Changes in Cotton and Nylon Fabrics Caused by Increments of Accelerotor,Schiefer,and Stoll Abrasion 1

Abstract

Two fabrics, 100% cotton and 100% nylon, were abraded with Stoll (inflated diaphragm), Schiefer, and Accelerotor instruments. Fabrics were given nine levels of abrasion, ranging from slight distortion of the fabric surface to fabric rupture, with each type of instrument. After abrasion, selected physical properties of the fabrics were measured and microscopic studies were made to determine the types of fabric, yarn, and fiber damage caused by the three abraders.

The Stoll abrader caused severe fabric damage at very low levels of abrasion because the abradant pressure was highly localized in the center of the abraded area. The Schiefer and Accelerotor instruments caused uniform abrasion over the entire areas and abrasive damage to the fabric structure built up more slowly than with the Stoll. Both the Accelerotor and the Schiefer were more sensitive to differences in fiber toughness than was the Stoll. An imbalance between warp and filling yarn crimps had a much greater effect on the rate of damage and point of attack for the two flat abrasion testers than it had on Accelerotor abrasion. The tumbling action of the Accelerotor caused the greatest increases in fabric thickness by shaking fiber ends loose from the yarn structure and then cutting or breaking them off more slowly than did the Stoll abrader.

Keywords

Abrasion Damage Fabrics Nylon (Polyamide Fiber)Cotton Fabrics Abrasion Testing Schiefer Abrasion Testing Stoll QM Abrasion Testing Accelerotor Abrasion Testing Microscopy Pressure Crimp Balance Filling Yarns Warp Ends Count Thickness Breaking Strength Breaking Elongation Toughness Fabric Weight Stiffness Bending Length Wrinkle Recovery Fabric Properties (Degradation)Analysis of Variance Photomicrographs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

N. J.

, The Relationship Between Fabric Structure and Easc-of-Care Performance of Cotton Fabrics, Textile Res. J. 34, 1049–1082 (1964).

A.S.T.M. Standards on Textile Materials, Philadelphia, 1963.

Backer

, The Relationship Between the Structural Geometry of a Textile Fabric and its Physical Properties. Pt. II: The Mechanics of Fabric Abrasion, Textile Res. J. 21, 453–468 (1951).

Backer

Tanenhaus

S. J.

, The Relationship Between the Structural Geometry of a Textile Fabric and its Physical Properties. Pt. III: Textile Geometry and Abrasion-Resistance, Textile Res. J. 21, 635–654 (1951).

Ball

H. J.

, Problems which Abrasion and Wear Testing Present, Textile Res. J. 8, 134–139 (1938).

Clegg

G. G.

, A Microscopical Examination of Worn Textile Articles, J. Textile Inst. 40, T449–480 (1949).

McNally

J. P.

McCord

F. A.

, Cotton Quality Study. V: Resistance to Abrasion, Textile Res. J. 30, 715–751 (1960).

Stiegler

H. W.

Glidden

H. E.

Mandikos

G. J.

Thompson

G. R.

, The Accelerotor for Abrasion Testing and Other Purposes, Am. Dyestuff Reptr. 45, 685–700 (1956).

Stoll

R. G.

, An Improved Multipurpose Abrasion Tester and Its Application for the Evaluation of the Wear Resistance of Textiles, Textile Res. J. 19, 394–415(1949).

10.

Tait

J. H.

, Rayon Linings, Rayon Textile Monthly 26, 171 (1945).

11.

Weiner

L. I.

Pope

C. J.

, Correlation of Laboratory Abrasion Testers, Textile Res. J. 33, 761–764 (1963).