Woven Selvedges: Leno, Tucked and Fused Edge Choices

A fabric edge has to survive more than the moment it leaves the loom. It may guide the roll, carry a finishing load, pass through inspection and remain visible in the finished product. An edge that looks neat on the loom can still fail one of those jobs.

Choosing among woven selvedge types therefore starts with the route of the cloth. The useful question is how the edge holds the yarns together, what material it consumes, and what happens to it later. Leno, tucked and fused edges solve that problem in different ways.

This guide explains those choices and develops original examples for width and yarn accounting. All trial figures are invented. They illustrate the reasoning; they are not machine settings, supplier performance claims or standard acceptance limits.

Map the edge that stays and the material that leaves

Start with a sample across the whole woven width. Identify the main fabric, its retained selvedge, any loose weft fringe and any separate catch strip. Mark the planned cut lines. These features may sit close together, but they do not all become part of the sold cloth.

A retained selvedge binds the edge of the fabric. A catch or waste selvedge can hold weft ends during weaving and may later be removed. Its name alone does not tell you how much of its warp or weft reaches the waste container. Trace the actual route.

The distinction matters when discussing a shorter fringe. A shorter visible end may save weft, but it does not prove that fewer binding warp ends were consumed. Likewise, removing a catch strip from one side does not mean that all edge waste has disappeared.

Itema's iSAVER description gives a specific example. Its supported systems use clamps and eliminate the false selvedge on the left side. The maker lists different machine and transfer-system combinations. That is a useful alternative to investigate, not evidence that every loom can run without every catch selvedge.

Define left and right from one stated viewing position. In photographs and production records, also name the insertion and receiving sides where those terms apply. Otherwise, a left-side saving from one report can be mistaken for a right-side change in another.

Understand how each edge holds the weft

Leno selvedges: binding with crossing warp yarns

In a leno edge, dedicated warp yarns cross around one another and bind the weft at the side. The crossing action helps secure the cut picks. The arrangement of these yarns, their feed and their binding sequence belong in the fabric specification.

Do not judge the result from fringe length alone. Check that the binding is complete, that no binding end has broken, and that the edge remains secure after the next process. A tidy fringe can conceal a section where the yarns no longer bind as intended.

Picanol's e-Leno information describes full-leno units with separate drive and control, plus yarn detection. It links the stable edge to later fabric processing. These are features of that system; they do not set a universal binding pattern or yarn tension.

A leno edge may be a practical choice when secure handling matters more than hiding every cut end. Check its appearance against the intended use. An edge that will be trimmed has a different appearance requirement from one kept as part of a visible product.

Tucked selvedges: returning cut ends into the cloth

A tuck-in system returns a cut weft tail into the edge structure, where subsequent interlacing holds it. This creates an edge with fewer projecting tails. It also places extra yarn segments close to the side of the cloth.

That extra yarn is retained material, not automatically waste. It can alter local thickness, firmness or appearance, so inspect the actual edge rather than assuming it matches the fabric centre. The central pick count alone does not describe the added material in the tuck zone.

Mechanical and pneumatic devices achieve the movement in different ways. Dornier's P2 brochure, printed pages 20–21 describes its QuickSet tuck-in device alongside separate leno and catch-selvedge systems. This makes the distinction between the fabric edge and the holding device explicit.

Tuck length must suit the installed device, yarn and construction. A short tail that sometimes escapes is not an improvement over a slightly longer tail that binds reliably. Confirm the whole edge, including starts, repairs and changes of weft.

Liu and colleagues' 2021 pneumatic tuck-in study used simulation and laboratory observations of a yarn with one fixed end. Its public abstract reports that airflow-pressure changes affected both motion time and yarn elongation. It supports checking yarn response, rather than treating pressure as a setting that improves only speed. Its experimental values are not recipes for another machine.

Fused edges: sealing a suitable material at the cut

A fused edge uses heat to join material at the boundary. The source of that heat may be a heated tool or a suitable ultrasonic process. The material must respond in a way that creates the required bond.

TELSONIC's fabric cutting application explains how ultrasonic cutting creates local heat that melts thermoplastic material and seals the cut. It also qualifies simultaneous sealing by the application. Cutting a cloth successfully is not, by itself, proof of a durable sealed edge.

Identify the fibres and any finish or coating before selecting this route. Do not assume that cotton behaves like a meltable synthetic fibre. A blend percentage also cannot describe every detail of where the bond-forming material lies within the edge.

Trials should examine the seal after bending, handling and the intended treatment. Check for separation, hard beads, damage beside the seal and a change in appearance. Choose the relevant checks for the product; a rigid technical strip and a soft edge against the skin have different needs.

Sealing can also be used when a broad fabric is divided into narrower strips. Each new cut creates its own edge requirement. The two outer edges of the original roll cannot establish the quality of every internal slit.

Continuous and chain-linked edges need their own description

In ordinary shuttle weaving, the continuing weft turns around at the sides. That looped boundary differs from a cut pick secured by a separate edge-forming device. Record any edge-specific warp plan as well as the insertion method.

Needle-woven narrow fabrics can secure weft loops with a knitted or chain-linked boundary. The exact system matters. Jakob Müller's training extract shows distinct arrangements, including interlinked wefts and a separate binder thread. It also limits those systems to suitably configured looms.

Do not call this boundary a tuck simply because it looks compact. Follow the yarn path and identify the binding yarns. For a ribbon or tape, edge bulk, loop security and behaviour at a cut end may be central to the product decision.

Choose from the product route, then check the equipment

An edge name is a starting point for selection. Build the comparison around the functions that the cloth must retain.

These are investigation prompts, not a ranking of one selvedge above another. A device that works with one yarn may need a different setup for another. Confirm compatibility with the loom model, width arrangement, weft selection and the proposed binding yarns.

Ask whether the edge must pass through clips, pins, rollers or a later cutting step. Inspect those contact areas on the sample. Increasing edge thickness may help one contact while creating trouble at another. Keep the full process route beside the edge drawing.

Separate full width from the width the buyer can use

State where each width measurement begins and ends. A measurement across projecting tails is different from one between defined fabric boundaries. Neither automatically gives the width available for cutting garment parts.

ISO 22198:2006, confirmed in 2023, covers fabric length and width in a tension-free relaxed state. Its public scope excludes coated fabrics and has a 100 m length limit. It does not provide a method for describing construction defects. Use an applicable full method for a formal result, then state the separate product rule for usable width.

For an original inspection example, take three positions on the same relaxed roll. Exclude a left and a right edge zone according to an agreed cutting requirement. The numbers below are millimetres.

At each position, usable width = full width − left exclusion − right exclusion. The mean usable width is 1,740 mm, but the smallest measured value is 1,738 mm.

Suppose this project's rule requires at least 1,740 mm at each assessed position. Position A fails that rule even though the mean equals it. Three observations do not establish the minimum along the whole roll; the sampling and release plan must address that wider question.

For a separate area estimate, assume a constant full width of 1.800 m and usable width of 1.740 m over 10,000 m. Full area is 18,000 m² and usable area is 17,400 m². The excluded strips total 600 m², or 3.33% of full area.

That is an area calculation, not a waste-mass measurement. A dense tuck or an extra binding yarn can make the edge's mass per area differ from the centre. ApparelDiary's usable fabric width guide explains how the agreed width reaches the cutting plan.

Calculate edge yarn on a clear length basis

A change of a few millimetres per pick can matter over a long run. Keep the left and right losses separate, and define exactly which yarn segments the measurement includes.

Akdeniz, Özek and Durusoy's 2017 rapier-weaving study compared image-based and manual measurements of weft waste. Its results concerned specific yarns and a particular loom, with different behaviour for stretch yarns. The practical lesson is to record the measurement state and side. The paper's reported waste lengths are not universal allowances.

For an elastic yarn, a short relaxed tail and a longer tensioned tail may be the same piece. State the straightening or feed-length basis before comparing them. Likewise, a curved yarn path cannot always be measured by a straight line between its endpoints.

Worked case: shorter discarded weft ends

Assume a run produces 10,000 m of fabric at 24 picks/cm in the stated cloth condition. This is 2,400 picks/m, giving 24,000,000 retained picks. Each pick uses the same 30 tex weft.

For this teaching model, the discarded lengths per accepted pick are measured on a common straightened-yarn basis. Baseline losses are 22 mm on the left and 36 mm on the right. A candidate changes them to 18 mm and 27 mm. These are assumptions, not proposed cutter settings.

The total falls from 58 mm to 45 mm per pick, a saving of 13 mm. Over the run:

Saved yarn length = 24,000,000 × 0.013 = 312,000 m.

Tex expresses grams per 1,000 m. Using the same yarn-length basis, the saved mass is:

Saved mass = 312,000 × 30 ÷ 1,000,000 = 9.36 kg.

The baseline discarded weft totals 1,392,000 m, or 41.76 kg. The candidate totals 1,080,000 m, or 32.40 kg. Their difference agrees with the direct saving calculation.

This model includes the normal edge cuts for accepted picks. It does not include failed insertion waste, startup waste, broken yarn, binding warp or fabric rejected later. Collect and classify those streams if the purpose is to find total process loss.

Keep the saving percentage tied to its denominator

The saving within this discarded-weft stream is 9.36 ÷ 41.76 × 100 = 22.41%. That is not a 22.41% reduction in all weft use, let alone all fabric material.

Suppose retained weft length is a constant 1.900 m per pick in both versions. It includes any weft that remains in the edge. Baseline total weft is then 1.958 m per pick, while the candidate uses 1.945 m.

Across the run, those totals weigh 1,409.76 kg and 1,400.40 kg. The same 9.36 kg saving is only 0.66% of baseline total weft. Both percentages are valid, but they answer different questions.

The constant retained length is an important assumption. If a new tuck keeps more yarn in the cloth, measure that change too. Do not subtract a tail from waste and then forget that part of it has moved into the retained edge.

ApparelDiary's yarn-count conversion guide helps put different count systems on a common mass-per-length basis. Use actual yarn identity and count for each stream rather than applying one tex value to mixed waste.

Count extra binding ends separately

For a different illustration, suppose two retained edges together use 20 additional binding ends, each 20 tex. A measured feed factor of 1.06 m of yarn per metre of cloth applies over the same 10,000 m length.

Total binding-yarn length is 20 × 10,000 × 1.06 = 212,000 m. Its mass is 212,000 × 20 ÷ 1,000,000 = 4.24 kg. The factor includes the measured yarn path for this case; it is not a universal leno allowance.

Those 4.24 kg remain in the retained edges under the stated assumption. They are consumption, not discarded waste. If a separate catch strip is removed, count its yarns in the discarded stream instead. Do not add them again if they are already included in a weighed strip.

Test the edge through the route it must survive

Compare the baseline and candidate on matched material. Preserve the fabric identity, binding yarns, edge drawing and planned trim line. Where several features change together, describe the result as a comparison of complete edge systems.

Inspect both sides before processing. Look for missed binding, loose tails, damaged yarns, local thick places and irregular width. Keep the locations of repairs and restarts visible in the record. A sample taken only from the smoothest running section can miss the edge's weak points.

Next, take the cloth through the intended finishing and handling route. Record where the edge is gripped, guided, stretched or removed. Examine the actual contact zones afterwards. A laboratory hand pull may help compare samples, but it does not reproduce every load in a finishing machine.

Use a stated force, direction, gauge and endpoint for any comparison test. “Strong edge” is too vague for another team to reproduce. Decide whether the concern is a weft tail pulling out, a binding end breaking, the edge opening or a grip damaging the fabric.

Compare edge and centre length changes

An edge can also change length differently from the body. Track matched lengthwise gauges in the same cloth before and after the required treatment. Use the same defined measurement state at both stages.

For example, three initially 500 mm gauges lie near the left edge, in the body and near the right edge. After treatment, they measure 494 mm, 492 mm and 490 mm. Their reductions are 1.2%, 1.6% and 2.0% on the common starting-length basis.

Each edge differs from the body by 0.4 percentage points, in opposite directions. The two edges differ by 4 mm, or 0.8 percentage points. This flags a widthwise difference worth examining; it does not alone prove the cause of curl, waves or distortion.

The three gauges are positions in one specimen, not three independent production trials. Repeat the comparison across suitable material and process conditions. Keep changes in edge construction, yarn feed and treatment separate wherever the trial can do so.

For a fused edge, also inspect whether its seal remains continuous after the required handling. For a tucked edge, check both the secure return and the local bulk. For leno, confirm the binding yarns remain intact and hold the relevant picks. Test the feature that makes the edge work.

Draw one cut plan for a multiple-width layout

When one broad web becomes several narrow strips, draw every retained edge and cut line on the same width plan. The number of cut lines differs from the number of resulting edge faces. This matters when assigning sealed zones, tuck zones or excluded material.

Consider a separate invented layout with a defined full width of 1.800 m. It produces three strips, each with 0.560 m of usable width after the stated edge exclusions. Combined usable width is 3 × 0.560 = 1.680 m. The remaining 0.120 m, or 6.67% of full width, lies outside those usable zones.

There are two internal cuts in this simple layout. They create four internal edge faces, in addition to the two original outside faces. The three strips therefore have six edge faces to assess. Do not count a single removed gap twice merely because it borders two strips.

The calculation does not say that the entire excluded width is a cutter kerf. It may include retained but unusable edge zones, removed material and space required by the chosen construction. Assign each part once and state where it goes.

Check each strip separately after the intended process. A satisfactory combined width can conceal one strip that is too narrow. Likewise, a sound outer edge does not prove that an internal sealed edge is acceptable. Keep the strip position and both of its edge identities on the specimen label.

Make the saving conditional on a usable product

A shorter waste strip is useful only if the resulting cloth still meets its requirements. Compare actual usable output as well as edge material. Rejected fabric can outweigh a saving that looked attractive when measured per pick.

Keep machine changes within the maker's approved method. The UK HSE weaving guidance addresses guarded insertion mechanisms and safe access for repairs. It is UK guidance, not Bangladesh law. Follow applicable local rules and site procedures when collecting samples or changing edge equipment.

Do not reach into a running shed to measure a tail. Plan an approved observation or sampling method that preserves the measurement you need. A safe stopped sample and a guarded high-speed image may answer different questions; record which one produced the result.

When releasing an edge, retain a sample in the required final state. Specify the yarns, binding or sealing arrangement, width boundaries and acceptable appearance. Include the conditions under which the proposed material saving was measured.

The strongest choice is the edge whose function can be shown from weaving through final use. Its name explains the basic construction. The sample, measurements and process evidence establish whether that construction suits the actual cloth.

References

• Itema: iSAVER systems and supported configurations.

• Picanol: e-Leno full-leno selvedge system.

• Dornier: P2 brochure, selvedge systems on printed pages 20–21.

• Liu and colleagues: pressure effects in a pneumatic tuck-in apparatus, 2021.

• TELSONIC: ultrasonic cutting and sealing of fabric.

• Jakob Müller: needle-weaving training extract, printed pages 59 and 163.

• ISO 22198:2006: fabric width and length.

• Akdeniz, Özek and Durusoy: selvedge waste length measured by image analysis, 2017.

• UK Health and Safety Executive: weaving and warping machinery.