1.1 本试验方法 2. 包括使用充气隔膜测试仪测定机织物和针织物的耐磨性，包括经过处理的和潮湿的。本程序不适用于地板覆盖物。 注1: 测试方法中给出了测量织物耐磨性的其他程序 D3884 , D3885 , D1175 和AATCC试验方法 93 1.2 以国际单位制表示的数值应视为标准值；以英制单位表示的数值仅供参考，并非完全等同。 1.3 本标准并非旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的用户有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 1.4 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒（TBT）委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 5.1 纺织品和其他材料的耐磨性测量非常复杂。耐磨性受到许多因素的影响，例如纤维的固有机械性能；纤维的尺寸；纱线的结构；织物的构造；以及添加到纤维、纱线或织物中的整理材料的类型、种类和数量。 5.2 耐磨性也受到试验条件的很大影响，例如磨料的性质、磨料在磨损试样面积上的可变作用、试样的张力、试样和磨料之间的压力以及试样中的尺寸变化。 5.3 由于特定试验期间磨料的变化，磨损试验都会发生变化。因此，必须经常丢弃研磨剂，或根据标准定期检查。对于一次性磨料，磨料只能使用一次或在有限使用后丢弃。对于使用硬化金属或等效表面的永久磨料，假设磨料在特定系列试验中不会发生明显变化。 由于使用的不同，不同实验室使用的类似磨料不会以相同的速率变化。永久磨料也可能因从测试织物上拾取整理剂或其他材料而发生变化，因此必须经常清洗。相对磨损量的测量也可能受到评估方法的影响，也可能受到操作员判断的影响。 5.4 在实验室的试验机上测量的纺织材料的耐磨性通常只是影响材料实际使用中磨损性能或耐久性的几个因素之一。虽然“耐磨性”（通常以指定机器上的循环次数表示，使用指定技术产生指定程度或数量的磨损）和“耐久性”（定义为在使用中承受劣化或磨损的能力，包括磨损的影响）经常相关，但其关系因不同的最终用途而不同，在根据特定磨损数据计算预测耐久性时，可能需要不同的因素。 在各种材料耐磨性差异较大的情况下，实验室测试可能是可靠的，可以作为相对最终使用性能的指示，但在实验室测试结果差异较小的情况下，不应依赖实验室测试。一般来说，除非有数据表明实验室磨损试验与预期最终用途中的实际磨损之间的特定关系，否则不应依赖它们来预测特定最终用途中的实际磨损寿命。 5.5 这些一般观察结果适用于所有类型的织物，包括机织物、非织造布和针织服装织物、家用织物、工业织物和地板覆盖物。因此，不足为奇的是，有许多不同类型的磨损试验机、磨料、测试条件、测试程序、耐磨性评估方法和结果解释。 5.6 迄今为止，为测量耐磨性而开发的所有试验方法和仪器可能显示，不同操作员和不同实验室获得的结果具有高度的可变性；然而，它们代表了目前使用最广泛的测试方法。 5.7 由于明确需要测量相对耐磨性，因此需要标准化的测试方法，并且这些方法非常有用，可以澄清问题并减少混淆。 5.8 由于上述条件，技术人员在实验室内和实验室之间在同一类型测试仪器上获得的结果之间经常无法取得良好的一致性，并且这些测试方法的精度不确定。 5.9 试验方法 D3886 不建议用于商业装运的验收测试，因为实验室之间的精度较差。 5.9.1 如果使用本测试方法进行商业装运验收测试时，由于报告测试结果的差异而产生争议，买方和供应商应进行比较测试，以确定其实验室之间是否存在统计偏差。建议为调查偏差提供称职的统计协助。作为最低要求，双方应尽可能均匀地从大量相关类型的材料中选取一组试样。然后，应将试样以相同数量随机分配给每个实验室进行测试。 两个实验室的平均结果应通过对未配对数据的适当统计分析和双方在测试开始前选择的可接受概率水平进行比较。如果发现偏差，必须找到并纠正其原因，或者买方和供应商必须同意根据已知偏差解释未来的测试结果。

1.1 This test method 2 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, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. ====== Significance And Use ====== 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.