5.1 The measurement of the resistance to abrasion of textile and other materials is very complex. The resistance to abrasion is affected by many factors, such as the inherent mechanical properties of the fibers; the dimensions of the fibers; the structure of the yarns; the construction of the fabrics; and the type, kind, and amount of finishing material added to the fibers, yarns, or fabric.

5.2 The resistance to abrasion is also greatly affected by the conditions of the tests, such as the nature of abradant, variable action of the abradant over the area of specimen abraded, the tension of the specimen, the pressure between the specimen and abradant, and the dimensional changes in the specimens.

5.3 Abrasion tests are all subject to variation due to changes in the abradant during specific tests. The abradant must accordingly be discarded at frequent intervals or checked periodically against a standard. With disposable abradants, the abradant is used only once or discarded after limited use. With permanent abradants that use hardened metal or equivalent surfaces, it is assumed that the abradant will not change appreciably in a specific series of tests. Similar abradants used in different laboratories will not change at the same rate, due to differences in usage. Permanent abradants may also change due to pick up of finishing or other material from test fabrics and must accordingly be cleaned at frequent intervals. The measurement of the relative amount of abrasion may also be affected by the method of evaluation and may be influenced by the judgment of the operator.

5.4 The resistance of textile materials to abrasion as measured on a testing machine in the laboratory is generally only one of several factors contributing to wear performance or durability as experienced in the actual use of the material. While “abrasion resistance” (often stated in terms of the number of cycles on a specified machine, using a specified technique to produce a specified degree or amount of abrasion) and “durability” (defined as the ability to withstand deterioration or wearing out in use, including the effects of abrasion) are frequently related, the relationship varies with different end uses, and different factors may be necessary in any calculation of predicted durability from specific abrasion data. Laboratory tests may be reliable as an indication of relative end-use performance in cases where the difference in abrasion resistance of various materials is large, but they should not be relied upon where differences in laboratory test findings are small. In general, they should not be relied upon for prediction of actual wear-life in specific end uses unless there are data showing the specific relationship between laboratory abrasion tests and actual wear in the intended end-use.

5.5 These general observations apply to all types of fabrics, including woven, nonwoven, and knit apparel fabrics, household fabrics, industrial fabrics, and floor coverings. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that there are many different types of abrasion testing machines, abradants, testing conditions, testing procedures, methods of evaluation of abrasion resistance and interpretation of results.

5.6 All the test methods and instruments so far developed for measuring abrasion resistance may show a high degree of variability in results obtained by different operators and in different laboratories; however, they represent the test methods now most widely in use.

5.7 Because there is a definite need for measuring the relative resistance to abrasion, standardized test methods are needed and useful and may clarify the problem and lessen the confusion.

5.8 Because of the conditions mentioned above, technicians frequently fail to get good agreement between results obtained on the same type of testing instrument both within and between laboratories, and the precision of these test methods is uncertain.

5.9 Test Method D3886 is not recommended for acceptance testing of commercial shipment because of the poor between-laboratory precision.

5.9.1 In cases of a dispute arising from differences in reported test results when using this test method for acceptance testing of commercial shipments, the purchaser and the supplier should conduct comparative tests to determine if there is a statistical bias between their laboratories. Competent statistical assistance is recommended for the investigation of bias. As a minimum, the two parties should take a group of test specimens which are as homogeneous as possible and which are from a lot of material of the type in question. The test specimens should then be randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. The average results from the two laboratories should be compared using appropriate statistical analysis for unpaired data and an acceptable probability level chosen by the two parties before the testing begins. If a bias is found, either its cause must be found and corrected or the purchaser and the supplier must agree to interpret future test results in the light of the known bias.

1.1 This test method2 covers the determination of the resistance to abrasion of woven and knitted textile fabrics, both conditioned and wet, using the inflated diaphragm tester. This procedure is not applicable to floor coverings.

Note 1: Other procedures for measuring the abrasion resistance of textile fabrics are given in Test Methods D3884, D3885, D1175 and AATCC Test Method 93.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard; the values in English units are provided as information only and are not exact equivalents.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.