1.1 本指南涵盖了使用均匀磨损测试仪器测定各种纺织材料的耐磨性。所有类型的织物，包括地毯、服装和非织造布，都可以用这种方法进行测试。 注1: 其他测量织物耐磨性的程序见:试验方法 D3884 , D3885 , D3886 , D4157 , D4966 和AATCC试验方法93。 1.1.1 提供了在干燥和潮湿条件下测试样本的规定。评估包括四个选项: 选项1-织物断裂 选项2-质量损失 选项3-厚度损失 选项4-断裂强度损失 1.1.2 规定了湿态下的试样。 1.2 以国际单位制或英寸-磅单位表示的数值应单独视为标准。在文本中，英寸-磅单位显示在括号中。每个系统中规定的值可能不是精确的等效值；因此，每个系统应相互独立使用。合并两个系统的值可能会导致不符合规范。 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 纺织材料的耐磨性受到许多因素的复杂影响。使用该仪器获得的结果有助于评估与特定最终用途中最终纺织品的耐磨性相关的这些因素。耐磨性受到许多因素的影响，包括纤维的固有机械性能；纤维的尺寸；纱线的结构；织物的构造；添加到纤维、纱线或织物中的处理的类型、种类和数量； 磨料的性质；试样上的张力；试样和磨料之间的压力；以及试样的尺寸变化。经验表明，在许多情况下，在一系列织物上使用该仪器获得的相对结果与根据最终使用性能获得的结果一致。然而，由于制造或其他过程中的不受控因素可能会导致异常结果，因此建议谨慎。已经描述了具体实例。 4. , 5. , 6. , 7. 无论如何，应研究异常结果，以进一步了解磨损可能导致的复杂行为，从而有助于开发更耐用的织物。 5.2 在“湿”条件下测试一些样本可以为某些纺织品的评估增加另一个维度。在“湿”条件下进行此类测试有助于确定织物变湿时耐磨性变化的影响。该试验还可以通过冲走磨损碎屑和防止可能干扰试验正常进行的断裂纤维堆积来提高磨损作用的均匀性。 5.3 该测试用作评估纺织品质量控制和研究的指南。 5.3.1 如果两个实验室（或更多实验室）的报告测试结果之间存在实际意义上的差异，则应进行比较测试，以确定它们之间是否存在统计偏差，并使用适当的统计协助。至少，应使用尽可能同质的测试样品，从获得不同测试结果的材料中提取，并以相同数量随机分配给每个实验室进行测试。 具有既定测试值的其他织物可用于此目的。应使用未配对数据的统计测试，在测试系列之前选择的概率水平上，比较两个实验室的测试结果。如果发现偏差，则必须找到并纠正原因，或者考虑到已知偏差，调整未来的测试结果。 5.4 该试验是独特的，与任何其他现有磨损试验有显著不同。 5.5 本指南也可用作后续测试的材料预处理技术。 例如，在规定的试验条件下，可以对一系列试样进行预定数量的磨损循环，然后对这些试样进行强度或阻隔性能试验。 5.6 本指南测量的纺织材料耐磨性不包括实际使用中磨损性能或耐久性的所有因素。而根据循环次数和“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）表示的“耐磨性”通常是相关的。 这种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。 5.6.1 在各种材料的耐磨性差异较大的情况下，实验室测试可能是可靠的，可以作为相对最终用途适用性的指示，但是，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的实际磨损寿命期间的性能。 5.7 根据材料的质量和性质以及最终用途，使用的压力和张力是不同的。在可能的情况下，应在相同的压力和张力下测试所有要相互比较的材料。 5.8 当磨损试验持续到完全破坏时，对于具有不同质量的织物，耐磨性比较是不可行的，因为耐磨性的变化与织物质量的变化不成正比。 5.9 为耐磨性开发的所有指南和仪器在不同操作员和不同实验室获得的结果中可能表现出高度的可变性； 然而，它们代表了行业中使用最广泛的方法。由于明确需要测量相对耐磨性，这是有助于最大限度地减少可能出现的结果固有差异的几种标准化指南和方法之一。

1.1 This guide covers the determination of the resistance to abrasion of a wide range of textile materials using the uniform abrasion testing instrument. Fabrics of all types including carpets, garments and nonwovens may be tested under this method. Note 1: Other procedures for measuring the abrasion resistance of textile fabrics are given in: Test Methods D3884 , D3885 , D3886 , D4157 , D4966 , and AATCC Test Method 93. 1.1.1 Provisions are provided for testing specimens in dry and wet conditions. Four options for evaluation are included: Option 1—Fabric Rupture Option 2—Mass Loss Option 3—Thickness Loss Option 4—Breaking Strength Loss 1.1.2 Provision is provided for testing specimens in the wet state. 1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as the standard. Within the text, the inch-pound units are shown in parentheses. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the specification. 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 resistance to abrasion of textile materials is affected by many factors in a complex manner. The results obtained from the use of this instrument assist in evaluating these factors relative to the wear serviceability of the final textile product in specific end uses. The resistance to abrasion is affected by many factors that include the inherent mechanical properties of the fibers; the dimensions of the fibers; the structure of the yarns; the construction of the fabrics; the type, kind, amount of treatment added to the fibers, yarns or fabric; the nature of the abradant; the tension on the specimen; the pressure between the specimen and the abradant; and the dimensional changes in the specimen. Experience has shown in many instances, that relative results obtained with this instrument when used on a series of fabrics, agreed with those obtained based upon performance in end use. However, caution is advised because anomalous results may occur due to uncontrolled factors in manufacturing or other processes. Specific instances have been described. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 In any event, anomalous results should be studied to further understand the complex behavior that may occur as a result of abrasion that may in turn assist in the development of more durable fabrics. 5.2 Testing some specimens under “wet” conditions can add another dimension to the evaluation of some textiles. Such testing under “wet” conditions can help ascertain the effect of changes in a fabric's resistance to abrasion when it becomes wet. This test can also increase the uniformity of the abrading action by washing away abrasion debris and preventing the build up of broken fibers that can interfere with the proper progression of the tests. 5.3 This test is used as a guide in evaluating textiles in quality control and in research. 5.3.1 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 should be used that are as homogenous as possible, that are drawn from the material from which the disparate test results were obtained, and that are randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. Other fabrics with established test values may be used for this purpose. 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 a bias is found, either a cause must be found and corrected, or future test results must be adjusted in consideration of the known bias. 5.4 This test is unique and is significantly different from any other existing abrading test. 5.5 This guide may also be used as a technique for pretreating material for subsequent testing. For example, a predetermined number of abrasion cycles at specified test conditions may be performed on a series of specimens, which are then subjected to a strength or barrier performance test. 5.6 The resistance of textile materials to abrasion as measured by this guide does not include all the factors which account for wear performance or durability in actual use. While the “abrasion resistance” stated in terms of the number of cycles 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. 5.6.1 Laboratory tests may be reliable as an indication of relative end-use suitability in cases where the difference in abrasion resistance of various materials is large, but they should not be relied upon for prediction of performance during actual wear life for specific end uses unless there are data showing the specific relationship between laboratory abrasion tests and actual wear in the intended end use. 5.7 The pressure and tension used is varied, depending on the mass and nature of the material and the end use application. Whenever possible all materials that are to be compared with each other should be tested under the same pressure and tension. 5.8 When abrasion tests are continued to total destruction, abrasion resistance comparisons are not practical for fabrics have a different mass because the change in abrasion resistance is not directly proportional to the change in the fabric mass. 5.9 All the guides and instruments that have been developed for abrasion resistance may show a high degree of variability in results obtained by different operators and in different laboratories; however, they represent the methods 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 standardized guides and methods that is useful to help minimize the inherent variation in results that may occur.