Random Tumble Pilling Tester

1. Woven Fabrics

Cotton: Often used in apparel, cotton fabrics can be prone to pilling, making them ideal candidates for pilling tests.

Polyester Blends: Fabrics that combine polyester with natural fibers like cotton tend to pill more due to the synthetic fibers acting as anchors for pilling formation.

2. Knitted Fabrics

Sweaters and Knitwear: Knitted fabrics, such as those used in sweaters, are particularly susceptible to pilling because of their looped structure.

Activewear Fabrics: Many athletic materials are knitted and can benefit from pilling resistance testing to ensure durability during wear.

3. Fleece and Microfiber

Fleece Fabrics: Soft fleece materials often pill due to their fluffy texture and are commonly tested for pilling resistance.

Microfiber: These fabrics can also develop pills and require testing to assess their performance over time.

4. Synthetic Fabrics

Acrylic: Acrylic fabrics are known for their softness but can be prone to pilling, making them suitable for testing.

Nylon: Similar to polyester, nylon blends may also be tested for their resistance to pilling.

5. Blended Fabrics

Cotton-Polyester Blends: These combinations are frequently used in casual wear and require assessment for pilling due to the interaction of fibers.

Important Considerations:

The Random Tumble Pilling Tester simulates the friction and abrasion that fabrics experience during normal use, such as washing and wearing.

Fabrics treated with silicone resin may not yield reliable results in this test, as silicone can transfer onto the cork liners used in the tester, affecting the outcome.

In summary, the Random Tumble Pilling Tester is versatile and applicable to a wide range of woven and knitted fabrics, especially those used in everyday apparel where pilling can impact appearance and quality.

Random Tumble Pilling Tester

• Test Method: ASTM D3512
• Procedure: Fabric samples are placed in a cylindrical chamber lined with cork and subjected to random tumbling with abrasive materials (like cork balls or cotton lint). The samples undergo continuous agitation to simulate the pilling process.
• Evaluation: The degree of pilling is assessed visually after a specified duration, allowing for a qualitative evaluation of the fabric’s pilling resistance.
• Suitability: Particularly effective for knitted fabrics and those that experience random friction during normal wear.

Martindale Pilling Test

• Test Method: ISO 12945-2
• Procedure: Fabric samples are mounted on a circular platform and rubbed against an abrasive surface (usually emery paper) in both warp and weft directions for a predetermined number of cycles.
• Evaluation: Pilling is assessed visually using a grading system. This method provides quantitative data on fabric wear and is suitable for woven fabrics.
• Suitability: Known for accurately simulating real-life wear conditions, making it effective for assessing durability.

ICI Pilling Box Test

• Test Method: ISO 12945-1
• Procedure: Fabric samples are placed in a box lined with cork and subjected to controlled rubbing. The samples are tumbled for a specified duration.
• Evaluation: Visual assessment of pilling is performed, with results graded according to established criteria.
• Suitability: Versatile for various fabric types, including woven and knitted materials.

Comparison Summary

1. Testing Environment:
   • The Random Tumble Pilling Tester simulates random friction, making it more representative of real-life conditions where fabrics rub against each other.
   • Martindale and ICI tests use more controlled environments, focusing on specific rubbing patterns.
2. Fabric Types:
   • The Random Tumble Pilling Tester is particularly suited for knitted fabrics, while Martindale is better for woven fabrics due to its method of abrasion.
   • ICI can accommodate both types but may not replicate real-world scenarios as effectively as the Random Tumble method.
3. Data Output:
   • The Random Tumble method provides qualitative assessments based on visual inspection, while Martindale offers more quantitative data through cycle counts and grading systems.
   • ICI also provides visual evaluations but may not be as comprehensive in data collection as Martindale.
4. User Experience:
   • The Random Tumble Tester may require less operator intervention during testing due to its automated tumbling process.
   • Martindale and ICI tests often require more manual setup and monitoring.

In conclusion, while the Random Tumble Pilling Tester excels in simulating real-world conditions and is particularly effective for knitted fabrics, other methods like the Martindale and ICI tests offer different advantages depending on the fabric type and testing requirements. Each method serves its purpose within the textile industry, providing valuable insights into fabric durability and performance.