Significance and Use
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All the test procedures and instruments that have been developed for abrasion resistance of fabrics may show a high degree of variability in results obtained by different operators and in different laboratories, however, they represent the procedures most widely used in the industry. Because there is a definite need for measuring the relative resistance to abrasion, this is one of the several procedures that is useful to help minimize the inherent variation in results that may occur.
Before definite predictions of fabric usefulness can be drawn from an abrasion test as made on the rotary platform, double-head (RPDH) abrader (Fig. 1), actual end-use trials should be conducted and related to the abrasion test. Different types of wear (for example, wear on men's clothing at cuffs, crotch, etc.) may correspond to different ratings of the RPDH test.
In making a comparison of different fabrics (that is, of different fibers, weights, etc.) the RPDH test will not always reveal a difference known to exist when the fabrics are actually used. Therefore, end-use trials should be conducted in conjunction with the RPDH abrasion test, at least as a guide for future testing of these fabrics.
Uncontrolled manufacturing or finishing variations occurring within a fabric or within lots of the same style of fabric can, however, be detected satisfactorily with the RPDH tester.
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. This test method is accordingly not recommended for acceptance testing in contractual agreements between purchaser and supplier because of the poor between-laboratory precision of the test method.
If there are differences of practical significance between reported test results for two laboratories (or more), comparative tests should be performed to determine if there is a statistical bias between them, using competent statistical assistance. As a minimum, the test samples used are to be as homogeneous as possible, drawn from the material from which the disparate test results were obtained, and randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. The test results from the two laboratories should be compared using a statistical test for unpaired data, at a probability level chosen prior to the testing series. If bias is found, either its cause must be found and corrected, or future test results must be adjusted in consideration of the known bias.
1.1 This guide covers the determination of the abrasion resistance of textile fabrics using the rotary platform, double-head tester (RPDH).
Note 1—Other procedures for measuring the abrasion resistance of textile fabrics are given in Test Methods D 3885, D 3886, D 4158, D 4966,
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 problems, 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.