Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Charlotte Jacobs-Blecha
Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35496
Jane C. Ammons
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Avril Schutte
Cummins Engine Company, Inc.
Columbus, IN 47201
Terri Smith
MCI
Roswell, GA
Abstract
Cut order planning is the problem of planning the fabric cut for a set of apparel orders.
Affiliated with each order is a set of garment sizes, and patterns for cutting each size. The fabric
for cutting the order must be arranged on the cutting table so that cutting costs will be minimized.
A mathematical model of the problem is developed and analyzed. On the basis of this analysis,
solution approaches are developed which have been implemented on a desktop PC-based
computer. Validated on representative industry problems, the approach is shown to be effective
and versatile.
Keywords
Apparel, manufacturing, process flow, model, heuristics, knapsack problem
* This research was supported by the Defense Logistics Agency under contract number DLA900-
87-D-0018-0012 and by the Georgia Institute of Technology.
1.0 Introduction
In striving for international competitiveness, the apparel industry is faced with improving
productivity and responsiveness in the face of challenging new economic realities. The
capabilities of automation and system flexibility must be fully exploited in order to obtain
responsive and economical production of apparel products. Due to the higher dynamics and
complexities in today's systems, an efficient and effective design for the cutting room system is
paramount. This paper addresses the initial problem faced by planners in the cutting room
system, which we call Cut Order Planning. This problem involves planning the configuration of
a set of customer orders in such a way as to minimize the costs to cut the orders.
Like many domestic manufacturers competing in today's international marketplace, the apparel
industry has been forced to upgrade its responsiveness to customer needs. As a result, smaller
orders are placed in a more dynamic fashion, requiring the efficient production of smaller lot
sizes. Effective and economical production thus depends upon the interaction of many system
components, one of the most critical being an efficient workflow control system.
Cut order planning (COP) is an important linkage in the workflow control system. As illustrated
in Figure 1, COP is one of the initial stages in the introduction or release of work-in-process
(WIP) into the assembly system. COP occurs for each order to be produced, and is the starting
point in the manufacture of the order. COP is the activity of planning the cutting of the order, as
input into the marker making stage (where the layout of pattern pieces on the fabric is designed)
so that the cutting room receives complete spreading and cutting instructions. Once the cutting
operation produces bundles of cut pieces, they are moved through the assembly system in
operation precedence order.
There are three major contributions in this work. Our work establishes that in many cases
the fabric cost is the dominant determinant of the cut order planning solution, a critical result
which substantiates the intuition of experienced industry planners. In addition, the paper presents
the first known attempt to model the cut order planning problem. A mathematical model is
formulated and the problem is shown to be NP-complete, indicating the need to use heuristics for
reasonable solution times. The third contribution of this paper is the development of appropriate
heuristic solution methods that are evaluated using industry data. We present a solution that is
able to outperform any of the others, including those used in contemporary commercial software
packages.
These contributions, when implemented in the apparel industry, make a giant step
forward in improving the cutting room system operation. To further the application to automated
systems, this work will be extended to include a planning system for the entire cutting room, by
integrating the various processes within the cutting room and with other areas of the factory, and
by implementing the methodology in the industry
The cut order planning process is a dynamic one. The function must respond to the ever
changing status of many critical factors such as sales, inventory levels, raw materials, and labor
and equipment availability. The variety of sizes, styles, fabrics, and colors induces significant
complexity into the problem. Adding to the complexity, and thus potentially increasing total
production costs, are setup, or changeover costs, the question of appropriate lot sizes, and the
necessity to meet customer demand competitively.
2
/LVW RI SHQGLQJ RUGHUV
3
2.0. PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1. Problem Description
In the conventional scope of cut order planning, the problem begins with a given set of orders to
be cut. The order is composed of a set of garments to be manufactured, in varying sizes. Each
garment will be referred to as a unit. The various units in the various sizes must be partitioned in
such a way that efficient cutting of the order can take place. The cut order plan is a specification
for spreading the fabric and assigning the units to various sections of the spread.
The cut is performed by spreading fabric onto a table. The spread is divided into sections.
Sections contain different combination of sizes to be cut, and have varying number of layers, or
plies, of fabric for cutting efficiency. Such a spread is illustrated in Figure 2. Note that using
various size
6HFWLRQ
combinations within a /HQJWK
section implies one 3O\ +HLJKW
could cut a single size,
6HFWLRQ 6HFWLRQ 6HFWLRQ
a mixture of different /HQJWK /HQJWK /HQJWK
sizes, or a mixture of 3O\ +HLJKW 3O\ +HLJKW 3O\ +HLJKW
sizes that could include
more than one of the
same size. For
example, a section
could be planned for
cutting two “larges.”
This means the pattern /HQJWK IHHW
pieces for two large C u tting Tab le
garments would be
needed for cutting that Figure 2. Fabric spread on the cutting table in varying ply heights.
section. This idea is
illustrated in Figure 3.
To determine the configuration for a fabric spread, the sizes in the order must be partitioned in
such a way that the order is complete, and that fabric use is minimized. For a further example,an
order might consist of 110 pairs of jeans, with 30 smalls (S), 50 mediums (M), and 30 larges (L).
One way of planning the cut would be to spread two sections. In the first section we would cut
only size M jeans, with ply height 20. This would yield 20 of the 50 pairs of jeans ordered.
Then we would cut all three sizes, S, M, & L, in section 2, with ply height 30. This would yield
the 30 S and 30 L ordered,
and the remaining 30 M
needed to complete the order
size of 50. Clearly there are
many other configurations L M
which could be made. One L S M
must choose the solution S
yielding the least costly
cutting process. F ig u re 3 . A m a rk e r c o n ta in in g tw o u n its o f th e sa m e siz e .
4
Note that we are not concerned here with designing the exact layout of the pattern pieces for the
cutting of the jeans. If we plan to cut only “mediums” in section 1, we need to know
approximately how much fabric is required to do that, but traditionally that quantity is often
estimated. If such a layout has been done before, historical data can be substituted for estimates.
The actual layout of the pattern pieces which is used to guide the cutter is called a marker, and
the marker making process is a variation of the well-known stock cutting problem. (e.g., [1], [2],
[4], [5], [6], and [8].). In current practice, the marker making process is performed independently
of and subsequent to the COP process.
The spread length of a cut is the total length of all sections, as they are laid out end-to-end on the
cutting table. Note in the example in Figure 2, the spread length is equivalent to the length of the
cutting table, which serves as a physical upper bound on the many possible values for spread
length. The perimeter length of a pattern piece is the total number of inches in the perimeter of
that piece. The input to the COP problem consists of:
z The sizes required for the order,
z The quantity of each size to be cut,
z The total perimeter inches of each pattern piece required for the cut,
z The total area of the pattern pieces required for the cut, and
z The standards for spreading (marker fixed costs, marker variable costs, cost to copy,
minimum and maximum plies, number of sizes per marker, cutting costs, cutting
speed, and cutting setup).
The output from the COP process then consists of the following:
z The sizes to be combined in each section of the marker,
z The estimated efficiency of the marker (in percent of fabric utilization),
z The cutting cost per unit (garment),
z The total perimeter to be cut, and
z The total area to be cut.
The objective of the cut order planning problem is to minimize costs, which introduces a need for
a tradeoff between cutting costs and fabric costs. The key decisions to be made are (1) the
number of sections required to fill the order, (2) ply height in each section, and (3) the sizes to be
cut in each section. The determination of (3) provides the input to the marker making function
for actual design of the marker itself.
2.2 Mathematical Model
Parameters
Consider an order to be cut consisting of sizes s = 1, 2, ..., S. The notation ds will represent the
number of units of size s required to fill the order. The marker for the order will contain sections
j = 1, 2, ..., J. The combination and multiples of sizes used in a section of the marker is indexed
by i. An example (for sizes small, medium and large) is partially illustrated in Table 1 on the
following page.
5
Table 1. Size Combination Example
i size combination
1 1 small, 1 medium
2 1 large
3 1 medium, 1 large
4 3 mediums
5 2 smalls, 1 medium
etc.
The possible size combinations consist of the single individual sizes, as well as multiples
of the individual sizes, and combinations of the single and multiple sizes. The total number of
these size combinations is represented by I, a very large number. For example, for an order
containing six sizes, the number of combinations is O(107). The magnitude of I can be
significantly reduced by limiting the number of sizes allowed to be combined in a section. Other
problem parameters are:
li = estimated fabric length required to cut size combination i;
or the exact length required if a marker for combination i already exists.
ei = number of cutting inches to cut size combination i.
Mi = increased cost of marker making due to size combination i.
dsi = number of units of size s in size combination i.
c = fabric cost per length unit (normally yards or meters).
P = maximum allowable ply height.
L = maximum allowable spread length.
T = labor cost for time required to spread one length of the table.
U = cost per perimeter length unit for cutting.
δs = number of units production permitted over or under the total units in the order
Decision Variables
There are two sets of integer decision variables representing the ply height of a section
and the assignment of sizes to a section.
yj = ply height of section j, yj = 0, 1, 2, ..., P.
6
Objective
The objective of the cut order planning problem is to minimize the total cost of cutting the order,
including the cost of fabric and labor. Specifically, these costs are actual fabric costs, spreading
costs, cutting costs and the impact on marker making costs.
A. Fabric Cost: The term c li is the fabric cost of one layer of size combination i in any
section. Thus, the total fabric cost over all sections j and all size combinations i is:
J I
∑ ∑ cli yj xij.
j=1 i=1
B. Spreading Cost: The variable li is the length of fabric required to cut size combination i in
li
any section. Thus, L is the fraction of the table length needed in spreading the section for size
li
combination i in any section and T L is the labor cost for spreading a one-ply section containing
li
size combination i. Hence, T L yj is the total cost of spreading size combination i in section j,
and the objective function term for spreading cost is:
J I li
∑ ∑ T L yj xij.
j=1 i=1
C. Cutting Cost: The term Uei is the cost of cutting size combination i, and the objective
function term is:
J I
∑ ∑ Ueixij.
j=1 i=1
D. Increased Marker Making Cost: The total increased cost of marker making is expressed in
the objective function by the term:
J I
∑ ∑ Mi xij.
j=1 i=1
If the marker already exists, the cost of determining the marker length is simply based on the
minor costs of storage and retrieval. However, if such a marker does not exist, the cost increases
due to the expanded time needed from a skilled operator for designing the marker and then
transferring the data to the COP function.
7
J I li
Minimize Z = ∑ ∑ [ c li yj xij + T L yj xij + Mixij + U ei xij ]
j=1 i=1
J I li
OR Minimize Z = ∑ ∑ [ c li yj + T L yj + Mi + U ei ] xij
j=1 i=1
Constraints
A demand constraint is required for the order to be filled, i.e.the total number of units planned
for should be equal to the total number of units ordered. This is expressed as:
J I
(A) ∑ ∑ dsiyjxij = ds ∀ s
j=1 i=1
Note that if production over or under the specified order (overages or underages) is allowed,
constraint (A) can be modified accordingly.
Table length constraint. The following constraint restricts the total length of the marker to be
less than or equal to the physical length of the cutting table.
J I
(B) ∑ ∑ li xij ≤ L
j=1 i=1
The marker is made up of all the planned sections in their varying ply heights.
Enforce the upper bound on ply height. The constraint is represented as:
(C) yj ≤ P ∀j
This constraint is needed since both manual and automatic cutters have limited capacity in the
thickness of fabric which can be cut.
Variable restriction constraints. Decision variable yj is restricted to be a positive integer, less
than or equal to the maximum ply height, and xij is restricted to a binary variable.
8
The model as presented above is difficult to solve using standard mathematical programming
methods. Both the objective function and the constraints in (A) contain nonlinear terms. The
model can be linearized, using a variable substitution as follows:
Subject to:
J I
∑ ∑ dsi zij + δs = ds ∀ s Demand Constraint (2)
j=1 i=1
J I
∑ ∑ li xij ≤ L Table Length Constraint (3)
j=1 i=1
9
3.0. Heuristics
Since the Cut Order Planning problem is NP-Complete, efficient algorithms for realistically sized
problems will necessarily be heuristic in nature. This insight leads to the need for analyzing the
COP model for characteristics that can be exploited for development of heuristic methods. This
section describes the heuristics developed for COP, the reasoning behind these types of
algorithms, and justification for the evaluation techniques.
Heuristic development is based on the examination of typical industry cases that COP cost
(equation 1) is dominated by total fabric length. Section 4.1 explains the experimental design
which we used to establish this characteristic of the cost function. It should be noted that in
some cases the cost factors we consider in the model developed in Section 2.2 may play a
significant role in the cost of cut order planning. For example, spreading costs may be very high
due to negotiated labor rates, cutting costs may be driven up by manual or equipment parameters,
or a large data base of historical markers may not exist, greatly increasing the cost of that
process. However, we assume the statistical results, which confirm practitioners' intuitions, are
valid for the types of problems addressed by our work, and therefore the model in Section 2.2 can
be modified to reflect this assumption.
Note that under this assumption the only change in the model occurs in the objective function,
where all terms go to zero except those involving the fabric length parameters. An alternative
method for problem solution is to solve the linear relaxation and check the resulting solution for
satisfaction of the integer constraints. However, this approach is not practical: for realistically
sized problems the number of variables, zij, prohibits explicit computation. Furthermore, most
apparel manufacturers who would use these solution methods do not have sufficient computing
capability on-site to utilize sophisticated integer programming solvers.
Therefore, the development of heuristic algorithms to solve COP focuses on finding
computationally efficient procedures for finding good (i.e., relatively low cost) solutions to COP
for a robust set of problem instances. We have selected two types of algorithms for development
of such heuristics, constructive and improvement. A constructive algorithm takes the input
data and builds a feasible solution using intuition, clues from the spatial aspects of the problem,
and guidelines found in the mathematical model. An improvement algorithm begins with an
existing feasible solution and attempts to change the solution in some manner so that the cost of
the solution is reduced while feasibility is maintained. The value of the cost function associated
with the feasible solution produced by one of these heuristic methods can then be compared with
some numerical bound, or other benchmark solutions.
There are three greedy heuristics presented in this section. Two of these algorithms, Savings and
Cherry Picking, are constructive in nature. The Savings heuristic assigns size combinations to a
section based on the fabric savings achieved by combining them into one section as opposed to
having them assigned to separate sections. The Cherry Picking algorithm builds sections by
combining certain sizes based on the best utilization of fabric. The algorithm picks the first and
second most numerous sizes in the order and places those in sections first, then repeats until all
sizes are assigned to a section. The third heuristic is an improvement heuristic rather that a
constructive one. The Improvement algorithm takes a current solution and tries to improve it by
10
exchanging sizes in different sections or by combining existing sections into one section. These
three methods are detailed in Table 2 and the paragraphs following the table.
Table 2. A Summary of COP Heuristic Algorithms
11
All algorithms were coded in ANSI Standard C and implemented on a DOS-based IBM PC
platform. The results described in the Section 4.0 were obtained with a 386/20MHz processor,
with each solution completed in less than ten minutes.
*Savings Computation: Step 2 of the savings algorithm and Step 3 of the Improvement
algorithm require a computation of savings achieved for combining two sections into one.
Described below are the details of this computation, based of whether or not the two sections to
be combined contain the same set of sizes, denoted Case A and Case B.
Case A: The two sections contain exactly the same size(s). The merger can be accomplished in
one of two ways:
(i) Increase ply height by spreading one section on top of the other and making no change to the
size combination in the section, as illustrated in
Figure 4. Note the length of fabric required for
L L
the section is the same before and after the
merger, and hence has no
effect on the cost savings for the merger.
Therefore if only fabric cost is being considered, L
the savings for this case is equal to zero. L
12
Then, the savings can be computed as cp(li1
+ li2 - li3).
L
L
13
algorithms relative to various problem instances. The testbed data contains twenty problems,
which range from one to six sizes per order. The various parameters of the problem were varied
according to the experimental design described below. These factors are listed in Table 3.
Estimated marker lengths for the various size combinations were obtained using a COP
commercial software package.
14
Table 4. Experimental Problem Instances
Improvem
ent
Problem Normal Order Ply
Algorithm
Instance d1/d2/d3/d4/d5/d6 Pathological Order Height Applied?
1 72/144/360/360/144/72 48 No
2 72/144/360/360/144/72 48 Yes
3 72/144/360/360/144/72 108 No
4 72/144/360/360/144/72 108 Yes
5 0/0/0/0/960/240 48 No
6 0/0/0/0/960/240 48 Yes
7 0/0/0/0/960/240 108 No
8 0/0/0/0/960/240 108 Yes
9 0/0/0/0/1200/0 48 No
10 0/0/0/0/1200/0 48 Yes
11 0/0/0/0/1200/0 108 No
12 0/0/0/0/1200/0 108 Yes
13 163/239/599/45/124/30 47 No
14 163/239/599/45/124/30 47 Yes
15 163/239/599/45/124/30 108 No
16 163/239/599/45/124/30 108 Yes
17 200/200/200/200/200/200 47 No
18 200/200/200/200/200/200 47 Yes
19 200/200/200/200/200/200 108 No
20 200/200/200/200/200/200 108 Yes
We used this testbed data to obtain results for the various problem instances using two
commercial software packages which are widely applied to solve the COP in industrial settings.
The seven performance measures of interest were as follows:
15
1. Total Cost ($)
2. Number of Patterns
3. Number of Sections
4. Total Ply Count
5. Number Units Over Demand Required
6. Number Units Under Demand Required
7. Fabric Utilization
Using the output from the trial runs, we performed a statistical analysis based on a 12-run
Plackett-Burman [9] design. The analysis indicated the performance measures were not sensitive
to most of the factors shown in Table 3. The most conclusive finding of the analysis is the
significantly large impact of the cost of fabric on the total cost of the cut order planning process.
Not only does this conclusion make logical sense from the problem environment, but is a fact
which can be capitalized upon for solution of the cut order planning problem. Since fabric cost is
directly related to fabric length, we used the criterion of total fabric length alone to compare the
performance of the algorithms. The remainder of this section will describe the results of our
experimental study to examine the performance of the COP algorithms.
16
N O R M A L O R D ER S
P LY H E IG H T 48 P kg B
S av in gs
20 000 C h erry
P kg A
19 000 Im pro vem en t
18 000
17 000
In che s
16 000
15 000
14 000
1 2 3
72/144/360/144/72 0/0/0/0/960/240 0/0/0/0/1200/0
O rd ers
Figure 7. Total Fabric Inches for Normal Orders with Ply Height 48
IM P R O V ED N O R M A L O R D E R S
P LY H E IG H T 48
20000
17000
16000
15000
14000
1 2 3
72/144/360/360/144/72 0/0/0/0/960/240 0/0/0/0/1200/0
O rd ers
Figure 8. Total Fabric Inches for Improved Normal Orders with Ply Height 48
17
P A TH O LO G IC A L O R D E R S
P LY H E IG H T 47
200 00
190 00 P kg B
S av in gs
180 00 C h erry
P kg A
170 00 Im pro vem en t
In ch es
160 00
150 00
140 00
1 2
163/239/599/45/124/30 200/200/200/200/200/200
O rd ers
Figure 9. Total Fabric Inches for Pathological Orders with Ply Height 47
Figure 10. Total Fabric Inches for Improved Pathological Orders with Ply Height 47
18
4.3 Interpretation of Experimental Results
Three primary conclusions can be drawn from the numerical results:
The Savings algorithm performs significantly better than the Cherry Picking algorithm.
The Savings algorithm provides solutions which are as good as or better than the
commercial packages.
The Improvement algorithm is able to make improvements in all solutions, even the
commercial ones. After the improvement algorithm is applied, all solutions are similar
in the total required fabric length.
19
The results reported here expand readily into the more comprehensive planning environment. An
illustration of this concept is presented in Figure 11.
C o n v e n tio n a l C O P
D e te rm in e : W h ich o rd e rs to c u t to ge th e r A lso in clu d e :
N u m b e r o f s e c tio ns M in to ta l in ve n tory co s ts ,
W h ic h s iz e s in e a c h s e c tio n ra w m a te ria ls , W IP ,
S e ctio n ply h e ig h t & le n gth fin is h e d go o d s
M in im iz e C o sts : F a b ric, C u ttin g & M a x th ru p u t a t s h o p floo r
S p re a d in g la b o r, a n d M a x u tiliz a tio n o f
M a rk e r M a kin g im p a c t re s ou rc e s: E qu ip m e n t,
S u b je ct to : S p re a d in g re s tric tio n s m a te ria ls , p e o p le , e tc .
H um an S c he d u lin g T oo ls, in c lu d in g
S u p e rv iso r E v alu a tio n & S e ns itiviy ;
A id D e c is io n M a ke r
M a rk e r M a k in g S h o p F lo o r P la n n in g S h o p F lo o r R e a l T im e
C o n tro l
20
APPENDIX
Proof of NP-Completeness
We will show our COP model is equivalent to the integral knapsack problem, which is known to
be NP-complete (e.g., [3]). Consider the linearized formulation for COP developed in section
2.2.
J I li
(COP) Minimize ∑ ∑ [ c li + T L ] zij + [ Mi + U ei ] xij
j=1 i=1
Subject to:
J I
∑ ∑ dsi zij + ds = ds ∀s
j=1 i=1
J I
∑ ∑ li xij ≤ L
j=1 i=1
J I
(SCOP) Minimize ∑ ∑ Wi xij
j=1 i=1
Subject to:
21
J I
∑ ∑ li xij ≤ L
j=1 i=1
I
(K) Minimize ∑ wi ui
i=1
Subject to:
li ui ≤ L
ui ≤ J∀i, ui ∈ Z+
K is the formulation for an integral knapsack problem, and so is NP-complete (e.g., [3]).
J
If we let ui = ∑ xij, then ui is feasible in K.
j=1
Proof:
I I
(1) ui = ∑ xij ≤ ∑ 1 [xij ∈ {0,1}]
i=1 i=1
= J
=> ui ≤ J, ∀ i
22
I I J I J
(2) ∑ liui = ∑ li ∑ xij = ∑ ∑ li xij ≤ L.
i=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1
J
(3) ui = ∑ xij ∈ Z+
j=1
If ui = 0 let xij = 0 ∀j
If ui = d ≠ 0, let xi1 = xi2 = . . . = xid = 1
xij = 0 for j > d.
J
Observe that ∑ xij = ui.
j=1
Proof:
I J I J I
(2) ∑ ∑ li xij = ∑ li ∑ xij = ∑ li ui ≤ L.
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1
With I and II we have shown that feasible solutions to K are also feasible in SCOP. Since K is
NP-complete, then so is SCOP. Since SCOP is a special case of COP, then COP is also NP-
complete.
23
Acknowledgments
The contributions of the following people are gratefully acknowledged. We would like to
recognize Mr. Bill Warden, who worked tirelessly to perform the computational work for the
Plackett-Burman study. Also we offer many thanks to Dr. Donna Llewellyn, in the School of
Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, for her development of the complexity
proof. We offer our gratitude to the two apparel vendors (who wish to remain anonymous) for
providing us with their software for use in this work, and to Ms. Cynthia Holeridge from a very
helpful apparel manufacturer who spent long periods on the telephone with us to provide and
validate our testbed data. Other thanks go to Randolph Case of the Georgia Tech Research
Institute for moral support as well as for giving us his best graduate student for this project. At
the Apparel Demonstration Center on the Southern Tech Campus, many instances of help and
assistance are cited. Our thanks to Dale Stewart and Carol Ring, at the Demonstration Center,
for their patience and assistance. The presentation has been significantly improved by the
helpful comments of the associate editor and three anonymous referees. Finally, we must
acknowledge the interest and encouragement in this work by our sponsor's representatives,
Donald O'Brien, Dan Gearing, Helen Kerlin, and Julie Tsau. This work was supported by the
Defense Logistics Agency under contract number DLA-87-D-0018-0012.
24
References
[1]Eilon, S. and N. Christofides, 1971, "The Loading Problem," Management Science, 17, 259-
267.
[3] Garey, Michael R. and David S. Johnson, 1979, Computers and Intractability, A Guide to the
Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York.
[4]Gilmore and Gomory, 1961, "A Linear Programming Approach to the Cutting Stock
Problem," Operations Research, 9, 349-359.
[5]Hinxman, "The Trim-loss and Assortment Problems: A Survey," 1980, European Journal of
Operational Research, 5, 8-18.
[7] Jacobs-Blecha, C., Ammons, J.C., Smith, T., Baker, A. and Warden, B., "Cut Order
Planning," 1990, Final Technical Report, Contract No, DLA900-87-D-0018-0012.
[8]Jacobs-Blecha, C. and Riall, W., 1991, "The Feasibility of Improving the Marker Making
Process," International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 3, 4, 13-24.
25