Chapter 3

The Major Industry Sectors:Fiber, Fabric, Finished Products,

and Machinery Manufacturing

Chapter 3

The Major Industry Sectors:Fiber, Fabric, Finished Products,

and Machinery Manufacturing

The previous chapter outlined broad themes affect-ing the industry complex that converts fiber into ap-parel and other end uses. This chapter will exam-ine the major segments of the industry in greaterdetail, addressing changes in both production tech-nology and patterns of business organization. Theindustry will be subdivided as follow’s:

1. Fiber Production: The process of manufac-turing fiber varies greatly, depending primar-ily on whether the fiber is made of natural orsynthetic materials. Synthetic fiber productionis closely allied with the capital- and research-intensive chemical industry; the standard in-dustrial classifications (SIC) for synthetic fibermanufacturing are part of the chemical and al-lied products series, and are not grouped withtextile mill products,

2. Textile Mill Products: Fabric production isstill primarily accomplished with weaving, thoughknitting and tufting are examples of nonwovenfabrics. The industry is being revolutionized bythe shift from shuttle to shuttleless looms, a

technology that has been developed primarilyby foreign producers.

3. Apparel (and other end uses): Manufac-tured finished products made from textiles aredominated by apparel. In recent years, how-ever, the largest growth in finished products hasbeen in home furnishings and industrial appli-cations. Textiles are being used for a varietyof industrial purposes, going far beyond thetraditional uses in automobiles. Textiles are nowused in high technology medicine, space ex-ploration, erosion control, and highway build-ing. The industries that make finished productsare diverse, and include many small firms.

4. Textile Machinery Manufacturing: In pre-vious generations, the textile machinery man-ufacturing sector was the “mover and shaker”behind productivity growth throughout the in-dustry. In recent years, however, few majortechnologies have been introduced by U.S.firms.

THE PRODUCTION OF FIBER

The fiber sector of the textile industry complexhas undergone substantial change in recent years.Synthetic fibers have supplanted natural fibers at arapid rate. Representing less than 10 percent of themarket in 1940, synthetics captured nearly 75 per-cent by the mid-1980s. Cotton, which made up over80 percent of U.S. mill fiber consumption in 1940,fell to just over 25 percent by the mid- 1980s.l Whilerayon and acetate represented the only two man-made fibers 50 years ago, today there are thousandsof individual products in 10 major classes that can

be processed into an almost infinite variety of fab-ric constructs and styles. z

Besides the obvious adjustments in the fabric andapparel industries, the entire structure of the fiberindustry has been altered. As synthetics have cometo dominate the market, so too have the large mul-tinational chemical companies that are among themajor producers of synthetic fiber. With new proc-esses has come a new level of technology and capi-tal intensity as well.

‘American Textile ~fanufactu rers Institute, Textile Highlights, Sep-tember 1986, p 1

‘Richard E. Emmert, “The Long V~ew, presented at the 50th An-nual Research and Technology Conference, Textile Research Institute,Washington DC, Apr. 3, 1980, p, 1

37

38 —

Background

The fiber industry is composed of the agriculturalsector, which supports the production of natural fi-bers—primarily cotton, but also wool, silk, linen, andjute—and the chemical industry sector, which pro-duces manmade fibers. Most fibers are highly sub-stitutable; not only do manmade fibers competeamong each other, but they can substitute for natu-ral fibers.

In 1980, approximately 17 percent of all fibersproduced in the world were consumed in the UnitedStates; this share fell from close to 20 percent in 1960.Experts believe that the share will continue to fall,reaching 16 percent by 1990. The two major factorsresponsible for the decline are a marked slow-downin U.S. population growth, along with the substan-tial industrial progress demonstrated by developingcountries.

On the other hand, per-capita fiber consumptionis much higher in the United States than in othercountries of the world, with a level of 58 pounds perperson versus an average world consumption in1983 of 15.5 pounds per person. But U.S. consump-tion may have peaked, falling to under 56 poundsper person by 1985;3 at the same time, world con-sumption grew sharply. World growth in fiber con-sumption is a critical factor for U.S. firms to consideras they develop marketing strategies. Of the totalgrowth in world fiber consumption, two-thirds is dueto increases in per-capita consumption and one-thirdfrom population increase.

Cotton represented a much higher market shareof 1983 world fiber production, 48 percent, than of1983 U.S. fiber production, 25 percent. And yet worldproduction of manmade fibers has shown a growthparallel to U.S. production since the 1940s, and isonly today growing faster than U.S. production. TheUnited States is currently the leading world producerof manmade fibers. China is the largest producer ofcotton, with the United States being second. Aus-tralia is the world’s leading wool producer; wool pro-duction in the United States is insignificant in theworld market, at 1.5 percent of total production.

Natural Fibers

The major market for natural fibers in the UnitedStates is for cotton. It is by far the dominant sectoramong natural fibers, with over 90 percent of natu-ral fiber consumption and 25 percent of the overallfiber market. Wool and silk are negligible in theiroverall importance.

Cotton.—Besides the dominant trends of non-growth in production and a declining share of thefiber market, the market for cotton is unstable fromyear to year. Major production swings occur due todifferences in weather and growing conditions, ex-port demand for fibers, and U.S. economic condi-tions. Commodity boards of trade provide a marketfor risk diversification by farmers and cotton pur-chasers who are unsure of future cotton supply anddemand. But weather and changing trade have stillkept cotton prices unstable, causing variations inprice of up to 50 percent from one growing seasonto another. For example, large crop yields in the 1979and 1981 seasons, combined with a slowing of over-seas demand for cotton fiber, led to sharply reducedcotton prices in 1982. And U.S. plantings of cottonfor harvest in the 1983-84 season were down almost35 percent, in response to low prices and new gov-ernment acreage management policies.4 Nonethe-less, the United States remains a major world ex-porter of cotton; although exports fell off substantiallyin 1985-86, most forecasts predict a significant re-covery for this marketing year. Japan, South Korea,and other Pacific Rim nations are the major pur-chasers of U.S. cotton, accounting for approximately60 percent of U.S. exports.

Within the United States, nearly all of the cottonfiber grown and produced comes from the south andwest. The top five cotton producing States are re-sponsible for 75 percent of U.S. cotton production.Texas leads with 30 percent of the U.S. total, followedby California with 28 percent, Arizona with 13 per-cent, Mississippi with 10 percent, and Louisiana with4 percent. Over 99 percent of U.S. cotton is the Up-land variety; the remaining share is American Pima.5

3Te.wde Organon, Textile Economics Bureau, vol. 57, No. 5, May 1986.

*’iCotton Monthly Re\’lew of the World Situation, ” ]nternatlonal Cot-ton Advisor~ Committee, vol. 36, No, 11, June 1983.

5Textile Organon, vol. 52, No. 1, January 1981, pp. 1-16.

39

Wool.-Wool production amounts to only 1.5 per-cent of U.S. mill fiber consumption, most of whichis imported. While consumption has been rising inrecent years, a growing share of that consumptionwas made up of imports.

Synthetic Fibers

Without question, the major development in thefiber industry is the growth of the synthetic fiberssector. The first half of the 20th century was markedby the introduction of a large number of syntheticfibers, and the second half of the century by theirrapid adoption by consumers. Rayon was the firstmajor synthetic to be produced, starting in 1910. Ace-tate production began in the 1920s, followed by theproduction of synthetic nylon and vinyon, as wellas rubber and glass, in the 1930s. During the 1940s,production of saran, metallic fibers, modacrylic, andolefin began. During the 1950s, acrylic, polyester,triacetate, and spandex came onto the market. In1961, production of aramid fibers became commer-cial; by the mid-1970s, polyester had clearly emergedas the major synthetic fiber in the United States. Bythe end of the 1970s, polyester led all fibers—includ-ing cotton.6

In the apparel sector, manmade fibers account fornearly 60 percent of content. Blouses, ski wear, andhosiery are all examples of products that tend to haveat least 60 percent synthetic content. For home fur-nishings, manmade fibers account for nearly 80 per-cent of content. For industrial textile products, thesynthetic share is nearly 90 percent. Production ofmanmade fibers contributes 30 percent of its out-put to apparel, 34 percent to home furnishings, and36 percent to industrial textile uses.

Growth of manmade fiber production and con-sumption in the mid-1980s is focused on the ThirdWorld. The number of manmade fiber-producingplants in the world is increasing, approaching 800by 1984. The most recent increases have occurredprimarily in India, with polyester plants up to 17 in1984 from 11 in 1983 and nylon plants up to 10 from8; Pakistan, with polyester plants up to 9 from 5;and Indonesia, with nylon plants up by 4. New fiber-producing facilities that have opened in developedcountries since the late 1970s have been more than

6Manmade Fiber Fact Book, Manmade Fiber Producers’ Association,

Inc , 1980

offset by closings of facilities in these countries. Mostfiber industry analysts expect little change in thesetrends in the future.

The U.S. synthetic fiber industry consists of ap-proximately one dozen large multinational corpo-rations, which are horizontally integrated. Du Pent,Celanese, 7 Monsanto, and Allied are entirely Ameri-can-owned companies, and rank among the 10 largestworld firms. The top 10 producers in the UnitedStates account for almost 90 percent of U.S. produc-tion. Du Pent, the largest, has far more fiber salesvalue than its closest competitor, Celanese. Du Pentand Celanese are followed by Allied, Monsanto, East-man, Akzona, Badische, Hercules, and Avtex. Of thetop five fiber companies in 1982, Celanese had thehighest fiber sales as a percent of all corporate sales,at nearly 40 percent. If measuring size by corporatesales rather than fiber sales alone, Du Pent remainsthe leader, followed by Eastman and Monsanto.s

These companies compete in the markets for six dis-tinct fibers: polyester, nylon, acrylic, polyethylene,polypropylene, and acetate. Because production ismainly performed by the chemical industry—withthe exception of Celanese—yarn production is notalways counted in the textile industry.

There are two main types of synthetic fibers: cel-lulosic, which are dominated by rayon and acetate,and noncellulosic, which are dominated by nylon,acrylic, and polyester. Cellulosic fibers are increas-ingly giving up their market share to noncellulosicfibers.

Cellulosic Fibers. -In 1983, cellulosics repre-sented 7.7 percent of the total quantity of shipmentsin the manmade fiber market, measured in pounds,and 11.6 percent of the value. These shares markeda major decline from the levels of the early 1970s.In, 1972, for example, the volume share of cellulosicfibers in the manmade fiber arena stood at 20.6 per-cent; the actual quantity of cellulosics shipped be-tween 1972 and 1983 fell from nearly 1.4 billionpounds to less than 630 million. The real value ofshipments during the period also declined, as the112-percent increase in the current dollar value ofshipments was surpassed by an inflation rate of 138

7Celanese has recentl} merged w’lth Hoechst, which ma}’ ha~e [-hangt+some of these comparisons

‘Fa;rchl)d Texti/e and Appdrel FInaIJ(I,i/ L)/rec(or, 9th and 1 ottl tJd-

tions, 1982 and 1983

40

percent over the same time period.9 These trendshave continued since that time, although prelimi-nary estimates from the U.S. Department of Com-merce suggest a rebound in 1986 shipments.10

The major cellulosic fiber is rayon, which accountsfor approximately 60 percent of cellulosic shipments.Rayon, a regenerated cellulose product, was the firstmanmade fiber patented. It was discovered in 1855by Audemars, a Swiss chemist. The cellulose sourcefor his product was the fibrous inner layer of the mul-berry tree. Until 1924, rayon was called artificial silk.The first commercial production of this material wasby the Frenchman Chardonnet, who became knownas the father of the rayon industry. The first U.S. plantproducing rayon was the American Viscose Corp.,which opened in 1910. There were four rayon-pro-ducing plants as of 1983, down from 26 in 1950.11

The other large category of cellulosic fibers is ace-tate and acetate derivatives. Acetate, also a regener-ated cellulose, was first commercially produced byCelanese in 1924. Production was halted temporar-ily during the Depression. As of 1983, there werefive acetate-producing plants operating in the UnitedStates.

The major end uses of cellulosic filament yarn arefor products of the apparel industry, though somehome furnishing and industrial uses are also impor-tant. Six product categories using cellulosic yarn ac-count for about 80 percent of consumption in theUnited States. These six categories are, in descend-ing order of magnitude:

1. fabrics for lining apparel;2. robes and loungewear;3. drapes and upholstery;4. topweight fabrics;5. tires; and6. underwear, nightwear, and bras.

All of the categories show a decrease in consump-tion of this yarn type in recent years, as other fiberscontinue to make inroads.

“’Manmade Fibers, ” “Apparel, ” U.S lndu.striid outlook, 1984, p p40-5 to 40-8, 41-1 to 41-5,

10[,r.$ lrldustrld] outlook, 1987, Op. ~it., p. 4 1‘4

I l,~fa~made Fiber Fact Book, Op cit.‘~lbid.I ~Te,Y~;]e organOn, VOI 54, NO, 9, September/October 1983

The major end uses of cellulosic staple fibers aredominated by products of the industrial sector, withover 30 percent of the fibers used by the medical,surgical, and sanitary category for disposable items.The top six major uses of cellulosic staple fibers ac-count for about 82 percent of total U.S. consump-tion. These six categories are, in descending orderof magnitude:

123456

medical, surgical, and sanitary;drapery and upholstery;topweight fabrics;miscellaneous industrial-type products;bottomweight fabrics; andsheets and other bedding.14

From 1976 to 1982, actual consumption of allfibers in these six categories declined by about 25percent. The major declines in use were 57 and 39percent, in the drapery and upholstery and the med-ical, surgical, and sanitary categories, respectively—in contrast to an increase of 18.8 percent for the otherfive categories as a group.

Noncellulosic Fibers.— Noncellulosic fibers rep-resent the growth segment of the fiber industry. Thissegment is dominated by nylon, acrylic, and poly-ester. While noncellulosics are manufactured froma variety of products, petroleum is the predominantraw material in this sector. Between 1972 and 1983,the quantity of noncellulosic fibers shipped grew by40.6 percent, with the value of shipments exceed-ing the inflation rate.15 Noncellulosics also representan area of significantly growing exports, with thevalue of shipments more than tripling over the pe-riod—from less than $200 million in 1972 to nearly$775 million in 1983.

Nylon 6,6, invented by Carothers in 1931, was firstproduced commercially by Du Pent in 1939. A ny-lon salt, produced through chemical processes,would “polymerize’ ’-the small molecules werelinked up to form long, chainlike molecules. Thisthick, syrupy material would then be hardened bya shower of water, chopped into flakes, melted again,and forced through the fine holes of a spinneret toform filaments of yarn. Nylon was introduced as a“miracle” fiber, which performed well in such di-verse products as sewing thread, parachute fabric,

~~lbid.IsIbid,, VOI. 55, No, 3, March/April 1984, p. 35.

41

and women’s hosiery. Its use became widespreadin military applications during World War 11, as areplacement for other materials used in tires, tents,ropes, and other defense supplies. At the conclusionof the war, 80 percent of the fiber consumed in theUnited States was still cotton, with manmade fibers,silk, and wool accounting for the remaining 20 per-cent. In the early 1950s, nylon became popular incarpeting and automotive upholstery, further increas-ing the manmade market share of fibers.

Because nylon is the major fiber used in carpet-ing and the demand for carpeting is largely deter-mined by construction, the severe and cyclical cur-tailments in the construction industry were the chiefreason for a decline of 11.1 percent from 1979through 1983; by 1985, however, rug shipments hadnearly recovered to their 1979 level. Noncellulosicfibers introduced in the late 1940s included strongmetallic fibers by Dow Badische, modacrylic-aflame-resistant variation of acrylic-by Union Car-bide, and olefin—a light fiber used for such itemsas boat ropes, since it floats in water—by Hercules.In recent years shipments of olefins have increaseddramatically–by 80 percent between 1975 and 1983.Acrylic was introduced in 1950 by Du Pent as a man-made substitute for wool. A few years later the firstwash-and-wear product was marketed, with fibercomposition of 60 percent acrylic and 40 percentcotton.

Polyester, which is a petroleum-based fiber, wasfirst produced in the United States by Du Pent, andin the rest of the world by Imperial Chemical Indus-tries, in 1983. It dominates the manmade fiber mar-ket and accounts for over 40 percent of the marketshare, and over 28 percent of the market for all nat-ural and manmade fibers. Despite its continued dom-inance in the field, polyester has experienced recentdrops in total shipments–7.9 percent from 1979 to1983. During the rest of the 1950s, research effortsinto manmade fiber production turned from the de-velopment of new textiles to the modification, diver-sification, and commercialization of existing prod-ucts. In the 1960s, spandex was introduced to theUnited States as a lightweight, highly extensible fi-ber. This was followed by the introduction of aramid,a lighter fiber but one that is tougher than steel.

In 1982, the top 12 uses of noncellulosic filamentyarn accounted for over 85 percent of noncellulosicyarn sold in the United States. The 12 major end-

use categories, representing a mix of apparel, homefurnishings, and industrial uses were, in descend-ing order of magnitude:

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.

carpets and rugs;electrical and reinforced plastics;bottomweight fabrics;tires;miscellaneous industrial-type products;rope, cordage, and fishline;topweight fabrics;underwear, nightwear, and bras;retail piece goods;drapery and upholstery;

11. industrial narrow fabrics; and12. sheer hosiery.l6

The single category of carpets and rugs consumedover 20 percent of the noncellulosic yarns sold inthe United States, with industrial uses dominatingthe remaining large users. From 1976 to 1982, thelargest declines were found in the apparel catego-ries, as imports and a switch to natural fibers movedbottomweight, topweight, and retail piece goodsfabrics away from the noncellulosic fibers.

The category of carpets and rugs dominates thenoncellulosic staple fiber uses, consuming over 25percent of these fibers. There are 12 major catego-ries of noncellulosic staple end uses. They are, indescending order of magnitude:

1. carpets and rugs;2. bottomweight fabrics;3. topweight fabrics;4. fiberfill, stuffing, and flock;5. sheets and other bedding;6. retail piece goods;7. drapery and upholstery;8. craft and handwork yarn;9. sweaters and related accessories;

10. medical, surgical, and sanitary;11. anklets and socks; and12. unallocated industrial nonwovens.17

The apparel categories of bottomweight and top-weight fabrics, along with sheets and retail piecegoods, consume large quantities of noncellulosic sta-ple fibers, primarily as a polyester staple in the pro-duction of blended fabrics. The top 12 end uses of

lqb]d , 1,01. 54, No 9, September/October 1983.ITlbld

42

noncellulosic staple fiber account for over 80 per-cent of the fibers consumed in the United States, withthe largest single increase coming from medical, sur-gical, and sanitary use.

Technological Innovations

Innovations are occurring throughout the specificindustry segments involved in yarn formation. Ma-chines using new technology are capable of provid-ing a four- to five-fold increase in productivity withrespect to open-end spinning, and about a twentyfoldincrease with respect to ring spinning. In additionto innovations already being adopted, this sectionwill review innovations that are pending or neededin fiber production.

Innovations in Specific Areas ofYam Formation

Texturing. -Innovations in texturing have stim-ulated growth in the knitting sector. The ability tohave heat set a crimp in synthetic fiber provides ad-ditional and desirable bulk to the fiber.

Opening and Picking of Cotton. -Traditionally,a bale of cotton had to be separated manually intolayers and fed into hoppers, where the cotton wastumbled to break it into small tufts and to mix thecotton from various bales. The material was thentransported, either by belt conveyor or through pneu-matic ductwork, to pre-openers or cleaners, in or-der to reduce the tuft size and remove some of thenor-dint material. If the cotton was to be blended withother materials, such as synthetic fibers, additionalhoppers similar to opening hoppers were used. Wastefrom the hoppers was manually removed. The nextstep was the production of a partially cleaned, flat,even sheet, in a roll, which was then hand-fed tothe next stage, carding.

New technology in opening, cleaning, and pick-ing has led to substantial automation of the proc-ess, increased productivity, improved product qual-ity, and an enhanced work environment. Automaticbale plucking systems have been known to the in-dustry since the mid-1960s, but their incorporationinto the production process has just recently gainedmomentum. The carousels and automatic feeders,which pick off of several bales at once, have the fol-lowing advantages:

● faster picking,● a more intimate blend of cloth, since carousels

can pick off of several bales of cotton at once,● bypassing the manual picker, which eliminates

the related back-breaking work, and● eliminating some of the dustiest work of the pro-

duction process.

Carding Cotton.—The purpose of carding is tofurther separate the fibers from the bits of leaf, trash,and short fibers, to straighten or parallel the cottonfibers, and to forma soft, untwisted, ropelike mate-rial called sliver. Carding is accomplished by bring-ing fibers over a feed plate to a feed roll and a cylin-der covered with wire teeth, called the licker-in. Thelicker-in rotates rapidly over the lap of cotton heldby the feed roll and gradually opens the tufts of cot-ton in the lap. As the tufts are opened, dirt and trashfall out. As cotton is processed by the card, fiberscollect between the wires of fillet card clothing—consisting of fabric and wire—and must be strippedaway traditionally by hand. Carding has tradition-ally been the source of greatest cotton dust exposurefor workers, especially for strippers.

New carding technologies, especially chute-feedingsystems, have been available since the 1960s, buttheir adoption in the textile industry accelerated onlyrecently. The use of chute-fed cards encloses theprocess and removes the necessity for manual card-ing and for most manual cleaning. At least 11 pro-duction advantages result from the use of new card-ing technology:

1. elimination of doffing and racking;2. elimination of the manual transport of mate-

rials to the card room, and of hanging the ma-terial onto cards and later into feed rolls;

3. improvement in yarn, since the automaticprocess on feed rolls reduces heavy places inthe yarn;

4. more than doubling of speeds, in some casesby using metallic-clothed cards instead of flex-ible cards;

5. improvement in card settings due to roller

6

bearings on cylinder supports, which allow foradjustments leading to more even clothingwith closer tolerances;better integration of fibers, resulting in a moreuniform and stronger piece of yarn with im-proved sliver CV and weight variation;

43

Photo credit: Charles Gardner. School of Textiles North Carolina State University

Pictured on left, a high-speed chute-fed carding device; on right, its technological predecessor, the lap-fed card.

7. improved spinning performance, due to sliverimprovements, meaning fewer ends down;

8. reduced requirements for floor space;9. reduced labor turnover by eliminating undesir-

able lap-laying tasks; and10. reduced dust exposure due to enclosure of

cards, and because hand cleaning of cards tra-ditionally done twice a day can be reduced toonce a week.

Spinning.—Spinning is the process by which fi-bers become yarn. The purpose of the spinning proc-ess is to stretch the sliver to its final diameter, andto insert the desired amount of twist. Thus, the yarnacquires its necessary strength. The traditional spin-ning method is called “ring spinning. ” In ring spin-ning, bobbins are hung in a creel and ends are in-dividually fed into drafting rolls. The twist is impartedby passing the yarn through a traveler on a ringwhile it is being wound onto bobbins placed on arevolving spindle. Fine trash and short fibers areoften released into the air during this process.

Spinning has traditionally been labor-intensive,accounting for anywhere between 50 and 70 per-cent of all yarn manufacturing labor costs. More spe-cifically, costs of spinners and doffers would amountto 50 to 80 percent of spinning labor costs, with highlabor costs focused on cleaning, piecing, doffing,maintenance, and transportation.18

Thn S Ham I]\r (ed ), The Arr]er/c~/? COttOn Handbcmk, 3d ed (NewYork lntersclence Publishers, 1965), p. 374.

There has always been a strong impetus to try toreduce labor costs with the installation of more mod-ern equipment—especially equipment that reducesends down and repairs broken threads automatically.By the mid-1960s, a new technology called open-end spinning became commercially available. Inopen-end spinning, the open-end frame is suppliedwith sliver from a draw frame, eliminating the needfor a roving frame; passes sliver through a draftingsystem into a centrifugal rotor; and creates a woundpackage, eliminating the need for a subsequent wind-ing operation. When open-end spinning is installedto operate from sliver through winding, the num-ber of conventional processes is reduced, therebysignificantly contributing to an automated system.

Other advantages of open-end spinning, whenapplicable, include:

●

●

●

●

increasing the production rate by four to fivetimes that of the ring spindle;19

the ability to process a far lower grade of cot-ton than ring spinning;reducing cotton dust exposure by enclosing theprocess and being more adaptable, which al-leviates the need for local exhaust ventilation;andreducing the noise level in spinning rooms.

l~cerltaur Associates, lnc , for OSHA, “Technical and Economic Anal-ys]s of Regulating Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust, ” vol. I, Janu-aq 1983, p, 3-48

44

Photo credit American Textile Manufactures Institute

Open-end spinning was introduced in the mid-1960s.It represented an improvement over ring spinning in

terms of yarn quality, productivity, and safety.

There have also been innovations in spinning at-tachments. Automatic doffing (unloading) machinesreduce unit requirements for doffer operators. Auto-matic devices for piecing (tying) broken yarn reduceunit requirements for spinners.

Winding.—Loading, or automatic creeling of ma-chines with automatic tying-in of yarn ends, reducesunit requirements for operators, Integration of fill-ing winding with weaving eliminates separate proc-esses and associated handling.

Pending Innovations in Yarn Formation

In general, the ideal yarn manufacturing processwould take fiber from a bale, convert it to a sliver,and move it to a spinning process—such as open-

end spinning—with automatic transfer of the yarnoutput either to a warper or a loom. Emphasis wouldalso be placed on computer monitoring of both qual-ity and production rate, with the quality monitor-ing being tied to appropriate feedback and controlmechanisms. The monitoring technology is alreadyavailable for drawing, and technology for monitor-ing either open-end yarn or other kinds of yarn ison the horizon.

Another area of considerable importance with re-spect to monitoring is the ability to determine theneed for machine maintenance by continuous mon-itoring of yarn production. This requires that all endsbe monitored continuously, and that faulty positionsbe identified immediately. The repair, when it isneeded, could be made automatically, or that endcould be stopped and machine maintenance ordered.A useful system would also monitor and record long-term gradual deterioration, as opposed to short-termproblems. The goal of the system would be to pre-vent the manufacture of defective material.

In general, it is important to measure and controlquality at every step of the yarn formation process.Adequate computer technology is already available;the real problem seems to be the development ofappropriate sensing elements.

There are a number of opportunities in the presentyarn process for automated materials handling, in-cluding the use of robots. This is particularly truefor systems that have reduced the number of proc-ess steps, such as open-end spinning, but it couldalso be used with ring-spinning technology, in whichthe automation of roving frames is a current need.Connecting winders to large spinning frames is apotential development, but winders need to be de-signed to accommodate some flexibility of yarncount. This could perhaps be accomplished by de-signing winders with space for extra positions. Sucha linking technique would allow less handling of yarnpackages—a distinct advantage, since it would alsoallow better package identification and control.

Although techniques for the continuous monitor-ing of various stages of yarn processes are available,knowing where to direct that information or whatcorrective actions to take is still largely unknown.Since it is necessary to be able to identify abnormalparts of the process, the real issue is to determinewhere in a process faults occur, what their interre-

45

lations with other process steps will be, and whatfeedback loops are needed to exercise control.

There is potential for the automatic analysis of in-coming bales of fiber, particularly if robots or otherautomatic devices that could direct the bale to theappropriate storage area could be involved in theanalysis. Automated bale storage is a labor-savingtechnology that leads to less handling, as well as pre-senting the opportunity of coding each bale for fu-ture identification. This is important because of thedesirability of tracking the identity of the materialin each textile process, from the initial bale throughthe final step. This, in turn, allows one to know theaccurate history of all material and all processes, andallows for solutions of quality control problems basedon more complete information.

Development of New Fasciated Yarn Systems.20

—Du Pent developed a fasciated yarn system inwhich there is never an open end, and there is acontinuous strand from the core drafting systemthrough the twister to the wind-up device. In the DuPent system, fibers on the outside of the yarn havea different helical pitch to the fibers in the core ofthe yarn. An extreme case of this type of yarn struc-ture occurs when the core fibers have no twist andthe sheath is wrapped helically around the core,causing the whole structure to cohere. Developingfrom the Du Pent system, it becomes possible to con-template laying fibers onto false-twisted yarn, witha fiber laid parallel to the axis of the yarn and an-chored there, becoming a wrapper after it passes outof the false-twist zone. A stream of fibers landing ona false-twisted core creates a fasciated yarn havinga twisted sheath, but a virtually twistless core. Al-ternatively, fibers can be raised from the surface ofthe yarn and then laid over the false-twisted coreto produce similar effects. Fasciated yarn systemstend to prevent inter-fiber slippage.

Alternatives to Rotor-Type Open-End Spin-ning.-There has been considerable interest in alter-natives to the rotor-type open-end spinning system.Pavek’s rotating needle basket was used to capturefibers and consolidate them at the open end of a

1“TWCJ mdjor Ideas dre In\ol\ed III making fdsc]ated or Wrapped l)\][l-

dle ~rarns 1 ) the eff]cti[} of using a wrapping filament or fiber to createIItwr (ohesIon” In ~n untw’lsted staple fiber I)undle, and 2) the fact thatwhen a f]twr (jr part of one IS Iald on a false-tw]~ted hund]e, the laid-onfikr t)ecomw d w’rapper w’hen the faise-t~$’ist IS remok”ed

forming yarn. Goetzfried and others were interestedin air-vortex systems, in which a helical or circularyarn end rotated inside a stationary tube and theyarn motion was caused by an air vortex. Fibers wereinjected into the tube and laid on the “open end. ”The major difference between these systems and theones known today is the way in which the arrivingfibers are brought into contact with the departingyarn. The common feature is that all these cases havean open end to the forming yarn.

Development of Mixed Systems.—It is possiblefor arriving fibers to be false-twisted into a core ontowhich a sheath is deposited. If the core is discon-tinuous with the core fiber supply, then the systemis an open-end system. It can also be a fasciated sys-tem, by virtue of the sheath fibers which are laidonto false-twisted ones,

Emergence of New Twisting Systems.—Whereasconventional machines use a relatively massive rotat-ing component to put in “twist, ” such as a ring spin-dle, a flyer, or a rotor, a new systems feature is forthe twisting medium to act directly on the surfaceof the yarn. Where metal surfaces are used, it is pos-sible to create a pair of counter-surfaces acting ona yarn. The frictional forces acting on the yarn sur-face create a torque which generates twist. Alterna-tively, fluid friction can be used. The most commonof these latter types is an air-vortex, which can read-ily be made to rotate at extremely high speeds; thefluid friction creates the torque in the yarn.

Creation of New Yarn Structures.—Earlier ex-perience with open-end yarns has shown that thedisorderly sheath structure, with its tight wrapperfibers, causes a harsh hand and weakness, whichhave been major causes restraining growth of theopen-end spinning system. These problems are be-ing solved in some new machines through differ-ences in the sheath fiber orientation.

Needed Innovations in Yarn Formation

While many innovations are being brought to yarnformation, more are envisioned. At least eight gen-eral technological developments are needed in theprocess of yarn formation, according to a study bythe American Textile Machinery Association (ATMA):

1. higher speeds, better quality, universal systemsin spinning;

2. uniformity monitoring in carding;

46

3. overall process consolidation;4. automation, in process and quality control;5. fewer steps in manufacturing;6. sizing in the spinning and winding processes;7. on-line analysis of the trash content of cotton;

and8. emphasis on friction spinning, with ring spin-

ning becoming obsolete.21

The advent of the Murata air-jet spinning systemand the Fehrer and Platt friction spinning systemshave heightened interest in new forms of manufac-turing staple yarns. Fehrer, Schlafhorst, and Sues-sen are working on a different friction spinning sys-tem, and Toyoda, Howa and others are working ondifferent air-jet systems. It is believed that higher de-livery speeds will become common, and that therewill be different count ranges for each of the differ-ent systems. Air-jet and friction spinning will likelyfill a gap left by rotor-type, open-end spinning.

Industrial Structure

During 1985, domestic fiber output fell signifi-cantly. Even though cotton fabric shipments rosenearly 9 percent, manmade fiber domestic shipmentsdropped by 19 percent, and woolen fabric shipmentsfrom U.S. mills fell by 21 percent.22

As with the entire textile industry complex, oneof the most important single factors influencing theeconomic future of the fiber sector is imports—bothfiber imports, which compete directly, and fabric andapparel imports, which compete by reducing domes-tic demand. A positive balance of trade still existsin all synthetic fiber categories except cellulosic yarnand monofilament, but this surplus has shown sub-stantial decline.

Between 1979 and 1985, developing nations werebusy increasing their production of fiber. The growthwas especially significant in noncellulosics, withChina increasing its production over that period by361 percent, India by 203 percent, and Indonesiaby 102 percent.23 China expects self-sufficiency inmanmade fibers by the year 2000.24 During the sameperiod, U.S. production of noncellulosic fibers lost

21 American Textile Machinery .ASsociat]on, ‘(Needs Identification” An-

nual Meeting Report.ZzText;]e organony vol. 57, No. 8, August 1986.~slbld,, vol. 57, No. 7, July 1986.~~lbld,, VOI 57, No. 3, March 1986

world market share, from nearly 33 percent to 23percent. In addition, cellulosic fiber production inthe United States fell from 12.5 percent of world pro-duction in 1979 to 8.4 percent in 1985. U.S. employ-ment in manmade fiber production during the dec-ade from 1975 to 1985 fell by 41 percent—more than40,000 jobs.25

Natural Yarns

The fiber sector of the textile industry consists ofboth large integrated corporations and small flexi-ble units that compete and trade with each other.The rivalry among producers is high, and there arean especially large number of competitors in the cot-ton yarn industry; there were approximately 270firms in the industry through the 1970s. The con-centration of the cotton industry is low and stable,at a level of 20 percent.

The cotton and wool yarn markets are character-ized by low growth, making an expanded marketshare dependent on taking markets away from com-petitors. The different yarns are easy substitutes. Thebiggest problem in this sector is competition frommanmade fibers, comprising 10 perfect substitutesfor natural fibers. The resulting intense competitionreduces profit margins. Cotton and wool yarn priceshave experienced large decreases due to competi-tion with synthetics.

Technology for natural fiber is largely supplied bya few machinery producers, of which none are U. S.-owned. The development of this machinery is onlydone by machinery producers. The turnover of ma-chinery is frequent, making the technology used animportant factor in competition. Productivity in-creases with new technology are high.

There is no potential threat from the suppliers tointegrate forward, toward end use of the product;the agricultural and textile industries are too differ-ent, and their interests are on different levels. Butthere is a threat of backward integration by fabricproducers. Yarn costs play a large part in the buyer’sindustry, yet the buyer’s bargaining power is high.The reason for high bargaining power is that differ-ent yarn types are competitive, and the sector is char-acterized by frequent overcapacity.

2Slbid.

47

Entry and exit barriers into the industry are aquestion primarily of capital cost. Industries with thenecessary financial resources can easily enter thespinning industries. Inexperience can be easily over-come with new technology, which is available inabundance.

Large-scale operations seem to have a competi-tive advantage in being able to reduce overall rawmaterials costs by purchasing large quantities. A keyto achieving cost advantage is buying cotton at theright time. Cotton prices are largely a result of sup-ply and demand in the U.S. commodity exchanges.As a result, cotton spinners try to buy cotton in largequantities at preferential prices; this, however, leadsto large inventory costs. The more vertically inte-grated firms have a slight advantage in this compe-tition, especially when the large firms are also theirown suppliers and can add to the end-product stage.Competitive position depends heavily on the rela-tive importance of yarn production in the overall en-terprise.

On the other hand, there is some offsetting costadvantage for the smaller firms because of theirhigher flexibility in production. An example is Tus-carora Mill, a specialized yarn producer that carriesa wide assortment of yarns. The success of the com-pany lies in constantly finding market niches withhigh margins. Industry experts believe that flexibil-ity of small firms will allow them to become moredominant in the marketing sense, which will createmore small and flexible firms within the industry.

A strong future for the U.S. fiber industry will likelyrequire a reduction in production overcapacity, andon emphasis on out-innovating competitors—not inbasic fiber production, but through specialized. prod-ucts. The industry will shrink and become morecompetitive. Profits are likely to be low, unless somecooperation with the textile and apparel sectors ofthe industry is accomplished through vertical integra-tion. Observations from machinery expositions in-dicate that small and flexible fiber production unitsare in demand by textile companies.

Synthetic Fibers

The synthetic fiber industry is characterized bysimilar manufacturing processes, easy substitutabilityof products, similar markets, and similar expendi-tures in R&D. Texturizing and twisting, which add

to the desired quality of synthetic yarns, are two proc-esses that distinguish manmade yarn productionfrom natural fiber manufacturing.

Fiber shipments for some companies constitute alarge amount of their total shipments. In 1974,Celanese had 50 percent of its business in fibers, andAvtex 100 percent. All other large chemical compa-nies have a fiber business that is less than one-thirdof their total shipments. Major fiber firms have beenreducing their dependency on fibers, with the ex-ception of Badische.

Fiber markets are nearly saturated, and there cur-rently is a problem of overcapacity; these marketsdepend largely on the apparel market, and U.S. ap-parel markets have suffered from severe importpenetration. The two major fiber markets are thecommodity market and the specialty market, eachof which has its own distinct characteristics. Whilethe United States is strong in the development ofspecialty fibers, its main outputs are commodityfibers.

Suppliers to the fiber industry provide raw mate-rials and technology, and do research and develop-ment. Some fiber companies operate their ownrefineries; others must make purchases from com-peting multinational chemical companies.

There are substantial entry and exit barriers. En-try barriers in the fiber industry are a function of:

● large economies of scale,● low product differentiation,● low cost advantages,● high capital requirements, and● limited access to distribution channels.

Suppliers of the fiber industries have the poten-tial of entering the industry. But fiber producers areunlikely to have the necessary resources to integratebackwards, into an even more capital-intensive in-dustry.

Technology for the synthetic fiber industry islargely supplied by a few machinery producers, ofwhich only a small percentage are U.S.-owned. Thedevelopment of this machinery is done primarily bymachinery producers. Updating of machinery is fairlyfrequent, so that the technology used is an impor-tant factor in competition, but is one over which mostfirms have little control. Some of the technology,however, is developed by fiber producers who keepproprietary rights on the developments.

48

The Throwing, Winding, andThread Processes

The throwing, winding, and thread industries con-sist of a few specialized firms—some vertically in-tegrated, mostly throwing and winding, and someindependent corporations, mostly thread—whichcompete in intermediate markets in the textile in-dustry. Many of them are jobbers that serve thefabric-producing industries. They are defined by theirsimilar manufacturing technologies, their similar dis-tribution channels and markets, and their high cap-ital expenditures for plant and equipment.

The throwing and winding industries (StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC) 2282) and thread in-dustry (SIC 2284) have similar technologies, but theirstructures are quite different. Throwing and wind-ing firms face competitive forces similar to those ofthe spinning industries. The thread industry on theother hand, is characterized by its distinctiveness andflexibility. Both industries have high profitability butdeclining productivity.

Technology turnover is high in throwing and wind-ing operations. Expenditures for new plant and equip-ment are primarily by large-scale operations. In con-trast, the thread industries increasingly consist ofsmall locations where little is spent for new ma-chinery.

Throwing and winding represent mature indus-tries that compete on a cost basis, and machineryreplacement tends to replace labor. The industry ischaracterized by increasing concentration and highimports. But due to high profitability, imports aredecreasing while exports are increasing.

The number of companies in the thread industryis low. All are highly specialized, serving their indi-vidual markets. Most of these companies are smalland flexible. They are able to serve markets quickly,and to produce small amounts efficiently. The spe-cialization of their service gives these companies anindividual touch, especially in volatile markets wheredemand depends largely on the current quality be-havior of the customers. Most of these companiesare not diversified, and threads are their only prod-ucts. Expanding market share is possible with anexpanded product line, and it is relatively easy dueto the low number and specialization of competitors.There is low standardization among producers; com-petitors can be distinctively different and unique.

Costs are a less competitive force in this indus-try. Profit potential is high, due to a favorable struc-ture marked by high product specialization and lowcost competition. Profit potential in the industry isalso enhanced because entry barriers are only mod-erate, being a function of flexibility, capital require-ments, and product specialization, and because exitbarriers are low, since most of the machinery de-preciates in a short time period. Profitability in thethread industry is largely determined by:

● the relative importance of the thread processin overall yarn production,

● the relatively low bargaining power of these cor-porations against their suppliers,

● the price consciousness of their customers, and● low barriers of entry and exit—especially the

forward integration of the yarn industries.

The thread industry is still in a growth period. Ex-ports are increasing rapidly, and imports are at lowlevels. Employment has actually increased, and thesesmall companies benefit from their flexibility in themarketing sense. One might expect that the smallthread firms would form excellent cash cows forlarger textile corporations, especially spinning indus-tries which buy thread. As long as thread produc-ers maintain their uniqueness, however, their solidbargaining position will make vertical integration lesslikely to occur.

General Prospects for the Fiber Industry

The U.S. fiber industry is in the middle of mas-sive structural change. Part of the current situationis caused by the technological maturity of the wholefiber-textile-apparel industry complex. Part is due tothe shift from natural to manmade fibers. And partis caused by an erosion of the competitive base ofthe United States as a place for production, even forcapital-intensive industries.

The U.S. fiber market is mature and saturated.Massive overproduction has depressed prices in alow growth market. High investments in machin-ery, aimed at gaining a competitive edge by meansof productivity and a reduction of costs, have notyet resulted in satisfactory returns.

Furthermore, one can observe a drastic changein international fiber production. The Far East—

especially South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and China—is expanding fiber production, and may soon exceedthe production level of West Germany. These coun-tries are expanding their production in areas thatwestern countries once dominated. The plants un-der construction in many developing countries in-dicate that these countries use the fiber industry togain a niche in international markets, and not sim-ply to satisfy their own demand for textiles and ap-parel. Most projects are financed by western banks,and the technology is usually sold by Europeancountries.

With the exception of Japan, fiber producers indeveloping countries are following the strategy ofcompeting in basic fibers on a cost basis. Japan, onthe other hand, produces high quality and highlyspecialized fibers for export. The success of thesestrategies is evidenced by the growing import pene-tration of fibers into the United States.

49— .

U.S. and European fiber producers’ strategies tocounter these trends in international markets havebeen diverse and, more or less, successful. The mostapparent move is to reduce dependency on low-costfiber producers, as is being pursued by Du Pent,American Enka, and Rhone Poulenc. These com-panies are also establishing production facilities indeveloping nations, to overcome the political tradebarriers that sometimes prevent access to overseasmarkets.

The big American fiber companies are still tryingto compete on a price basis with imports, whereasin European countries there is increasing emphasison specialization and service. One can expect thatit will be some time until U.S. fiber producers changetheir strategies of high volume and standard fibers,since most developing countries produce the samefibers.

TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS

Like the fiber sector of the industry, fabric forma-tion has undergone changes in both technology andbusiness structure. New weaving machines havebeen responsible for increasing the speed of produc-tion and the quality of the product, while at the sametime improving the work environment. Because ofthe high cost of new machinery, adoption of the newtechnology has been primarily by the largest andmost profitable companies. New economies of scalehave caused mergers and consolidations, the build-ing of new plants, and the closing of old ones. Whilethe textile mill sector of the industry leads U.S. man-ufacturing in productivity increases, it has been hitby a flood of imports that threaten profits and evensurvival.

Background

The textile mill products sector of the textile in-dustry includes all operations that are involved inconverting fiber to finished fabric and the produc-tion of many nonapparel consumer products. Thehealth of the U.S. textile mill production is clearlyaffected by the health of the U.S. apparel sector, withsome estimating that loss of the apparel sector wouldalmost certainly doom 35 percent of the domestictextile industry.

The textile mill products sector is the tenth largestindustrial employer in the United States, with ap-proximately 700,000 people—86 percent of whomare production workers. Shipments total over $50billion annually. The industry is characterized bysubstantial productivity increases but sagging earn-ings, increased capital investment but declining em-ployment, and plant expansions as well as plantclosings.

The largest textile company in the United Statesis Burlington Industries, followed by Stevens and Mil-liken. Other major textile manufacturers are WestPoint Pepperell, Springs Industries (which has nowacquired Lowenstein, on its own a major producer),Dominion Textiles, Collins & Aikman, Cone Mills,United Merchants & Manufacturing, Dan River, Field-crest, and Riegel. The top 12 publicly held U.S. tex-tile mill companies produce approximately 26 per-cent of total sales dollars. The typical large publictextile company showed a 10-year average returnon sales of about 3 percent, and a 10-year averagereturn on equity of about 9 percent.

The Traditional Production Process

The major traditional production processes forwoven fabrics are winding, warping, slashing, weav-

50

ing, and finishing. In addition, there is fabric thatis knitted or manufactured using other nonwoventechniques.

Winding.—The output of spinning machinery isspindles of short-length yarn. These spindles can-not be used in the next production process becausethey are of unequal length, because there is notenough yarn on a spindle, and because the spindlesize is unsuitable for the weaving and knitting proc-esses. For these reasons yarns must be rewound ontolarge packages suitable for the appropriate produc-tion process. Weaving requires a different packagethan knitting. These different requirements for thenext processes make a uniform winding process al-most impossible. Low-quality yarns perform badlyin winding, and weak spots in yarn are detectedthrough yarn breakage. Recently, most winders havebeen equipped with automatic splicing devices toprevent the knots that can enter yarn from repairof breaks. These splicing machines detect a breakproblem, pick the two ends up, and splice them to-gether. Such devices decrease the labor intensity ofthe process, as does automatic feeding of the indi-vidual winding positions.

Warping.-The warping process produces the“warp” threads for weaving, which run lengthwise.The goal is to reach a very high density of yarns onthe beam for the warp; 400 to 700 yarns are woundonto the beam at once. This is done at a high speed,with great attention given to the tension of the yarns.A frequent problem is the uneven length of the yarnon the packages. The more precisely the windingprocess is performed, the fewer the unused yarnsleft over in the warping process. Still, the warpingprocess is time-consuming. The packages are man-ually put onto a frame, where the yarns are guidedthrough a reed, which separates the individual yarnsand ensures that they stay parallel.

Slashing. -Four to six beams are run together ona slasher to achieve the correct density and amountof yarns on the warp beam. Yarns receive a protec-tive coating that shields them from excessive abra-sion during the weaving process. Without this treat-ment, most yarns would not stand the constantfriction and tension; the result would be frequentend breaks, with an associated decrease in produc-tivity. The “chemistry” used in the slashing proc-ess is confidential in every weaving plant, due tothe significant differences it can account for in theefficiency of the weaving process.

Weaving.—Weaving transforms yarn into fabricby interlacing lengthwise warp yarns and widthwisefilling yarns at right angles. A warp is planned forseveral pieces of fabric, which are usually about 300yards long. To keep the efficiency of weaving plantshigh, changes in the warp on the loom must be care-fully planned, Computer-aided production monitor-ing of the complete weaving process helps to keepthe looms running at high efficiency levels.

There are several basic weaves. The simplest iscalled the plain weave, in which pieces of yarn passover and under each other alternately. In the twillweave, the filling yarns go over and under two ormore warp yarns at regular intervals, creating a di-agonal pattern. In satin weave, the intersections ofwarp and filling are varied, resulting in a tightlywoven cloth with a smooth appearance. One of themost famous looms for intricate patterns is the Jac-quard loom. The pattern for this fabric is programmedon a series of punch cards similar to modern com-puter cards. The cards, in turn, manipulate the warpyarns to create the desired pattern. Flowered bed-spreads, towels, and decorative fabrics such as up-holstery are produced in this way.

Knitting.-The knitting process is divided intoseveral distinct segments. Some knitting mills arelike weaving mills, in that they manufacture rollsof fabric for shipment to apparel plants to be cut andsewn. Others specialize in particular apparel, suchas knitted underwear, sweaters, pantyhose, andsocks. The different types of knitting are usuallymade on different machinery and m different plants.

51

The basic distinction between knitting and weav-ing are that the woven yarns are interlaced togetherand the knitted yarns are looped; a knitted fabricis a series of interconnected loops. The most frequentknitting processes are weft or warp knit production,performed on a flat bed knitting machine or on acircular knitting machine, and single or double knitproduction.

The knitting process consists of hundreds or thou-sands of needles in a row or a circle, which pull yarnthrough the loops. The spacing of the needles de-termines the gauge of a knitting machine. The wholeprocess makes the impression of being more con-tinuous than the weaving process. The number ofknitting positions determines the productivity of themachinery. All yarn preparation processes throughwinding are required in the knitting process, but nei-ther warping nor slashing are necessary. Yarns cometo knitting directly from the winding machine.

Nonwoven Fabric Manufacture.—Some non-woven fabrics are produced directly from fiber bymachines that apply combinations of heat and pres-sure to fuse the fibers into fabric. Fabrics that arebonded this way have greater porosity, better shape,higher bulk, and nonraveling edges. Other fabricsare “needle punched, ” or produced directly from fi-ber by machines that tangle or mat fiber. Laminatedfabrics consist of two fabrics, or fabric and a mate-rial like urethane foam bonded together by heat orchemicals.

One very popular nonwoven process is tufting.Tufting is the most widely used process for carpetmanufacturing. In this process, a bar carrying a rowof closely spaced needles is positioned above a flatbacking fabric. Each needle is supplied with a yarndrawn from a separate yarn package, forming oneof a number in a creel in the back. The needle baris lowered so that the needles pass through the back-ing fabric to a controlled distance, where a corre-sponding number of loopers are positioned. Defectsin the fabrics are easily corrected by a hand tuftingmachine, without any quality loss. One tufting ma-chine usually requires one operator. The tufting oper-ation is capital-intensive, and there is potential forfuture automation of the process with concurrent in-creases in productivity.

Finishing.–Fabric must be bleached, dyed, orprinted before it is ready for use. [t may also be

Photo credit” Char/es Gardner, School of Textiles, North Carolina State University

A traditional, plain-jersey knitting machine,

sheared, brushed, or scrubbed. Fabric may be treatedto repel water or to absorb it. It can be finished tomake it rigid or soft. Some textiles are coated withplastics, in order to produce the look and feel ofleather. Others are finished to look like the fur ofwild animals.

Technological Innovations

Innovations are occurring throughout the processof fabric formation. In addition to innovations alreadybeing adopted are those pending development andthose that need to be developed.

Innovations in Specific Areasof Fabric Formation

Weaving.—Traditionally, weaving has been ac-complished on a shuttle loom. A new technology

52

for weaving, the shuttleless loom, has emerged sincethe 1950s, and has virtually revolutionized the weav-ing process.26 These looms operate at faster speedsand require fewer auxiliary operations than shuttlelooms. The four basic types of shuttleless looms are:

1. missile or projectile;2. rapier—flexible, rigid, and telescopic;3. air-jet; and4. water-jet.

There are also multi-phase looms, which may com-bine weft-wave or warp-wave systems with shuttle-less technologies.

Although the majority of the world’s weaving in-dustry is still dependent on shuttle looms, there isno doubt that their share of the market is steadilydecreasing. Rapier and projectile looms have beenthe most widely used since the mid-1970s. Water-jet looms were more widely accepted than air-jet,mainly for filament weaving, because of their greaterwidth and speed. Recent advances in air-jet looms,however, give air the edge over water, and air-jetweaving is expected by many experts to be the mostwidely used shuttleless system of the late 1980s.

Projectile Looms. —The two basic types of projec-tile looms are the single and multiple projectiles. Sin-gle projectile looms have not made a major impactin the industry, due to low rates of filling insertion.

~GThis discussion of specific types of shuttleless looms is based largely

on M.M. Mohamed, “The Current State of Weaving, ” North CarolinaState University, Raleigh, NC, 1984.

The projectile is accelerated and stopped by com-pressed air. Major manufacturers are Investa andCrompton & Knowles.

Multiple projectile looms are manufactured by Sul-zer, although others produce the same loom eitherby license or by duplicating the Sulzer loom. Thegripper or projectile used on the Sulzer loom is ca-pable of inserting the filling in one direction only,and is projected at a speed of approximately 100 feetper second through guides. The grippers are returnedto the picking side by means of a conveyor chain,one per 10 inches of chain length.

The Sulzer loom introduced a number of new con-cepts to loom design. The first is the use of strainenergy of a torsion bar to activate the picking. Thesecond is the use of cam-driven lay with a long dwellin the back center, and the use of guides to ensurea straight line path for the projectile. Other new fea-tures are tucked-in selvedge, and a different reed de-sign that allows for more air-space between wires.This particular design is thought to be responsiblefor the reduction of warp breaks on the Sulzer loom.

The Sulzer loom is a highly engineered machine,which has been refined over a 30-year period. Theloom is available in tappet, dobby, or jacquard, andin single- or multi-color filling. A new and signifi-cant development is the Crompton & Knowles air-propelled projectile, in the form of a tube: a lengthof filling sufficient for one pick is crammed into theplastic tube prior to the insertion. Picking occurs fromboth sides, as on conventional looms.

Rapier Looms.—The three basic types of rapiersystems are rigid, flexible, and telescopic. In somecases, only one of these three types is used to insertthe pick from one side to the other. In other cases,two rapiers are used, and one of the rapiers takesthe filling yarn to the center and delivers it to thesecond rapier, which then takes it to the other sideof the fabric. New developments in rapier looms in-clude considerable refinements in weaving a widerange of yarns, offering four-, six-, and eight-colorselection mechanisms for filling. Increased width andspeed of most rapier looms qualify them to be con-sidered by many as the conventional looms of thefuture.

One of the most significant developments in ra-pier looms is the two-phase Sauer-500, in which arigid rapier is used to insert the filling in two fabrics

woven side-by-side on the same loom. This devel-opment eliminates the space requirement problemsof the single-rigid rapier loom. The rapier is drivenin the middle of the loom, and enters one warp shedas it leaves the other shed. All functions of the loomlag by a phase angle of 180 degrees on one side,as compared to the other side. A rate of filling in-sertion of up to 1,100 meters per minute is possible.

Air-jet Looms. -Even though air-jet loom devel-opment can be traced back to the 1920s, the mod-ern era in air-jet weaving has taken place over twostages. The first stage was the development of theMaxbo loom. Each loom had its own compressor,and was limited in width to about 100 centimetersbecause no control was used on the air flow throughthe shed. Due to this limitation, air-jet weaving didnot receive much attention during the early 1960s.The second stage, which started in the late 1960sand early 1970s, is characterized by the developmentof jet control systems and the use of auxiliary noz-zles. These events made it possible to have loomwidths up to 330 centimeters and speeds up to 600parts per minute. Many experts believe that air-jetlooms will increase their share of the shuttleless mar-ket, especially at the expense of water-jet looms. Thisis mainly due to the flexibility of air-jet looms inweaving filament and spun yarns.

The three main types of air-jet looms are singlenozzle with confuser type guides, multiple nozzleswith guides, and multiple nozzles with profile reeds—each of which has advantages and disadvantages.Systems that use guides tend to suffer from a highlevel of abrasion between the guides and the warp.The use of a reed reduces the level of abrasion, buttends to increase the cost of production due to thehigh cost of the reed; however, Ruti, the Swiss com-pany, has developed a semi-profile reed, which canbe used with plain weave fabric and reduces the costof a profile reed.

Although modern air-jet looms represent a tremen-dous advance in weaving, there are still limitationsto be overcome. One example is the restriction onmulti-color filling. Even though Ruti has developeda system of filling mix that uses two main nozzlesoscillating up and down, only one color was used.Also, the use of fancy yarn in the warp or filling direc-tion still presents a major challenge. In addition, fab-ric weight is limited to light and medium weightsof about 400 grams per square meter.

53

Photo credit Char/es Gardner, School of Textiles North Carolina State University

An air-jet loom: Electronic controls helpmake this technology faster and more

efficient than shuttle looms.

Water-jet Looms. —With water-jet looms, a water-jet takes the yarn across the shed. Water-jet loomsachieved higher speeds at larger widths than earlyair-jet looms. But water-jet looms have the disadvan-tage of being limited to filament synthetic yarn. Otherdisadvantages are that the warp has to be sized witha nonwater-soluble size, and that the fabric has tobe dried.

Although experts predict reduced market growthfor water-jet looms, there are two recent importantdevelopments. First, Nissan has developed a “Su-per Speed” loom that operates at a speed of 700 partsper minute with a 72-inch width. Second, Investahas modernized its OK-6/H2000 loom to use twocentral nozzles at the middle of the loom, thus en-abling the loom to weave double-width and to usetwo-color filling. Water-jet looms have also been verysuccessful in weaving fiberglass, lining, and taffetafabrics.

Multi-phase Looms.— instead of the sequentialfunctions of shedding, filling insertion, and beat-upof single-phase looms, a multi-phase loom can per-form these three functions simultaneously and formore than one shed. The two types of multi-phaselooms are weft-wave and warp-wave.

In the weft-wave system, the warp shed is dividedinto a large number of sections that operate inde-pendently from one other. Filling carriers have apiece of yarn long enough for one pick, and enterthe warp from one side. As they progress across thewarp, each shed changes for the next carrier. Beat-

54

up of the pick also occurs in segments, after eachpart of the pick is inserted. The most important fea-ture of this type of loom is a high rate of filling in-sertion achieved at a reduced noise level. The maindrawback is a limitation on yarn range and fabricdesign.

With the warp-wave system, the sheds are createdfor the full width of the warp. Filling insertion oc-curs in more than one shed simultaneously; beat-up is done over the entire pick. The Bentley “Or-bit” loom operates on a curve’s cylindrical warp path,and claims to reach a rate of filling insertion of 3,600meters per minute for a two-fabric loom, using rigidrapiers to insert 18 picks simultaneously in each ofthe two sides at the rate of 100 times per minute.The “Orbit,” however, suffers from limitations of fab-ric width and design construction.

An ongoing development that will combine theuse of air-jet insertion and flat warp-wave sheddingis the McGinley loom, which uses conventional shed-ding like cam dobby or jacquard. Using guides thatwill become a tube for the air and filling insertion,the amount of air needed per pick will be consider-ably reduced.

Shuttleless looms have the following advantagesover traditional fly shuttle looms:

●

●

●

●

●

●

productivity of some shuttleless looms is asmuch as three times that of conventional shut-tle looms;cloth can have greater width;cloth flaws are reduced, thus improving fabricquality and marketing;noise levels in weaving rooms are reduced;temperature and humidity control, demandedby the sensitivity of the machinery, improveboth the cloth quality and the work environ-ment; andtraveling cleaners on the equipment take careof more dust problems at the source than tradi-tional cleaners.

Dyeing and Finishing. —There is a general viewthat the number of discrete processes in dyeing andfinishing needs to be substantially reduced, and thatas many as possible should be combined. The goalwould be to make dyeing and finishing a truly contin-uous process, rather than a series of batch processeseach with its own control and materials handlingproblems. What this suggests is the development of

sophisticated monitoring and control systems for dye-ing and finishing, the more important of which seemto be the ability to monitor and control both the colorof wet fabric and the moisture content. The aim isto be able to predict accurately the color of the finaldry fabric by measuring its characteristics at the mo-ment it is being dyed.

Continuous dye ranges now have considerableautomation, but they are hampered by an inabilityto run very small lots efficiently. Systems need tobe developed that will allow rapid changeover fromlot to lot on a continuous range system, with a min-imum fabric band between the changes. In additionto suitable monitoring and control functions, waysto rapidly alter dye baths in order to change colormust be developed quickly. The aim is to producesystems with very rapid response times. This willrequire precision instrumentation for adding chem-icals and controlling the parameters of the process.

It is also important to have absolutely uniformdesizing and bleaching. In this area, there may alsobe applications for computer-based monitoring feed-back and control systems. There are general needsfor reducing the energy cost in dyeing by reducingeither the setting or the drying requirements. Forsome products, it would be useful to have dyeingbe the last of all finishing steps, in order to improveorder and warehouse versatility. Finally, the devel-opment of continuous computerized finishing inte-grates dyeing and finishing techniques, incorporatescomputerized instrumentation, reduces unit laborcosts, and improves quality.

Innovations in Fabric Formation27

Automation is a major trend throughout the tex-tile industry complex; most current applications ofrobotics are in the area of materials handling. Animportant concept, related to automated materialshandling, is automated identification of the mate-rial, which allows for the recognition of quality con-trol problems with respect to their material source.Such automated materials handling is, or eventuallywill be, built into process technology itself, but ma-

ZTThe following ciiscusslon is based largely on D.R. Buchanan andG.A. Berkstresser, “Automation in the Textile Industry: Prospects andImpacts,” North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, cited in “Tech-nologies for the Textile and Apparel Manufacture in the U.S. ,“ contractreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, February 1985,pp. 295-309,

55

Photo credit: Charles Gardner, School of Textiles, North Carolna State University

This modern knitting machinery permits increasedflexibility and productivity in fabric formation.

terials handling problems that will require specialtechnologies remain— the newest of which are driver-less vehicles and robots. Of all the technological de-velopments emerging in the textile and apparel in-dustry, the increase in automation and monitoringof fabric production processes has had the largestimpact on productivity and product quality.

Pending Technologies. -Pending innovations infabric formation are almost all in the areas of moni-toring and control, inspection, and materials han-dling. Modern weaving and knitting machinery al-lows the choice of many options, facilitating thedecision of whether to emphasize productivity orflexibility. The important trend outside the designof fabric formation machinery is the elimination ofmenial materials handling jobs. As an example, fab-ric handling with driverless tractors is well proven,although this is an area in which potential savings—other than those associated with labor—are difficultto identify. In conjunction with automatic inspectionand grading, it would also be desirable to devise sys-tems for automatic doffing of cloth and automaticcutting.

Inspection of fabric is thought by many to be aprocess that might be eliminated if suitable processmonitoring and control systems are invented. Thereis, however, a difference in philosophy, dependingon whether a greige mill or a dyeing and finishingplant is involved. In the former case, it is more likelythat inspection could be eliminated if the finishedfabric is inspected later; there will always be a needfor some inspection, but it can be automated. In par-

ticular, inspection systems should be capable of view-ing the fabric with both plant capabilities and cus-tomer demands in mind, changing the latter withrespect to the customer and changing the formerwith respect to the fabric style. Computer-controlledinspection systems should also interface with com-puter-controlled cutting systems, to optimize the cut-ting of quality yardage. These issues become moreimportant as the textile industry moves to higherquality and greater output levels, when inspectionspeeds could limit process speeds.

Monitoring in weave rooms and other fabric for-mation areas is done generally for the purpose ofproducing management information. Although thisis an important function of such systems, diagnos-tic monitoring that will locate and diagnose loommalfunctions—preferably before they lead to produc-ing off-quality material—are also needed. Such sys-tems would be part of a larger monitoring systemthat could deal with the flow of raw material intothe fabric formation process, or with the fabric for-mation itself. The development of truly reliable mon-itoring and control systems is closely related to thedevelopment of automated inspection systems, sincethe latter depend on the assurance that defects areminimized in the process.

Needed Technologies.—The technological rev-olution has already occurred in fabric formation, withthe development and increasing adoption of shut-tleless weaving. Nonetheless, at least six technologi-cal developments are expected to be the focus forfuture advances. These developments center aroundincreasing the amount of automation in the proc-ess, reducing the number of manufacturing steps,and gaining fuller control over production processesthan over changing machinery technologies. The sixdevelopments are:

1. monitoring and controlling of slashing,2. weaving without size,3. new slashing techniques,4. fewer steps,5. built-in cleaning, and6. microprocessors and CAD/CAM28 for loom

changes.

The Impact of Robotics.–Robot v. Hard Auto-mation. —While hard automation dominated techno-

‘ *Computer -a ided des ign/computer -a ided manufacture

56

logical developments in the textile and apparel indus-try of the past, some predict that robots may be thetrend of the future. To date, new technological devel-opments in the industry have emerged primarily fromcustom-engineered, automated manufacturing machin-ery, built to accomplish a specific set of tasks and in-capable of doing other tasks without disassembly andrebuilding. This process defines “hard automation. ”Robots, however, whose applications have alreadyrevolutionized the automotive industry as well as somesimple textile tasks, are defined as:

. . . reprogrammable multi-functional manipulators]designed to move material, parts, tools, or special-ized devices through variable programmed motionsfor the performance of a variety of tasks.29

Clearly, a robot is something quite different froma piece of machinery classified as hard automation.The extent of future automation through the appli-cation of robots is still an issue of hot debate withinthe textile and apparel industry.

Hard automation is used for such technologies asautomatic knot tying devices, which do what humanshad done previously with greater consistency. Mod-ern techniques of yarn splicing, however, representa process that humans cannot duplicate. Other de-velopments include faulty end detection usingcomputer-driven detection systems, and productionmonitoring using computer-controlled systems. Also,among the more inventive materials transferschemes are ring-spinning yarn packages broughtto a winding frame.

Currently available robots can have most, if notall, of the following characteristics:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

spatial flexibility, with up to 6 degrees of freedom,teaching and playback capability,memory of any reasonable size,program selection by external events,position repeatability to 0.3 mm,weight handling capability to 150 kg,point-to-point or continuous path control,synchronization with object movement,interface ability with external computers, andhigh reliability—typically 400 to 500 hours be-tween failures.

Pending Developments in Robotics.—Textile usesfor robots will probably not become revolutionary

~(’The Robot institute of America

but will remain evolutionary, until most of the fol-lowing seven items have been developed to the pointthat

1.

2.

3.

4.5.

6.7.

they are available at a reasonable cost:

vision, for recognition, parts orientation, andflaw detection;tactile sensing, for recognition, orientation, andphysical interaction;real-time, computer-based interpretation ofvisual and tactile data;general-purpose versatile effecters, or “hands”;mobility, or the ability to move from one workstation to another;self-diagnostic error tracing; andinherent safety.

Entire robot systems, in which integrated and in-terrelated technologies operate with a minimum ofhuman supervision and intervention, are likely pos-sibilities for the future. Hard automation will likelybe part of such an automated factory, unless someway is found to substitute some of the successfullyautomated textile machines with robots. Most expertspredict that hard automation will be accompaniedby robots, particularly in materials transfer assem-bly and special operations applications, At the frontend of such a factory, it could be expected that com-puter-aided design, as well as transfer of instructionsand information directly to the manufacturing ma-chines will be a featured. In addition, informationfrom a sophisticated computer-based system will besent to management for use in decisionmaking.

Three areas for likely use of future robot systemsin the textile industry are materials transfer, inspec-tion, and process control. More sophisticated systemsof materials transfer are likely to emerge, especiallywith respect to mobility; a number of spinning framescould be served by one system, for example, andthe output directed to a number of places. These ma-terials transfer systems will also have much moresophisticated sensing systems, and may even mon-itor quality as they perform transfer tasks. More so-phisticated versions of the driverless vehicles nowavailable are also likely to emerge. These may haveeven more sophisticated computer control, andwould probably not depend on floor tracks for theirguidance system. If the latter were developed, thiswould represent peak flexibility for these devices.

Effective inspection will take place automaticallyat many more positions in the textile processes of

57

Photo credits: Charles Gardner, School of Text//es, North Carolina State University

This robotic device (above) inspects yarn to determinewhether yarn quality is sufficient for knitting. Suchtechnologies are replacing the hand inspection process(below), and allow for greater flexibility, more accuracy,

and faster speed during inspection.

the future than in those of today. Inspections willutilize rapid response, vision, and/or tactile systemsin some cases; in other cases, transducers will meas-ure physical properties. In addition, the overall in-spection system will be programmable, to allow deci-sionmaking based on both plant and customerspecifications; these may be changed nearly instan-taneously as the product being manufactured changes.Finally, such a system has to provide a completemanagement information package on demand, andthis probably will be a built-in part of future inno-vations.

Real-time, efficient sensing systems will be neededfor process control, and these systems should be ableto operate at nearly every phase of the textile prod-uct manufacturing process. In addition, they willhave the ability to maintain complete records of aproduct’s history, and of its complete component andprocess identification. This will be extremely usefulwhen production difficulties occur.

Robots represent a logical extension of the hardautomation developments in textile technology, whichstarted with the Industrial Revolution. The impor-tance of future developments will depend on thedegree to which robots and hard automation arecombined with computer control of design and in-formation systems, in order to form flexible auto-mated factory systems capable of producing high-quality, low-cost products that can be sold profitably.

Impact of Automation on productivity. –The cumu-lative effect of a continuing flood of inventions sincethe Industrial Revolution, mostly in the hard auto-mation class, has been dramatic improvement through-out the textile industry. In each 70-year period since1760, productivity in yarn and fabric formation in-creased tenfold. The introduction of robots into theindustry should assure a continuation of this histori-cal trend of rising productivity.

The improvement of quality in processes that usesophisticated automation, and particularly in robotapplications, is largely the result of enhanced repeat-ability and reliability. Depending on the job, it is pos-sible not only to work more efficiently, but to effectsavings in parts or supplies because of the greaterefficiency of robotic applications. This can be facili-

58

tated by interfacing with feedback and control loopsfor rapid response to external events. Finally, thereis a view that human intervention in the manufac-turing process should be restricted to the greatestextent possible, in that many human functions, suchas handling, are actually detrimental to quality.

The enhancement of flexibility occurs particularlywith robotic applications, due to the possibility ofreprogramming in a simpler fashion when circum-stances dictate. Since there is an identified trend inthe textile industry towards increased levels of man-ufacturing adaptability, the flexibility built-in to auto-mation can be of value to a firm that is close to themarketing and fashion end of the business. Whilehumans represent the ultimate in flexibility andadaptability, it is quite conceivable that robots maybe able to replace some human functions in manu-facturing processes that require high levels of flexi-bility.

Impacts of Automation on General Management.—Over the centuries of development in the textileindustry, management has had to adapt to change,but the rates of change of the past were more grad-ual than those of today. Frequently, “trial and er-ror” methods of adaptation worked. But the predictedrate of change that will face the industry over thenext several decades may be so rapid that manage-ment will not have the luxury of a long time periodin which to adapt. Those who wait and try to adaptto future changes, rather than planning for theiremergence, may not survive.

For the U.S. textile and apparel industries to en-joy the benefits of robotic systems applications, man-agement must recognize that entirely new approachesto human factors and financial management mayberequired. The structure of the industry may have tochange in order to survive in a global market econ-omy; indeed, the $55 million spent by BurlingtonIndustries to modernize its Erwin plant is going tolook very small in a few years. Even with movestoward higher value-added products, survival is notguaranteed.

Recent research on textile industry structure in-dicates that large firms, with access to large amountsof capital and large economies of scale, show thehighest productivity using the value-added measure.Small firms, with the least access to capital but highflexibility and usually producing high value-added

products, have the next highest productivity. Medi-um-sized firms, which have been a very importantsegment of the industry, face both limited access tolarge amounts of capital and limited flexibility, re-sulting in the lowest productivity. As the industrymoves toward a more capital-intensive structure, thedominance of larger firms increase.

Impact of Automation on Human Factors Manage-ment.—The impact of automation on human factorsmanagement will be pervasive. The following areasare

●

●

●

●

●

likely to change;—

traditional practices of recruiting large numbersof low-skilled workers, and relying primarily onon-the-job training, may need revision;fewer workers will be needed, but those whoare needed may have to possess higher skilllevels;textile companies may not be able to affordtraditionally high annual labor turnover rates;management may have to revise the standardlayoff-recall practices that have been used to ad-just output for demand; andnew technologies may bring massive changesin the man/machine interface, implying changesin managerial skills as well.

Training supervisors in textiles and apparel hasalways centered on developing the ability to man-age substantial numbers of low-skilled workers, whilethe factories of the future are likely to demand su-pervisors who manage fewer people performingmore highly skilled functions. If the current laboror supervisory force cannot make the transition tothe new system, the industry may need substantialrestaffing. The costs and time required to train morehighly skilled workers and supervisors would thenincrease, giving larger firms an even greater advan-tage over more moderately sized companies.

Other industrial nations have already made plansto address these human factors aspects. The Euro-pean Community has provided $1 billion in fund-ing for retraining of textile and apparel workers, andfor wage subsidies during training. Sweden has itsown $27 million fund for retraining and relocationfor displaced workers. The United Kingdom has a$110 million fund that includes money for retrain-ing, and Spain provides funds for early retirementof excess employees.

59—

Industrial Structure30

The Weaving Industry

The U.S. weaving industry consists of hundredsof companies, both large and small, which competein the cotton and raw fabric market. The fabrics pro-duced by weaving firms are intermediary products,which are then sold for further fabrication.

The industry is defined by:

● nearly identical manufacturing technology andmachinery,

Ž easy substitutability of products,● similar channels of distribution, and● high expenditures for new plant and equipment.

Companies in the weaving industry are horizon-tally and vertically integrated in different degrees.Production of fabrics is done both at large- and small-scale locations, resulting in different degrees of flex-ibility. The ability to move between large-scale pro-duction and flexibility is the key to success in theweaving industry. Fabric production for some pro-ducers is only a small percentage of their total pro-duction, whereas it is the only product for others.

The industry has frequently been revived by theintroduction of new weaving technology. The newesttechnologies for shuttleless looms, for example, havesignificantly increased productivity. Clear signs forthe rejuvenation of weaving have been the morethan doubling of fabric exports, and substantial in-creases in output per employee.

Capital expenditures are concentrated mostly inlarge-scale production facilities. The concentrationof the four largest companies, which is currentlyaround 40 percent, is likely to increase; these com-panies benefit from enormous economies of scale.Nonetheless, the total number of companies has alsorisen slightly in recent years, primarily due to a com-bination of low entry barriers and the potential forhigher earnings.

Technology is largely supplied by several foreignmachinery producers. The development of machin-ery is a high-technology matter in the hands of afew companies, which compete in an almost oligopolis-tic market. The frequent updating of technologies

~~Th is discussion is based largel}’ on “Technologies for the Textileand Apparel Manufacture in the U S ,“ op. cit., pp. 146-173,

that substantially improve productivity requires highexpenditures.

The profitability of the weaving industry is largelydetermined by:

●

●

●

●

●

high degree of rivalry among corporations,increasing degree of substitutability, of the differ-ent textile fabric types,low bargaining power of these corporationsagainst their suppliers,high price competition among the producers,andlow barriers of entry and exit.

The rivalry among fabric producers is high. Thereare about 200 companies in the cotton weaving in-dustry, and about 250 companies in the manmadefiber weaving industry. All fight for market sharesin a low growth market, where expanding marketshare for one firm means decreasing shares for theothers. Fabric producers face the additional prob-lem of being cost-efficient in large-scale plants, butof losing production flexibility if they grow too large.With more than 1,000 different fabrics in demand,flexibility within a single firm is difficult to achieve.Fabrics, both woven and nonwoven, are highly sub-stitutable.

Competition in the weaving industry is a questionof price. The more vertically integrated firms havea slight advantage, in that they can add the marginat the textile end-product stage. Cost advantages canalso be achieved by higher productivity through im-proved use of technology.

The suppliers of the fiber industries have the po-tential to enter the weaving industry with relativeease. In addition, larger weaving firms frequentlyintegrate backwards, since entry barriers are merelya function of the high capital requirements for ma-chinery. The skills required for the operation of aweaving plant are not too demanding.

The Circular and Warp Knit Industries

The circular and warp knit industries are essen-tially fabric forming industries. While they have sim-ilar technologies, they generally compete in inde-pendent markets—the former in the fabric marketfor apparel goods, and the latter in the home fur-nishings market. Warp knit is also used in some un-derwear. Industry competition resembles that of theweaving industry.

60

The circular knit sector currently benefits fromproductive machinery with computer control andhigh future prospects of more automation. The warpknit sector, on the other hand, uses complex tech-nology that does not change rapidly. Eastern Euro-pean countries are the leading producers of this ma-chinery.

The circular knit industry is currently consolidat-ing. In recent years, the number of companies hasdeclined from over 600 to under 500. The numberof employees has also declined. In contrast, the warpknit industry is fragmenting, with an increasing num-ber of firms. Improvements in this industry are fo-cused on production, not marketing.

Profitability in both sectors is depressed, mainlybecause of import competition. The U.S. industry hasno productive advantages. Labor costs, even thoughthe industry is capital-intensive, are the crucial fac-tor in competition. Many experts believe that pros-pects for the industries are dim. Technological ad-vances do not tend to improve financial performance,and imports significantly threaten existing markets.

The Tufting Industry

The tufting industry produces carpets, a highlystandardized product guided by standardized tech-nologies. The U.S. industry consists of several hun-dred large-scale corporations. The industry is definedby a unique manufacturing technology, well-definedmarkets, and high capital intensity. Tufting technol-ogy has reduced the production costs of carpets sig-nificantly, and has created entirely new markets inhome furnishings. Most tufting companies are inde-pendent from textile companies; however, many ofthe large integrated textile companies have tuftingoperations as well.

The industry is not highly concentrated, but isgrowing rapidly. Fiber producers, who play a criti-cal role already, will probably become even moreimportant as industry growth slows. Improvementsare needed in both marketing and production, sincetufting is largely an export industry; quality and costadvantages over foreign competitors can be in-creased by extensive R&D from fiber producers.

The profitability of the tufting industry is largelydetermined by:

● the increasing degree of rivalry among the cor-porations,

● the innovative capacity of fiber companies,● the relatively high bargaining power of these

corporations against their suppliers, and● high barriers of entry.

One can, nonetheless, expect substantial numbersof entries into the industry. Entry barriers are be-coming lower, while exit barriers remain low.

The tufting industry’s supplier firms enjoy a par-ticularly large potential to enter this sector. Indus-try suppliers consist of large fiber producers that de-velop special fibers for carpet producers, These fibersuppliers compete heavily on a price basis. Still, therelative bargaining power of the tufting industry withits suppliers is high, and its companies are largelyin control of the pricing process.

Rivalry among tufting companies is moderate butincreasing. There are 300 to 400 similar sized com-panies competing. High growth rates have enabledthese companies to compete comfortably, withoutproblems of overcapacity. High standardization ofboth the production process and the product havemade it difficult to be distinctive. A substantial ex-perience curve exists, promoting relatively largescales of production. Competition is increasingly forc-ing a cost emphasis in the struggle for market share.

Technology for tufting is largely supplied by a fewmachinery producers. The technology is relativelysimple, highly standardized, and does not requiresubstantial reinvestment. The units of production arerelatively small, and require about one normal-sizedroom.

Tufting is an emerging industry in a transitionalphase, with the corresponding structure of high ex-ports, increasing competition, and a decreasing ex-perience advantage. Prospects for the tufting indus-try are good, The industry is fragmenting, due tonegative returns to scale. As market segments be-come more differentiated, fiber producers are likelyto play an even more essential role in new devel-opments.

Other Nonwoven industries

The U.S. nonwoven industry consists of a rapidlygrowing number of small-scale firms, which com-pete in a wide variety of different markets with hun-dreds of different products. Some of these small firmsare owned by large corporations. The industry ischaracterized by:

6?

● diversity of manufacturing processes,Ž easy substitutability of certain products,● diversity of markets, and● high expenditures for R&D.

Companies are horizontally and vertically in-tegrated to differing degrees. The nonwoven sectoris a small percentage of total production for someproducers; for others, it is their entire production.Because of nonwoven fabrication processes, it issometimes difficult to include this sector within thetraditional textile industry complex. However, theindustry also exemplifies the tremendous possibil-ities of a future textile industry. Experts suggest thatthe textile industry would be well advised not to missthese opportunities, a large share of which may becaptured by industries like paper and chemicals.

Profitability is largely determined by several fac-tors, including:

the high degree of rivalry among competitiveproducts,high degree of substitutability of different non-woven structures,relatively high bargaining power of these cor-porations against their suppliers,wide variety of applications for the products, andvariety of different markets.

Also, high entry barriers contrast with low exit bar-riers. The most important factor in profitability, how-ever, is that the nonwoven industries are a relativelyyoung market sector—numerous new applicationsare on the horizon.

Technology for the nonwoven industry is devel-oped by some U.S. machinery manufacturers, as wellas producers. The kind of technology used is an im-portant factor in future productivity increases in the

END USES

Textile mill products have three major end uses–apparel, home furnishings, and industrial and spe-cialty products. Historically, apparel has dominatedconsumption. But this is no longer the case. Whilethere are cyclical variations, the other two uses havebeen growing in importance; apparel’s share of fi-ber consumption remained at approximately 37 per-

industry; others parallel the chemical industry. Sometechnologies are close to those in the paper indus-try. One can expect that new processes will boostthis industry even further. Standardization within theindustry is low with respect to the technologies used,as many new products are related to the develop-ment of new machinery and manufacturing tech-nologies.

Suppliers of the nonwoven industries are enter-ing the industry in great numbers. One can expectthat this development will afford large multinationalcorporations—many of which are chemical compa-nies—an opportunity to enter the traditional textileindustry. Capital expenditures for technology andR&D are high. But once the standardization of theproduction technology starts, already the case for cer-tain products, entry barriers will be low, due to pro-duction machinery that is inexpensive, small, andproductive. The reverse situation, backward integra-tion, is less likely. Nonwoven producers do not havethe necessary resources to integrate backwards.

The suppliers’ bargaining power is strong for thenonwoven industries. One can expect their impor-tance to increase. The buyers’ bargaining power, onthe other hand, is low. Most nonwoven products arequite different from one another. Competition is low,so prices can be kept high. The diversity of custom-ers makes it easy for producers to find highly profita-ble market niches. Furthermore, demanded quan-tities are large. One example is geotextiles, used inlandscaping.

Nonwoven products are highly substitutable. Non-wovens compete with both textile products and prod-ucts from the paper industries. It is likely that theseproducts will experience cost reduction and qualityimprovement as a result.

OF TEXTILES

cent between 1979 and 1985, whereas the share ofhome furnishings grew from 31 to 38 percent. In-dustrial textile products still consume over 20 per-cent of fiber production.31

II ~e,ytj/e organon, vol 57, No. 9, September 1986, p. 204

62

Industrial Structure

Traditional Apparel

The traditional apparel industries, dominated bythe clothing industries, account for nearly half of alltextile and apparel sales. In 1985, U.S. consumersspent $133 billion on apparel, or nearly 5 percentof total disposable personal income.32 Production in-cludes the manufacture of men’s, boys’, women’s,girls’, children’s, and infants’ apparel and apparelaccessories, excluding footwear. Apparel and apparelaccessories are chiefly made by cutting and sewingwoven and knit textile fabrics, or by knitting fromyarn. Some items are made by cutting, sewing, ce-menting, or fusing such materials as rubberizedfabrics, plastics, and leather.

Unlike much of the rest of the industry, where sig-nificant numbers of small- and medium-size busi-nesses are giving way to vertical integration, apparelremains an industry segment dominated by smallmanufacturers, jobbers, and contractors. Manufac-turers perform the entire range of operations of gar-ment making. Jobbers are responsible for their owndesigns, acquire the necessary fabric and related ma-terials, and arrange for sale; however, they contractout most production operations, with the exceptionof cutting. Contractors receive already-cut garmentpart-bundles from jobbers, and process them intofinished garments.

The apparel industry is characterized by:

●

●

●

●

many small firms,ease of entry,threat of failure, andindividual firms acting as price-takers, with re-spect to supplying firms and retail channels ofdistribution.

The industry comes close to textbook conditions for“perfect competition,” but, ironically, what keepsshops so small is in part the specialization that eachhas in a particular narrow product line.

Manufacturers can readily expand and contractoutput through the use of jobbers and contractors,which reduces reliance on heavy capital investmentfor expansion or the cost of unused capacity for con-traction. Indeed, jobbing and contracting are grow-ing, relative to manufacturing (see table 5). In women’s

3ZTeXt;je If;gtlljgtrfs, Op . cit., p. LO.

outerwear, for example, while there were 35 per-cent fewer manufacturers between 1977 to 1982, thenumber of contractors and jobbers increased by 26and 52 percent, respectively. Apparel contractorscontribute approximately $3 billion of the value ad-ded to apparel products each year.33

Labor-intensive operations still predominate in theindustry, and wage costs have become one of thecritical factors in competition. Apparel is one of thelargest employers of women and minorities. Peoplefrom small towns with few alternatives, the under-educated, and immigrants are widely employed inthe industry, providing a low wage, exploitable la-bor force. In fact, this system–a mechanism for shift-ing production from one area to another, in questof labor cost advantage—is a source of employmentfor the “hard-to-employ,” especially for undocumentedimmigrants.

According to a study by the International Ladies’Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU), the current ex-pansion of the contracting system means that:

. . . sub-minimum wages, overtime and child laborviolations, and illegal homework are once again com-monplace in the apparel industry .34

In fact, there is evidence of the growth of a num-ber of “underground” apparel operations which,according to some calculations, comprise up to 35percent of garment production in unregulated shopsand illegal operations.35

As of 1982, there were 16,655 companies operat-ing 18,233 establishments in apparel manufactur-this excludes knitwear, which is categorizedas part of textile mill products by standard indus-trial classification (SIC), as well as part of such otherassorted manufacturing categories as rubber andplastic clothing, surgical corsets, and feathers (seetable 6 for branch categories of the apparel sector).Including these other manufacturers brings the num-ber of companies to just over 19,000, and the num-

J3George Wine, American Textile Manufacturers ]MllUle, perSOrla]

communication.jq[nternational Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, Research Depart-

ment, “The US. Apparel Industry, 1960-1985, With Special Emphasison Women’s and Children’s Apparel,” Oct. 18, 1985, p. 10.

3sLetter t. OTA of Apr. 20, 1986, from Dr. M. Patricia Fernandez-Kelley, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering, TheJohns Hopkins University, p. 3.

16U,S, Department of commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982 Cerlsus

0/ Mmulacturers.

63

Table 5.—Number of Establishments and Production Workers, by Type of Establishment,Women’s Outerwear industries, 1963-82

Total Manufacturers Jobbers Contractors

Industry: women and misses blouses (SIC 2331):All establishments

1963 1,175 171 157 6921967 990 285 137 5681972 971 242 163 5661977 1,422 424 166 8321982 1,955 296 369 1.288

Production workers (000s)1963 521 91 24 3811967 501 132 2,8 3451972 548 141 2.9 3781977 742 156 3.6 55.01982 794 138 7.0 58.6

Production workers per establishment1963 443 532 15.3 5511967 51 0 463 204 6071972 564 58.3 178 6681977 522 368 21,7 6611982 406 466 19.0 455

Industry: women and misses dresses (SIC 2335):All establishments

1963 4,752 970 681 2,4341967 5,225 1,870 713 2,6421972 5,567 2,364 712 2,4911977 6,112 3,444 449 2,2191982 5,627 2,105 644 2,877

Production workers (000s):1963 1771 39.5 9.3 113.91967 183.7 54.9 12.1 116.71972 187.0 60.5 12.4 114.21977 1468 51. 7 8.2 86.91982 120.0 27.9 8.1 83.8

Production workers per establishment,1 9 6 3 373 40,7 137 4681967 352 29.4 170 4421972 336 256 174 4581977 240 150 183 3921982 21 3 133 126 29.1

Total Manufacturers Jobbers Contractors

Industry: women’s and misses suits and coats (SIC 2337):All establishments

1963. 2,516 573 4551967. 2,101 712 4231972 1,618 386 3401977 1,677 445 3161982 1!512 306 352

Production workers (000s):1 9 6 3 755 201 6.61967 71 6 23,1 8.41 9 7 2 649 181 551 9 7 7 728 194 671982. . 632 132 8.9

Production workers per establishment:1963 30.0 351 1451967 341 32.4 1991972 401 46.9 1 6 21977 4 3 4 4 3 6 21 21982 41 8 43,1 253

Industry: women and misses outerwear(not elsewhere classified) (SIC 2339):

All establishments1963 1,297 704 1531967 1,100 470 1691972 1,373 476 1971 9 7 7 1.802 831 1891982 1,746 450 341

Production workers (000s).1963 51 4 250 3.61967. . 51 7 225 411972 71,5 253 3 91977 88.3 324 6.51982 93,5 29.1 87

Production workers per establishment1963 396 355 2351967 470 479 24.31972 521 532 1981977 49.0 390 34.41 9 8 2 536 647 255

SOURCE U S Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufacturers, 1982

ber of establishments to nearly 21,000 (see table 7).The average number of establishments per companyis therefore approximately 1.1 for apparel. It is im-portant to note that the number of companies andestablishments has decreased since 1982; however,most estimates suggest that little change has occurredin the ratio between the two.

The average manufacturing shop size is quitesmall. As of 1982, in nearly all branches of women’sapparel, the typical size of an apparel shop was lessthan 75 employees—basically unchanged from the1950s. In women’s dresses, the average shop sizeis only 21. This decentralization means that whereasindustries such as drugs, petroleum refining, tires,steel, or motor vehicles account for 90 to 100 per-

1,092966892915853

42340141 446.641 1

38.741.546.4509482

440461700782955

228251423493557

51 8544604630583

cent of domestic production through the operationsof their 50 largest firms, in women’s apparel—whichaccounts for about 60 percent of total apparel sales—the 50 largest seldom make up more than half ofdomestic shipments. And, in contrast to other partsof the overall textile industry, government data donot show a trend toward concentration in apparel.

Domestic apparel production has grown only mod-erately in recent years. Using 1977 as a base year,the Apparel Products Index showed a 1984 level of100.9; industrial production for clothing was only95.0.37 And while the volume of apparel in 1967 dol-

‘“ Federdl Resem e Board ]ndustrid] Production, stat]st ical release, Nm’14, 1986

64

Table 6.—Branches of the Apparel (Knit and Woven)Industry, by Standard Industrial Classification

Code Number

SlCcode Branch of industry

2253†2254†22592311

2321

23222323232723282329

2331 ●

2335*2337*

2339*

2341 ●

2342*2361*

2363*2369*

2381† 2384†2385†2386†2387†2389†2395*

2397†3069†

3079†

3151†3842†

3962*

Knit outerwear millsKnit underwear millsKnitting mills, not elsewhere classifiedMen’s, youths’, and boys’ suits, coats, andovercoatsMen’s, youths’, and boys’ shirts (except workshirts), collars, and nightwearMen’s, youths’, and boys’ underwearMen’s, youths’, and boys’ neckwearMen’s, youths’, and boys’ separate trousersMen’s, youths’, and boys’ work clothingMen’s, youths’, and boys’ clothing, not elsewhereclassifiedWomen’s, misses’, and juniors’ blouses, waists,and shirtsWomen’s, misses’, and juniors’ dressesWomen’s, misses’, and junior’s suits, skirts, andcoats (except for coats and raincoats)Women’s, misses’, and juniors’ outerwear, notelsewhere classifiedWomen’s, misses’, children’s, and infants’ under-wear and nightwearCorsets and allied garmentsGirls’, children’s, and infants’ dresses, blouses,waists, and shirtsGirls’, children’s, and infants’ coats and suitsGirls’, children’s, and infants’ outerwear, not else-where classifiedDress and work gloves, except knit and ail-leatherRobes and dressing gownsRaincoats and other waterproof outer garmentsLeather and sheep-lined clothingApparel beltsApparel and accessories, not elsewhere classifiedPleating, decorative and novelty stitching, andtucking for the tradeSchiffli machine embroideriesFabricated rubber products, not elsewhere classi-fied (insofar as it includes vulcanized rubberclothing)Miscellaneous plastic products (insofar as it in-cludes plastic clothing)Leather gloves and mittensOrthopedic, prosthetic, and surgical appliancesand supplies (insofar as it includes surgical cor-sets, belts, trusses, and similar articles)Feathers, plumes, and artificial flowers (insofar asit includes artificial flowers)

tBranch of Industry specializing in producing articles of apparel for both sexes.“Branch of industry specializing in producing women’s and children’s apparel.

SOURCE U.S Executive Off Ice of the President, Office of Management andBudget, Standard /ndustr/a/ C/ass/f/cation A4anua/, 1972

lars rose, five other important production measureshave declined (see table 8):

1. employment of production workers,2. production hours worked,

3. volume of production in pounds,4. volume of production in square yards, and5. physical output in millions of dollars.

But even these discouraging production figures mayoverstate domestic production. Commerce Depart-ment data on domestic apparel production includegarments cut in this country and sent abroad for sew-ing and other processing, under the provisions ofItem 807 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States(see box C, ch. 5). These “807” items maybe comin-gled with goods fully produced in this country andreported to the Bureau of the Census as part of thequantity and value of domestic production.38

Intense competition among many small produc-ers is reflected in a slower rise in apparel prices rela-tive to the economy as a whole.39 Between 1967 and1984, the wholesale price of all apparel increased101.1 percent; that of women’s, misses’, and juniors’apparel rose 79.1 percent; and that of girls’, chil-dren’s, and infants’ apparel rose 102.7 percent. Forall commodities, wholesale prices increased by 210.3percent, more than twice as fast as apparel.

Competition in apparel is also demonstrated bycomparatively low profit margins.40 For most of thepast three decades, after-tax profits for apparel firmsranged between 1 and 2 percent of total sales. Incontrast to a profit ratio of 5.2 percent before taxesand 2.7 percent after taxes for all manufacturing in1980, the parallel returns in the apparel industrywere 3.9 percent before taxes and 2.0 percent after.

Because of the small size of the typical garmentfirm and the large size of the national apparel mar-ket, apparel firms tend to be highly specialized. Mostestablishments produce a single generic product, ora small number of similar products. This degree ofspecialization does not exist abroad, where produc-tion of a wide range of garments is more common.

Sslnternational Ladies’ Garment Workers’ union, op. cit., P. 7

‘gIbid., p, 12.~Olnterna[ Revenue Service data, cited in Ibid., PP. 12-I 3.

65

Table 7.— Number of Establishments Per Company,a Apparel (Knit and Woven) Industries, United States, 1982

Number of Number of EstablishmentsBranch of industry companies establishments per company

Women’s blouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,825 - 1,955 1,07Women’s dresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 5,489 5,627 1,03Women’s suits, coats, and skirts . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . 1,431 1,512 1,06Women’s outerwear, not elsewhere classified ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,595 1,746 1,09Women’s and children’s underwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 477 604 1,27Corsets and allied garments ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 151 1,13Children’s dresses. . . . ..., . ., ., . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . 490 556 1.13Children’s coats.. . . ..., . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 81 1.14Children’s outerwea, not elsewhere classified . . ..., . . . . . . . . . ..., 279 332 1.19Robes and dressing gowns . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . 128 135 1,05Waterproof outergarmentsb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . 98 112 1,14Leather and sheep-lined clothingb ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . 186 186 1.00Apparel beltsb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 319 1.01Apparel, not elsewhere classifiedb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 369 1.02Schiffli machine embroideries, . . . . ..., ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 366 1.03Pleating and stitching, ..., ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . 906 912 1,01Knit outerwear . . . . ..., . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . 893 923 1.03Knit underwear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 84 1,17Fabricated rubber products, not elsewhere classified . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . 1,213 1,380 1,14Artificial flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . 207 215 1,04Men’s and boys’ suits and coats . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . 443 528 1,19Men’s dress shirts and nightwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . 535 741 1,39Men’s and boys’ underwear . . . ..., . . . . ..., . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 77 1,26Men’s and boy’s neckwear. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . 165 170 1,03Separate trousers ..., ..., ..., ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 356 1,32Work clothing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 544 1.82Men’s and boys’ clothing, not elsewhere classified . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 646 1.12Fabric, dress, and work gloves . ..., ..., ..., ..., . . . . . 78 102 1.31Leather gloves . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . 80 96 1.20

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,040 20,830aA company IS deftned to Include all manufacturing establishments owned by the company, plus all manufacturing establishments of subsldlanes or affiliates over

—.

which the company has acknowledged controlbThls branch of Industry produces Items for wear by both sexes

SOURCE US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census of hlanufacturers

Nontraditional Apparel41

While most apparel involves the cutting and join-ing of garments from fabric, knit items use a differ-ent technology. The knit sector of the industry isdivided into two major categories: hosiery and knitunderwear products, and knit outerwear products.Both are facing severe challenges from imports, Prod-uct standardization has allowed developing nationsto gain quick footholds in this market segment, de-spite lower labor costs relative to traditional apparel.Prospects for the knitwear sector will depend notonly on controlling the level of import penetration,but also on aggressive marketing of identified mar-ket niches and perhaps, especially with knit outer-wear, by forward integration into retailing.

‘~lThls’~eC~l~n is based Iarqel;r on “Technologies for the Textile and.Appdrel Nlanufacture i n the [{s,” Op cfi p p ]~1.]~$),

The Hosiery and Knit Underwear Industry.–The hosiery and knit underwear industry (SICs 2251,2252, and 2254) consists of 500 to 600 corporations—some integrated horizontally, others vertically—which compete in two separate homogeneous andundifferentiated markets, the hosiery market and theunderwear market.

The hosiery and knit underwear industries arecharacterized by a common manufacturing technol-ogy, the circular knitting process. The products areessentially apparel goods, but with almost no sew-ing except for knit underwear. Labor costs are con-siderably lower than those for traditional apparel.

Rivalry among companies is high, due to:

• the large number of firms,● low growth rates of the markets,● standardization of the products, and• diversification of the industry.

66

Table 8.—Apparel Industry in the United States, Production Measures, 1967-84

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (9)

Production Apparelworkers Volume in Volume in Volume in Phyiscal Products

Year emplt. manhours 1967 dollars pounds square yards output Index(thousands) (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) (1977=100)

1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1,268.31968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1,278.31969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1,277.01970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1,239.11971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........1,210.61972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1,230.91973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........1,257.41974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........1,188.71975. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............1,078.21976. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............1,140.01977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........1,130.31978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1,138.31979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............1,106.11980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,079.01981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........1,060.71982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985.31983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980.61984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,001.5

2,299,812- - - - - - - - -

2,347,8272,319,9722,220,1132,185,6772,225,8762,267,5612,100,5601,900,7512,056,5192,014,7592,017,1231,952,8281,916,3851,893,1191,712,7981,776,6211,816,785

$15,952.217,571,217,817.918,491.117,430.518,987.119,475.318,608.718,562.519,414.019,579.020,726.921,440.521,440.021,625.120,804.021,543.9

N.A.

3,615.43,745.43,599.73,585.13,733.44,195.0

10,2443,746,13,697.23,877,84,158.14,097.43,990.43,939.83,759.73,437.04,015.33,772.9

N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.9,934

10,76210,2449,9109,3789,790

10,49710,29910,13110,0609,9249,729

10,13510,086

$14,028.314,465.114,003.613,130.413,231.614,640.714,431.013,775.713,516.713,847.713,664.013,915.713,704.313,680.313,747.112,652,013,306,4

N.A.

80.982.985.682.283.288.389.085.077.691.5

100.0103.198.397.396.187.395,3

102.8NA.—Not available

SOURCES Prepared by the International Ladies’ Garment Worker’s Union, from Cols. (a) &(b) data from U.S Bureauof Labor Statistics (SIC 23-239+2251+2252+2253+2254. COI (c) dollar volume Interms of items produced in the United States as shown in the Annual Apparel Survey, Censusof Manufacturers, andAnnual Sumey of Manufactures Col (d)U,S Textile Economics Bureau, Inc, Texti/e Orgarron. Col (e) National Cotton Council of America, Cotton Counts//s Customers Col. (f) quantities produced In the United States, shown by the Annual Apparel Surveys, Census of Manufacturers and Annual Surveys ofManufactures weighted by average values of different productsln 1967 taken from the same sources Col (g)lndexof Production for Apparel Products,compiled by the Federal Resewe Board

There are many similarly sized companies whichcompete in a comparatively low growth market. Highstandardization of the product prevents competitorsfrom becoming distinctively different from oneanother. Furthermore, as a result of all firms beingon a similar experience curve, the cost structure de-termines prices.

The key to profitability in the hosiery and knit un-derwear industry appears to be eliminating the cur-rently high level of standardization among products.It is essential to have excellent marketing programs.Also critical, at least according to some prominentexperts, is higher product differentiation and mar-keting flexibility. While this production-oriented in-dustry has been changing, such developments havetended to be more reactive than proactive.

Some experts see the industry as one in decline.The industry is consolidating into smaller units, anddisinvestment is occurring. Technology turnover islow; productivity improvements are unlikely to come

from newer technology; and employment is decreas-ing, as are the number of companies in the indus-try. Nonetheless, some parts of the industry areshowing export strength, suggesting that the lowprofitability in the industry is due largely to missedmarketing and innovation opportunities, and not justto industry structure. Much of the export boost isdue to innovations of the fiber companies in newfibers and related products, In summary, the hosieryand knit underwear industry, while currently declin-ing, could be revived with proactive marketing.

Technology for the industry is largely supplied bya few machinery producers, of which only a smallpercentage are U.S.-owned. Updating of machineryis fairly frequent, making the technology used animportant factor in the competition.

The Knitting Outerwear Industry.--The knit-ting outerwear industry (SIC 2253) consists of sev-eral hundred small-scale but growing operations.These companies compete in several different mar-

.

67

kets, including sweaters, shirts, and general outer-wear, While such markets are interrelated, there ismuch potential for segmentation. The industry islargely part of the apparel industry, but only a smallpercentage of the production technology involvessewing.

Rivalry among fiber producers is high, due to:

the large number of firms in the industry,the variable size of industry firms,low growth rate of the markets,high imports,high amount of fixed costs,standardization of the products produced byU.S. manufacturers, andgeneral industry diversification.

Gaining market share in this sector is extremely dif-ficult. The unnecessarily high degree of standard-ization of apparel products in U.S. markets providesan opportunity for some manufacturers to createstrong market niches for knitting outerwear prod-ucts. But even though manufacturers could substan-tially differentiate their products, few have done so.In addition, the industry faces extremely high im-port levels from more flexible firms, which oftenhave higher quality products.

Buyer bargaining power is substantial. Productsare competitive, and those of the buyer industry,retailers, are high. Due to the large amount of com-petition, substitutability among domestic and foreignknitting producers by retailers is relatively easy.

The knitting industry has the potential to integrateforward. The lack of profitability in this sector couldbe made up for by an appropriate retail chain. Ital-ian outerwear knitters, for example, have success-fully opened a retail chain in the United States. Thisshould be possible for U.S. producers as well, sincethere are no substantial entry and exit barriers inthe industry.

Low entry barriers are a function of:

● low economies of scale,● low product differentiation,● marginal cost advantages,● moderate capital requirements, andŽ access to the distribution channels.

Low economies of scale provide a good incentivefor small and flexible units to enter the industry, if

they have access to distribution channels. Disadvan-tages to firms that lack vertical integration can eas-ily be compensated for through marketing flexibil-ity and better product mix. The industry has a highpotential for profits if firms react to consumer de-mand, if they forward integrate, and if they adoptinnovative marketing techniques.

The technology used in this sector is basically ma-ture, and is supplied largely by a few machineryproducers—of which only a small percentage areU.S.-owned. Updating of machinery is moderate inthe knitting sector, and low in sewing operations.No single competitor has distinctively different tech-nology.

Pending Technology

Cutting Technologies

Most experts agree that the making of markers bycomputer-controlled systems, as well as the cuttingof fabrics under computer control, is a likely devel-opment for some aspects of apparel production. Anda number of desirable advances in the actual spread-ing and cutting of fabrics can be envisioned.

Spreading, unlike most other apparel technology,has not changed much in recent years. More impor-tant, however, is the question of whether cuttingmultiple layers of fabric to form bundles will be ei-ther replaced or augmented by continuous cuttingof fabric, one layer at a time. The current bundlesystem acts as a buffer between various process steps,creating a reservoir to absorb or augment the flowof material through a system of processes. The bun-dle system is also directly responsible for the longin-process time that is characteristic of today’s ap-parel processes. Replacing a process that requiresa garment to spend anywhere from 2 to 20 days inthe manufacturing chain with a process that wouldallow a garment to appear several hours after cut-ting makes for an attractive alternative.

The reciprocating knife is thought by many to bethe weak link in modern cutting systems; otherwise,current computer-controlled systems are generallyadequate. Depending on one’s view, what is neededis the ability either to cut more plies more reliably,or to cut single layers quickly with immediate trans-fer to assembly stations. Reciprocating knives arelimited in speed and flexibility, while jet cutters can

68

Photo credit: Charles Gardner, School of Textiles, North Carolina State University

The new computer-controlled apparel laser cuttingtechnologies (left) represent a major advance

over hand cutting (right).

suffer severe energy losses if too many layers arepresented to them. Laser cutters tend to fuse fabricsthat are cut in more than one layer. An ideal cut-ting system could first be defined by whether multi-ple plies or individual layers were being cut. In addi-tion, an ideal system could:

● apply to all fabric types,● have a circular cross-section of minimum di-

ameter,● operate in conjunction with a computer-con-

trolled guidance system, and● be able to enter the fabric at the center as well

as at the edges.

Materials utilization is of major concern. Theamount of waste in cutting can vary from as littleas 8 percent for well-placed, computer-generatedmarkers on unpatterned material, to as high as 25percent for patterned fabrics. Since the fabric costis roughly one-third to one-half the garment cost,this represents a major loss. Any technological de-velopment that could reduce either the waste levelor the actual cost of the fabric waste would be of

Photo credit: Copyright (©) 1986, 1987 by Bobbin International Inc.All rights reserved

great interest. Areas needing investigation includethe packing of patterns with maximum efficiency,the optimization of seams and their associated seamallowances, and the relationship between cuttingtechniques and waste generation. Other ideas in-clude the building up of garments or garment subas-semblies directly from fiber, in order to ensure gen-eration of zero waste.

As cutting technology automates—and as fabricquality continues to improve, making apparel man-ufacturers increasingly willing to accept fabric with-out their own quality inspection—some predict thata new degree of vertical integration will emerge, withcertain elements of cutting becoming part of textilemill manufacturing.42

Joining Technologies

Today, sewing contributes the largest portion ofthe labor cost to an apparel item, even though asmuch as 70 to 80 percent of what is ascribed to sew-ing cost is really materials handling. According tosome experts, automation of materials handling, bothbefore and after the sewing machine, poses the great-est potential for successful automation.

It is a widely held view that sewn seams will neverbe totally replaced. They have both mechanical andaesthetic attributes that are essential in some partsof garments. On the other hand, many have the viewthat alternatives to sewing can and should be inves-

42(&orge W i n e , pers~nne] cOmm\lnicatiOn.

69-— .

tigated closely. These alternate technologies wouldbe in the general areas of glueing, fusing, and weld-ing of fabrics. It also seems likely that some of thesetechniques could be automated more successfullythan sewing. There may also be use for these tech-niques as temporary joints, prior to a final joiningby sewing techniques.

Technologies for Apparel Assembly

The apparel sector is characterized by relativelysimple technology and a high degree of labor inten-sity. In the global marketplace of apparel, most ex-perts see a reduction in import penetration and in-creased automation as the only long-term solutionsfor the survival of apparel production in industrial-ized nations. Automation is considered the solutionfor reducing labor costs, adding production flexibil-ity, and standardizing quality. In addition, there aremany new uses for apparel, ranging from space suitsto disposable apparel for medical use, and from pro-tective suits for chemical plant employees to light-weight, bullet-proof vests for protecting soldiers andpolice officers.

Today’s basic piece of equipment, the sewing ma-chine, is fundamentally a mechanized tool. It hasremained substantially the same throughout the cen-tury. This is due primarily to the small and special-ized nature of individual establishments, and to theever-changing styles and fabrics of the fashionmarket.

Simple technologies with low fixed assets per em-Ployee, 43 coupled with management and manufac-turing flexibility provided by the contracting system,mean easy entry and exit from the industry and ahighly competitive economic environment. Compe-tition is not confined to producers manufacturing thesame types of products, but extends to firms that pro-duce substitutes. Firms making dresses, therefore,compete with those manufacturing skirts, blouses,sweaters, suits, slacks, and a variety of other prod-ucts. Such competition results in a high rate of turn-over, with hundreds of apparel firms going out ofbusiness each year.

Clearly, the potential for improving productivityin the apparel industry through new technological

developments and adaptations is substantial. Whereproduction is sufficiently large in volume, more ad-vanced technologies are being used. This is espe-cially true in fabric spreading and cutting, and inspecialized stitching operations.

Most sewing technologies remain homogeneous,and are largely worker-paced rather than automatic.Some new systems for automated sewing are in de-velopment, such as the sewing of sleeves for men’ssuits developed through the tripartite support of gov-ernment, industry, and organized labor. One sucheffort, organized as the Textile/Clothing TechnologyCorp. ((TC)2), spearheads the U.S. effort in automatedsewing. (TC)2 has succeeded in automating the pro-duction of sleeves for men’s suits, significantly re-ducing the time it takes to manufacture each of 20million sleeves per year.

During the past decade, research in apparel man-ufacturing has expanded from the mechanical engi-neering base to microelectronics applications and a“total systems” concept. Information processing hasbecome highly advanced and lower in cost. This isespecially germane to apparel manufacturing, wherethe number of different bits of information neededto cut, route, and assemble the components of manydifferent styles and sizes of garments reaches enor-mous proportions. Without relatively inexpensivecomputers with high memory capacities, it is imprac-tical to automate apparel manufacturing processes.44

The development of automated pattern-makingand cutting equipment, which replaces operationsformerly done by hand, has become technologicallyfeasible since the advent of sufficiently powerful yetrelatively inexpensive information processing ofmicroelectronic capabilities. Many apparel firms havealready installed computer-assisted pattern making,marking, and cutting systems. Automatic sewing ma-chines are used in some locations, and automaticconveyor systems for handling in-process goods arein evidence in many apparel plants.

The next critical step in apparel automation hasbeen the development of technologies that can iden-tify and pick up a single ply of fabric from a multi-ply lay, position the piece, and join it to another.Such advances, another result of the efforts of (TC)2,

~~Acc~rdlng to 1981 data from the Census Bureau, the apparel in-

dustry (as represented by SIC 23) had average fixed assets per employeeof onl~ $40{)0, in contrast to an average of $31,100 for all manufacturing

tl~jordon Berkstresser and ~azuo Takeuc}li. “.~llt~mati~[] A ~lght-

ing (’hance’)” fhbb]n Alagazine, }Iarch 1985, p . ,50

70

Photo credit Copyright (©) 1986, 1987 by Bobbin International Inc.All rights reserved

Graders at H.L. Miller and Son are using the GerberAM-5 system to remake new patterns out of old patternsstored in the system. What used to take 1 hour when

done manually now takes less than 2 minutes.

has been transferred to the Singer Sewing Co., whichplans to begin commercial use in late 1987. This in-novation, of course, depends on robots that havemore than limited decision making and movementflexibility capacities, such as those that exist in cur-rent industrial robotics.

Another promising technological development inapparel, currently being worked on at Japan’s Re-search Institute for Polymers & Textiles, is the ap-plication of computer graphics to apparel design.45

Other developments are ready for marketing. Torayof Japan is ready to market a low-cost, microcom-puter-controlled, pattern-making system this year.The Nagano Prefectural Research Institute for Infor-mation Technology in Japan has developed sophis-ticated software for microcomputer-controlled evalu-ation of fabric.

In the early 1980s, the Japanese Government pro-vided $60 million to a special apparel research group.The overall objective of this group has been the de-velopment of a system to administer and control thetotal manufacturing process and to reduce produc-tion time by 50 percent, with a pilot plant operatingby 1989. Although the project has encountered somedifficulty in fulfilling its goal of simultaneously ad-dressing problems faced by both large and small bus-inesses, several of its programs—especially those that

target large-scale production—are proceeding vigor-ously. The group’s four specific objectives are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

A

To develop pre-sewing technology, includingevaluation of the fabric, material stabilizationtechnology, pattern making and cutting, auto-matic spreading, and inspection for fabricdefects.To automate sewing and assembly of parts, in-cluding the development of machines to fold,cut, and bind temporarily; of programmable andautomatic sewing machines; and of devices forautomatic pressing on forms. Also to be ex-plored is the development of innovative meth-ods of joining garment sections without the useof conventional sewing techniques.To improve materials handling, including cre-ating devices to hold material similar to humanfingers and arms, which can transfer garmentparts to precise locations; can assemble com-ponent parts into segments to be sewn together,such as collars with interlinings; and can trans-fer parts from one process to the next.To implement a control system with the tech-nology to integrate the production line, espe-cially when types of products are changed, suchas the flexible manufacturing system (FMS) con-cept; to monitor the production line, and repairor replace damaged machine parts automat-ically; to detect, remove, and replace defects inthe goods in process; to establish a method ofmarking the fabric parts with sewing control in-formation; and to develop devices to read con-trol information during the production process.

highly automated and flexible apparel manu-facturing system will have a profound effect on thedistribution system, as will the introduction of so-phisticated microelectronic devices in retail storesfor customer sizing and selection. This process willrequire the development of a more sensitive and so-phisticated marketing orientation. In other words,the apparel industry must get “closer to the consumer. ”

If there is to be a technological revolution in ap-parel, a substantial adjustment by the apparel laborforce may be required of both production workersand managers. Unemployment among apparel work-ers is likely to grow; plans to minimize dislocationcould be made now, rather than later. Aside fromchanges in the numbers and types of productionworkers, there will be new demands on managers.

71

Photo credit: Copyright (©) 1986, 1987 by Bobbin International Inc.All rights reserved

This supervisor of a “unit production” system (see ch.2) monitors a number of workers, parts, and productionspeeds simultaneously, through the use of advancedcomputer technologies. The skill level needed by sucha manager is clearly different than that needed by

the traditional supervisor in a nonautomatedapparel facility.

Skills necessary to supervise large numbers of work-ers using simple machines with repetitive tasks aredistinct from skills necessary to supervise automatedlines with automated control systems and a fewhighly trained technicians. Management could alsoplan for orderly change within its own ranks.

Pending Automation in Apparel.46—The ap-parel industry of the industrialized world seems un-able, with current technologies, to retain markets.Differences in labor costs are so great that even withthe higher cost of long distance shipping, low laborcost countries often have a substantial price advan-tage. According to many experts, once the surge ofimports can be slowed, the best long-term solutionfor the survival of the apparel industry in industri-alized nations is increased automation—which willreduce labor costs, add flexibility, and standardizequality.

Research projects now under way in the UnitedStates, Europe, and Japan are demonstrating thetechnical feasibility of automating apparel produc-tion processes. Using computers, development ofthree-dimensional graphics capability for apparel de-

JfiThis section is based ]arge[} on Gordon Berkstresser, PeJ’ton B. H~ld-son, and Ka}uo Takeuchi, “Automated Apparel Manufacturing: A GlobalPerspective~” cited in “Technologies for the Textile and Apparel hlan-ufacture In the U S. ,“ op clt

sign has been achieved by the Japanese ResearchInstitution for Polymers and Textiles. The introduc-tion of microprocessor-controlled machine functionscan change the sewing operation in fundamentalways, as demonstrated by the “FIGARMA” systemdeveloped at the Chalmers University of Technol-ogy in Sweden. “FIGARMA,” or Fully Integrated Gar-ment Manufacture, is an extension of the conceptof flexible manufacturing systems. FIGARMA notonly points out critical areas for the developmentof specific new technologies, but is also a total sys-tems approach that goes beyond technological de-velopment and into management areas, such asbuilding computer models for processes needed inplanning.

Chalmers, a Swedish company, has a history ofapparel technology development. In addition to theFIGARMA approach, this firm is using an Eton over-head rack materials handling unit in its apparel lab-oratory to conduct research on how computers mightbe able to position pieces to be sewn together at twosewing stations. Some years ago, Chalmers devel-oped an air-jet, single-ply separator. As in so manycases of this type, however, there was no short-termcommercial payback for industry, so the prototypehas gathered dust in the laboratory.

(TC)2, the tripartite endeavor of industry, labor, andthe U.S. Government, housed at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology’s Charles Stark Draper Lab-oratory, has made major strides in modernizing theproduction of men’s tailored clothing. Figure 14 pro-vides a model of this technology, which:

. . . has developed a computerized production proc-ess with robots which will take cut fabric and fullyautomate the manufacture of subassemblies. The cutfabric will be automatically fed into a machine and,with a computer-aided vision system and robot, willsew, turn, and fold the fabric. The conversion of limpfabric into sewn parts of garments, with the use ofcomputers and robots, represents a major technologi-cal breakthrough. Until this development, the use ofrobots in the production process was essentially lim-ited to rigid materials such as metals.47

Having proven success in workable technology forsleeves, coat backs, and trousers, Draper Labora-

~~statement of Murra} H Finley, President of the Amalgamated CIOth-ing and Textile Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO, to the Subcommittee onCommerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, Com-mittee on Appropriations, US. House of Representatives, Mar. 3, 1986,p, 4,

72

Figure 14.—(TC)2 Automated Sewing System

Vision Auto

robot

module

loader

SOURCE: Bobbin Magazine, September 1986.

tories are beginning a new activity to apply the tech-nology to knitwear—permitting automatic sewing ofknit parts.48 Production of jacket sleeves was to bethe first effort and would be used initially by PalmBeach, Inc. of Cincinnati at their Knoxville, TN, plant,and by the Hartmarx Corp. Future development ofa machine to sew trousers may be initially tried byGreif Companies, a division of Genesco, for its Al-lentown, PA, plant. The plan is to contract with aU.S. machinery manufacturer to commercialize thetechnology. And the Singer Sewing Co. has placedinto production a functional prototype of the (TC)2

technology; Singer finds “the presence of a signifi-cant market in the near term for application of auto-mated sewing systems. ”49 As for the future, Singer’svice president of industrial products has stated that“we are only scratching the surface in terms of uti-lizing the technology.”50

According to Amalgamated Clothing and TextileWorkers’ Union (ACTWU) President Murray Finley,the payback from technologies being developedtoday is rapid and substantial. Production time and

labor costs can be reduced. The inventory of fabric,in the form of bundles of sewn parts awaiting thenext stages of manufacture, is greatly reduced as well.

Industry and organized labor are providing approx-imately $5 million per year for these and similar ef-forts, and the Federal Government has pledged anadditional $3 million, With hundreds of thousandsof jobs and tens of millions of production dollars atstake, the amount could be far greater; Japan isspending $80 million to develop a fully automatedapparel process for the 21st century, one whichdwarfs anything on the drawing boards in the UnitedStates. The Japanese plan to develop a system inwhich a salesman in a clothing store would take ahologram of a customer’s body, and digitally con-trolled machines would then tailor-make an articleof clothing.51 As this goal makes clear, the differencebetween the United States and Japan lies both inlevels of funding and in mandate. While (TC)2 is aneffort to automate the production of sewing, the Jap-anese program represents state-led industrial restruc-turing.

481 bid., p. 5.4gFrank Bray and Vince Vento, “Chapter Two Begins With Singer, ”

Bobbin Magazine, September 1986, p. 170.501 bid., p. 174,

slBruce Stokes, “@tting Competitive,” /National Joumaf, June 7, 1986,

p. 1363,

73

Photo credit Copyright (©) 1986, 1987 by Bobbin International Inc.All rights reserved

Pictured above is the factory prototype machine of (TC)2,the apparel manufacturing technology developed at MIT’sCharles Starke Draper Laboratories. Below are two partsof the (TC)2 manufacturing process: the “interlockingbelt system,” shown with the interlocked open (middle),

which guides the fabric along the surface duringproduction; and the “end effecter” (bottom), which

is a high-technology sewing head mounted ona standard robot.

New automated design techniques have also beendeveloped. Designers can electronically “sketch” de-sign, color, and texture onto a computer screen. Thedesign variety is nearly infinite, and multiple possi-bilities can be reviewed in moments.52

Computer-controlled, high speed sewing machinesdo exist today. However, most experts feel that thesemachines may be inadequate for the technology of5 years from now. Some of the areas in which sew-ing machine architecture and operation could be in-vestigated include: the possibility of three-dimen-sional sewing rather than flat sewing; independentcomputer control of both the bobbin and the nee-dle, to allow greater flexibility; and technologies thatmove the sewing head to the fabric instead of viceversa. This last technique is a major component ofthe technology developed at the Draper Laboratoriesby (TC)2. It also is suggested that inspection of thesewing machine could be of considerable advantage,and might possibly be integrated with the sewingprocess itself.

sz~e,y(j)e lfjgt)/jgh(s, Op. Clt

Photo credit’ Copyright (©) 1986, 1987 by Bobbin International Inc.All rights reserved

In addition to apparel production, the Singer SewingCo. has brought robotics into the manufacture of such

end-uses as washcloths (above) and upholstery.

74

TEXTILE MACHINERY MANUFACTURE

Background

The textile machinery segment of the industry isthe smallest of the four. It has approximately 640plants, employing 18,300 people—12,200 in produc-tion—in 1985.53 While the U.S. textile industry rep-resents the largest single textile machinery marketin the world, U.S. machinery manufacturers are los-ing this market to foreign manufacturers. WhereasU.S. textile machinery manufacturers in 1960 sup-plied 93 percent of the domestic market, by 1979the figure had dropped to 55 percent; much of the1979 sales were in parts, rather than in new, com-plete machines. By 1982, domestic suppliers heldonly 48 percent of the market.

Of the $1.6 billion spent by the U.S. textile indus-try in 1981, only half was being spent within theUnited States; that portion was largely for parts, ma-terials handling equipment, and less sophisticatedmachinery. Only about one-quarter of U.S. textilemachinery manufacturing firms even make completemachines.54 The other half of the $1.6 billion, whichwas spent for high-technology textile systems, wentprimarily to West Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France,Japan, and Great Britain, The United States, how-ever, continues to be a major producer of dyeing andfinishing equipment, and also exports a consider-able amount of high- and low-technology textileequipment, equal to 16 percent of total production.

The U.S. textile machinery sector (SIC 3552) is los-ing ground in other areas as well—not only in the$1.6 billion annual U.S. market, but also in the $7.1billion world market. World market share for U.S.manufacturers during that same period fell to wellunder 10 percent.55 The United States is no longera leader in the textile machinery market. Rather, ithas become a large market for the textile machin-ery of overseas competitors.

5SU.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, EmPlOYmenfand Earnings, March 1986, p. 46.

S4U.S. /ndUstriaI Outlook, 1982, op. cit., P. Zos.

s5u.s. I)epartrnent of Commerce, “Opportunities and Strategies forU.S. Textile Machinery Manufacturers to Improve Their CompetitivePositions in Domestic and Foreign Textile Markets, 1980-1985,” Sep-tember 1980, p, I-33.

Indeed, spare parts represent a disturbingly largefraction of all sales of U.S. textile machinery firms.Spare parts are only 27 percent of Italy’s internationalsales, 49 percent of West Germany’s, and 51 per-cent of Great Britain’s—they are 92 percent of thesales of U.S. producers.56 As for exports, nearly allU.S. overseas sales of textile machinery are spareparts for previously purchased equipment. Thispoints to past U.S. machinery success, but bodes illfor current and near-future markets—especially forcomplete machines. U.S. technology is furthest be-hind the state-of-the-art in projectile and jet shuttle-less weaving, open-end spinning, high-speed wind-ing, and knitting equipment.57

Most U.S. imports of textile machinery come fromJapan and the European Economic Community(EEC), and are concentrated in the fabric and yarnindustries. West Germany and Switzerland togetheraccount for two-fifths of the world exports in textilemachinery, while Czechoslovakia and Japan haveemerged as important competitors.

Concentration in the industry is high, and is grow-ing through an increasing number of mergers, ac-quisitions, and joint ventures. The Swiss-based SulzerCorp. recently acquired Ruti, its strongest competitor;Sulzer-Ruti has close ties with both Toyoda, the Jap-anese leader in looms, and British air-jet technol-ogy. This enables Sulzer-Ruti to lead technologicaldevelopments in an oligopolistic manner. Also to becontended with are Hollingsworth-Hergeth, Reiter-Scragg, and Barber-Colman-Warner& Swasey. Whilesuch concentration is likely to have a negative im-pact on competition, the R&D departments of thesecombined market forces is expected to advance thedevelopment of new technology dramatically.

Multinationals are beginning to dominate textilemachinery manufacturing. Similar to chemical fibermanufacturers, these global corporations are highlyconcentrated on national and international levels.In Switzerland, for example, machinery productionfor the three major processing stages is dominatedby Rieter, Saurer, Dubied, and Sulzer-Ruti, four gi-ants in spinning, weaving, and knitting; in Britain,

Sslbid., p. 1-47.sTAmeriCan Texti]e Machinery Association, Texfde kfaChifW~ Statis-

tics, October 1981, p. 6.

75—

by Platt-Saco-Lowell and Bentley; in the UnitedStates, by Platt-Saco-Lowell; in Japan, by Toyoda,Howa, and a division of Nissan, the automobile cor-poration; in Czechoslovakia, by Investa; in Spain,by Jumberca; in West Germany, by Shubert & Sal-zer, Sulzer, Zinser, Mayer, Schlafhorst, and Stoll andTerrot; in France, by SACM and ARCT; and in Bel-gium, by Picanol.58 The “big eight,” ranked by esti-mated market shares, are Sulzer-Ruti, Rieter, Investa,Platt-Saco-Lowell, Nissan, Toyoda, Schlafhorst, andARCT. Sulzer-Ruti alone has staked out approxi-mately one-fifth of the global market for shuttlelesslooms, either directly or through licensing.

There are specific market niches, however, forsmaller companies. The Swiss company Maschinen-fabrik Jacob Muller AG, a subsidiary of Frick, is aworld leader in high-speed narrow fabric looms. Ger-many’s Karl Mayer Textilmaschinenfabrik claims tohave 85 percent of the world market for Raschel andtricot knitting machines. While Schlafhorst is a ma-jor producer overall, it is also the acknowledgedleader in the narrower markets of warping machin-ery and various automatic and non-automatic winders,Capitalizing on similar market niche opportunitiesmay be one of the most critical strategies for the U.S.industry of the future.

The licensing of technology is a major method forcapturing market share. Czech licenses for weavingmachines, for example, have been granted to Enshu,Nissan, Toyo Menka, Draper, Crompton, Knowles,and Mayer. And although market positions stemlargely from more R&D investment, most U.S. ma-chinery producers lack either the means or themomentum for needed R&D.

Much of the European success is also due to serv-ice. The big foreign machinery producers have serv-ice facilities in the heart of the U.S. textile industry.Employees speak English, whereas a reciprocal ap-proach seems to be neglected in U.S. export officesoperating in non-English speaking nations. Spareparts can be flown in within a reasonable amountof time. Murata of America, a Japanese firm, hasheadquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, as doOmintex of Czechoslovakia, and Toyoda and Nis-san of Japan. Sulzer of Switzerland, Pignone of Italy,and Hargeth of Germany have offices in Spartans-

burg, South Carolina. The British firm Platt-Saco-Lowell operates in Greenville, South Carolina. In1980, Platt-Saco-Lowell boasted an order backlog of9 months to a year on most of its product lines; thatsame year, the Sulzer Group had order intake forweaving and knitting equipment of over $430 mil-lion—a large increase over the previous year. Thejoint efforts of Schubert& Salzer Machine Works withIngolstadt of West Germany also reported recordsales in 1980.

Some U.S. companies have experienced growthas well. In early 1980, for example, Automatic Ma-terial Handling announced orders of $2.5 million totwo U.S. companies for 12 Bale-O-Matics and newhoppers. Another textile manufacturer bought 21chutes from that firm, and substantial sales weremade to French companies. Leesona, Draper, andothers—including many air control equipment com-panies—have also increased sales, both within theUnited States and abroad.

According to industry analysts at the U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce,59 U.S. manufacturers are not ex-pected to regain the technological advantage theyonce had in winding and weaving in the near fu-ture. On the other hand, they may stay competitivein support equipment and equipment used in open-ing through ring spinning. By the end of the 1980s,even newer versions of textile equipment are ex-pected to increase productivity, safety, and energyconservation still further, presenting U.S. manufac-turers with another difficult but important challenge.The technological and economic results from thisdevelopment remain to be seen. Creation of the Tex-tile/Clothing Technology Corp. by companies, un-ions, and government may breathe new life into thetextile machinery sector; expansion of such R&D ef-forts could help significantly.

Industrial Structure

The condition of textile machinery manufacturersin the United States may best be understood froma global perspective. Ernst Nef, publisher of the In-ternational Textile Bulletin, writes:

The American textile machinery manufacturers in-creasingly lose their position in . . . [both domesticand world] markets. There is no significant loom

76

manufacturer in production. Spinning machines areproduced by Platt-Saco-Lowell. If they have no hugesuccess with the new friction spinning machine, theywill lose the whole market. The Japanese machinesare better. Leesona is no longer of importance. Allthe rest are companies which are accustomed to theAmerican market. internationally, they are unim-portant.

Draper and C&K used to be the world leadingloom builders, whereas Saco, Lowell, and Whitinwere the leaders in the spinning machinery sector.Furthermore, other leaders used to be Textile Ma-chine Works, Reading, in knitting and Leesona intexturing and winding. Unifil, Johnson used to bethe number one slashing machinery producer.60

Nevertheless, U.S. machinery manufacturers havedeveloped new technology to rebuild old equipment,such as new cards and conversion from shuttle toshuttleless looms. Cards can be completely rebuilt,with cylinder speeds increased and setting accuracyimproved. With loom conversion costing 15 to 25percent of the price of a new loom, a company canincrease its productivity up to 70 percent by con-verting conventional shuttle looms to air-jet looms;Leesona and Draper offer loom conversion. How-ever, while the technology for these rebuilding ef-forts is innovative, it still leaves U.S. machinery man-ufacturing strengths primarily in the area of partsand servicing of existing machines—not a good prog-nosis for the future.

The U.S. textile machinery manufacturing indus-try is well aware of its declining markets in the areaof new machine systems. In the introduction to areport from a cooperative grant between the Amer-ican Textile Machinery Association (ATMA) and theU.S. Department of Commerce, ATMA acknowledgesthe problem:

. . . the U.S. textile and apparel machinery industrieshave not kept pace with the high-technology advancesbeing developed and introduced by foreign compe-titors. The reasons for this lag include the industry’s

~~The previous two paragraphs are based largely on Ernst Nef, pub-

lisher, International Textile Bulletin, Zurich, Switzerland, personal let-ter, cited in “Technologies for the Textile and Apparel Manufacture inthe U.S.,” op. cit , p. 341.

inadequate attention to research and development,its failure to recognize the growing technologicalstrength of foreign companies, and the lack of studyand communication needed for the transfer of tech-nology from one U.S industry to another. Often, basicresearch conducted in the United States is being ex-ploited by foreign competitors, instead of beingadapted by U.S. industries. U.S. firms have not en-couraged communication among themselves or withinventors; consequently, U.S. patent applications arenow in the minority and continue to decrease.61

In order to correct for the above deficiencies,ATMA has recognized the need for machinery man-ufacturers to heighten their awareness of both ma-chinery technology and the state of this technologywithin the textile industry. Along with the Depart-ment of Commerce, ATMA embarked in 1984 ona study to:

● identify needs for high-technology applicationsto textile and apparel machinery;

● identify potential resources of high-technologyresearch and development, to be applied to tex-tile and apparel machinery; and

● develop an organization to establish long-termapproaches, including the development of ahigh-technology institute for the textile and ap-parel machinery industries, which would beaimed at the commercialization and the attain-ment of a greater share of the world market forU.S. manufacturers.62

Revitalization of textile machinery manufacturingis considered by most to be crucial to a strong do-mestic textile industry. Some believe, however, thatmachinery development in the future could betterserve the industry if it were done by the textile man-ufacturers themselves, rather than by a separate ma-chinery manufacturing sector. That more domesticR&D is needed is not debated; where and by whom,and with how much money and from whom, is verymuch in question.

slAmerican Textile Machinery Association, Development of NationalApproaches to the Application of High Technology to the Textile andApparel Machinery Industries, for the U.S. Department of Commerce,Cooperative Grant No. 99-26-07170-10, October 1984, p. 1.

c21bid., p, 2.