method Effective FS Stable FS

Mean Repeat. Mean Repeat
Water (20oC, 30 min), air dry 71.8 4.3 56.7 7.3
Steam (30 sec) with cover 74.6 4.7 62 6.2
• Six wool fabrics used: Analysis using ISO5725

The use of Effective and Stable Flat Set to characterise the stability of surface finish on a
fabric offers considerable advantages over the use of yarn snippets taken from creases
deliberately imposed in the fabric to determine the permanent set imparted in pressing and
decatising processes. Using EFS and SFS :
• the measurement is simpler to carry out,
• there is no need to sew a crease into the fabric prior to the pressing-decatising process,
• there is no marking off of this crease on adjacent layers of the fabric or the wrapper.

There was some correlation between permanent set measured using a crease angle and SFS.
However, the correlation was not high (see Figure 3). Classically, permanent set is calculated
from dimensions of the fabric before the setting operation (B), during the setting operation (S)
and after the fabric has been relaxed (R):

Permanent set (%) = (B – R) x 100

(B – S)

In the measurement of permanent set using yarn snippets B=180 deg, S=0 deg and R is the
mean angle of the measured snippets after relaxation in water at 70oC. For a similar
calculation of permanent set based on surface thickness measurements, B=RSTo, R=RSTp and
S would be the surface thickness during the setting operation. The thickness of a fabric can
only be measured after the pressing deformation has been removed and is not necessarily the
same as that during the setting process. Consequently, it is not possible to determine
permanent set (using the formula above) from fabric thickness measurements.

On the other hand, thickness during the pressing operation is not required for the calculation
of SFS. Thus, while there is some similarity between the calculations for permanent set and
SFS with both measurements being affected by similar changes within the wool fibres, they
measure different aspects of fabric setting so that, a perfect correlation would not be expected.
Moreover the conditions normally used to relax the samples are also different.

6
 100
Line of best fit
r² = 0.75

80
PERMANENT SET (%)

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
STABLE FLAT SET (% )

Figure 3 Relationship between Stable Flat Set and Permanent Set measured using
Crease Angle

Alternative Measurements of Surface Thickness. The surface thickness of fabrics may

also be determined using other thickness gauges such as the KES-FB3 instrument. However,
to calculate EFS and SFS from thickness measurements at pressures other than those used by
the SiroFAST system, certain assumptions must be made. It has been observed (5) that, at
pressures at or below 100gf/cm2, there is a linear relationship between the measured thickness
and the reciprocal cube root of the applied pressure.

To a first approximation in which stress relaxation effects are ignored, surface thickness, as
defined in the experimental section of this paper, can be calculated from the thickness
measurements made at any two pressures below 100 gf/cm2.

ST = (T1 – T2) x 1.254

(F1 – F2)

where F1 and F2 are the reciprocal cube roots of the pressures (in kPa) applied to measure
thicknesses (T1 and T2).

For the KES-FB3 instruments the recommended loads of 0.5 gf/cm2 and 50 gf/cm2 can be
used, and the surface thickness is calculated as follows: ST = 0.585 (T1 – T2) where T1 and
T2 are the thicknesses corresponding to the two loads specified.
Application of EFS and SFS in Finishing. The measurements of EFS and SFS can be used
to evaluate the effectiveness of machinery and/or finishing routines. Figure 1 shows the effect
of a number of pressing operations on the EFS and SFS of a single fabric. Calendering was
characterised by a high value of EFS but, because this process imparted only temporary set,
there was a low value of SFS. On the other hand, pressure decatising (KD) produced a finish
7
with high EFS and high SFS. Ideally, where a very stable finish is required (eg washable
fabrics) the fabric should be close to the diagonal line where SFS = EFS

Figure 4 shows the effect of fabric pH on the properties of fabrics after decatising and on the
effectiveness of the decatising process. As previously reported(10), the pH of the fabric had
little effect on the pressing action of the decatiser (EFS), but the low SFS at low pH indicated
that the permanent setting action was inhibited. This effect was confirmed by the
measurements of permanent set. The results demonstrated the usefulness of the SFS
measurement in measuring the effect of fabric pH on the type and stability of the finish
imparted.

100
PERMANENT, STABLE AND EFFECTIVE SET (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8
p H O F A F AB R IC

P erm anent S et S ta b le F la t S e t E f fe c tive F la t S e t

Figure 4 Effect of Fabric pH on Measured Properties after Decatising

Measurements of EFS and SFS have also been found to be particularly useful in optimising
the operation of individual pressing and decatising machines. By comparing the properties of
test fabrics after processing under a range of conditions, the operation or finishing sequence
can be optimised to meet the requirements of individual customers. Furthermore, by assessing
the finishes applied by alternative machines to samples of the same fabric, the technique can
be used to compare these machines. Examples can be seen in Figure 1 where it is possible to
compare two conventional continuous decatising machines or assess their action against
conventional pressure decatising. This gives quantitative information that can assist the
finisher in making any decision to purchase new equipment.

8
Conclusions

A technique is described, in which the ‘finish’ and the stability of that ‘finish’ on wool-
containing fabrics are characterised in terms of two properties: Effective Flat Set and the
Stable Flat Set. These parameters are determined from the surface thickness and the relaxed
surface thickness of the fabric measured before and after any pressing or decatising operation.
The data are normally represented graphically and typical results taken from the large number
of commercial and experimental fabrics that have been evaluated are shown. The ‘position’ of
the fabric on the graph gives information on the type and stability of the surface finish on the
fabric.

The technique has been shown to be particularly useful in evaluating the finish imparted by
final pressing and decatising operations. It can also be used to compare or optimise the
operation of individual pressing and decatising machines.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Ms Yvonne Douglas and Ms
Irene Slota to this work. The financial support of the Australian Government (CSIRO) and
Australian Woolgrowers in cooperation with the Australian Wool Research and Promotion
Organisation is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1 Stewart B.F., Postle R. (1974) Textile Research Journal, 44, 192.

2 De Boos A.G. (1988) J. Soc. Dyers Colourists, 104, 339.
3 Kawabata S. (1980) in The Standardisation and Analysis of Hand Evaluation The
Textile Machinery Society of Japan, Osaka, Japan,
4 Ly N.G., Tester D.H., Buckenham P., Roczniok A.F., Adriaansen A.L., Scaysbrook
F., De Jong. S. (1991) Textile Research Journal, 61, 402.
5 De Jong S., Snaith J.W., Michie N.A. (1986) Textile Research Journal, 56, 759.
6 Hu J., Newtown A. (1997) J. Textile Institute, 88, 242.
7 Ramgulam R.B., Amirbayat J., Porat I. (1993) J. Textile Institute, 84, 99.
8 Xu B., Cuminato D.F., Keyes N.M. (1998) Textile Research Journal, 68, 900.
9 Blankenburg G., Phillipen H., (1973). in Proc. IWTO Conference, Vol. Report #2,,
Paris, France.
10 Kopke V. (1970) J. Textile Institute, 61, 361.
11 Le C.V., Tester D.H., Ly N.G., De Jong S. (1994) Textile Research Journal, 64, 61.
12 De Boos A.G., Harrigan F.J., White M.A. (1983).in Objective Evaluation of Apparel
Fabrics (Postle R., Kawabata S. and Niwa M., eds) 311, Textile Machinery Society of
Japan, Osaka, Japan,
13 Blankenburg G., Breuers M., (1975). in Proc. Int. Wool Textile Research Conference,
Vol. 5, 139, Aachen, Germany.