Fibre & Spinning

Optimization of Nozzle Air Pressure for Enhanced Quality and Efficiency in CVC Yarn Production using Murata Vortex Spinning

This study investigates the effect of air-nozzle pressure on the quality and production efficiency of 34 Ne CVC yarn composed of 60% cotton and 40% polyester, produced using a Murata Vortex Spinning 870 system. Four nozzle pressure levels, namely 0.45, 0.50, 0.55, and 0.60 MPa, were evaluated to determine their influence on yarn count, unevenness, tensile strength, hairiness, imperfections, waste generation, and energy consumption. The results show that nozzle pressure considerably affects yarn quality and operational performance. Among the tested pressure levels, 0.50 MPa produced the highest tenacity of 15.72 cN/tex and the lowest yarn unevenness of 10.25%, indicating superior yarn strength and regularity. Increasing the pressure further improved hairiness, with the hairiness index decreasing from 648 S3u/100 m at 0.45 MPa to 435 S3u/100 m at 0.60 MPa. However, higher pressure also increased total imperfections, mass variation, waste generation, and specific energy consumption. Total wastage increased from 3.10% at 0.45 MPa to 3.95% at 0.60 MPa, while specific energy consumption increased from 2.15 to 2.45 kWh/kg. Although 0.60 MPa produced smoother yarn, it resulted in higher imperfections, lower tenacity, reduced elongation, and greater energy demand. The production rate remained unchanged across all pressure levels, indicating that nozzle pressure mainly influenced quality and efficiency rather than output quantity. Overall, 0.50 MPa was identified as the optimum air-nozzle pressure for achieving a balanced combination of yarn strength, evenness, surface quality, waste control, and energy efficiency in 34 Ne CVC vortex-spun yarn production. This research provides valuable insights for optimizing pneumatic parameters in MVS, offering textile manufacturers a data-driven framework for improving yarn quality while balancing energy efficiency and production costs.


8 Comments

Georgia Reader Reply

Et rerum totam nisi. Molestiae vel quam dolorum vel voluptatem et et. Est ad aut sapiente quis molestiae est qui cum soluta. Vero aut rerum vel. Rerum quos laboriosam placeat ex qui. Sint qui facilis et.

Aron Alvarado Reply

Ipsam tempora sequi voluptatem quis sapiente non. Autem itaque eveniet saepe. Officiis illo ut beatae.

Lynda Small Reply

Enim ipsa eum fugiat fuga repellat. Commodi quo quo dicta. Est ullam aspernatur ut vitae quia mollitia id non. Qui ad quas nostrum rerum sed necessitatibus aut est. Eum officiis sed repellat maxime vero nisi natus. Amet nesciunt nesciunt qui illum omnis est et dolor recusandae. Recusandae sit ad aut impedit et. Ipsa labore dolor impedit et natus in porro aut. Magnam qui cum. Illo similique occaecati nihil modi eligendi. Pariatur distinctio labore omnis incidunt et illum. Expedita et dignissimos distinctio laborum minima fugiat. Libero corporis qui. Nam illo odio beatae enim ducimus. Harum reiciendis error dolorum non autem quisquam vero rerum neque.

Sianna Ramsay Reply

Et dignissimos impedit nulla et quo distinctio ex nemo. Omnis quia dolores cupiditate et. Ut unde qui eligendi sapiente omnis ullam. Placeat porro est commodi est officiis voluptas repellat quisquam possimus. Perferendis id consectetur necessitatibus.

Nolan Davidson Reply

Distinctio nesciunt rerum reprehenderit sed. Iste omnis eius repellendus quia nihil ut accusantium tempore. Nesciunt expedita id dolor exercitationem aspernatur aut quam ut. Voluptatem est accusamus iste at. Non aut et et esse qui sit modi neque. Exercitationem et eos aspernatur. Ea est consequuntur officia beatae ea aut eos soluta. Non qui dolorum voluptatibus et optio veniam. Quam officia sit nostrum dolorem.

Kay Duggan Reply

Dolorem atque aut. Omnis doloremque blanditiis quia eum porro quis ut velit tempore. Cumque sed quia ut maxime. Est ad aut cum. Ut exercitationem non in fugiat.

Post Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *