Comparison and Analysis of Test Methods for Breaking Strength of Woven Fabrics
Textiles are subject to numerous mechanical tests, such as those for tearing strength, bursting strength, seam strength, peel strength, and breaking strength. Among these, breaking strength—a key indicator—is defined as the maximum force recorded when a fabric ruptures during tensile testing. A higher breaking strength value indicates greater resistance to rupture, and vice versa.
Currently, the two primary domestic methods for testing the breaking strength of woven fabrics are GB/T 3923.1—2013, *Textiles—Tensile properties of fabrics—Part 1: Determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip method*, and GB/T 3923.2—2013, *Textiles—Tensile properties of fabrics—Part 2: Determination of maximum force using the grab method* [2]. These two methods differ significantly in aspects ranging from specimen preparation to the configuration of testing parameters. This paper examines the differences between the two methods, focusing specifically on specimen preparation.
Contents
Comparison and Analysis of Differences in Breaking Strength Test Methods
GB/T 3923.1—2013 “Textiles—Tensile properties of fabrics—Part 1: Determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip method” (hereinafter referred to as the “strip method”) and GB/T 3923.2—2013 “Textiles—Tensile properties of fabrics—Part 2: Determination of maximum force using the grab method” (hereinafter referred to as the “grab method”) are commonly used methods for testing the breaking strength of woven fabrics; however, they differ in several testing requirements. The main differences between the two methods are outlined in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, the primary differences lie in three areas.
First, there are differences in the specimen preparation stage. The strip method requires specimens to have fringed edges to reduce the likelihood of yarns unraveling along the warp or weft directions during stretching, given the narrow specimen width. In contrast, the grab method requires marking lines on the specimen; because the specimen is wider and clamped at the center to ensure uniform force distribution, these lines assist with accurate positioning. Consequently, whether fringed edges are retained and the accuracy of the marking line placement directly affect the test results.
Second, there are differences in the clamping method. The strip method allows for clamping under pretension, keeping the specimen straight and flat prior to testing to enhance force uniformity. Conversely, grab method specimens are relatively short and wide—remaining comparatively flat during clamping—so pretension is generally not applied, and its impact is relatively minor.
Third, there are differences in test parameter settings. Key parameters such as specimen dimensions, clamp face dimensions, gauge length, and stretching speed differ between the strip method and the grab method; these discrepancies may lead to variations in test results across different laboratories.
| Parameter | Strip Method | Grab Method |
| Specimen Preparation | General woven fabrics: fringe width of approx. 5 mm or 15 yarns; loose-structure woven fabrics: fringe width of approx. 10 mm | Draw a line parallel to the length direction across the entire length of each specimen, positioned 38 mm from the specimen edge |
| Specimen Dimensions | Effective width 50 ± 0.5 mm (other widths permissible per relevant protocol); length 200 mm or 100 mm (determined by breaking elongation) | Width 100 ± 2 mm; length 100 mm |
| Clamp Face Dimensions | Clamp face width at least 60 mm and not less than specimen width | 25 ± 1 mm × 25 ± 1 mm |
| Clamping Method | Loose clamping or pretension clamping; pretension of 2 N, 5 N, or 10 N applied based on mass per unit area | Fabric placed flat in clamps, allowing it to hang under its own weight |
| Clamping Position | Entire width of specimen clamped | Center of specimen width clamped |
| Gauge Length | Breaking elongation ≤ 75%: 200 mm; breaking elongation > 75%: 100 mm (precision ± 1 mm) | 100 mm (or 75 mm by agreement of relevant parties; precision ± 1 mm) |
| Extension Rate | Breaking elongation < 8%: 20 mm/min; breaking elongation ≥ 8%: 100 mm/min | 50 mm/min |
Table 1
Experimental Design for Different Test Methods
When testing the breaking strength of woven fabrics, laboratory personnel typically select an appropriate test method based on the product type and relevant standards. However, for semi-finished goods or products undergoing contract manufacturing, the product category and attributes may be unclear, making it impossible to immediately determine whether the strip method or the grab method is suitable. Consequently, comparative testing using both methods is often required to analyze result discrepancies and provide a basis for the client’s final choice.
To investigate the differences in test results between these two methods, this study selected eight different types of woven fabrics and analyzed them using both the strip method and the grab method.
Breaking strength tests were conducted on prepared samples using specific technical parameters, and the results were compared.
Test Protocol and Parameter Settings
In accordance with standard requirements, the strip method utilized an effective width of (50 ± 0.5) mm, while the grab method employed an effective specimen size of (25 ± 1) mm × (25 ± 1) mm; tests were conducted using various tensile speeds and gauge lengths.
For the strip method, tensile speeds of 100 mm/min and 20 mm/min were used when the gauge length was set to 200 mm, whereas a speed of 100 mm/min was used when the gauge length was set to 100 mm.
For the grab method, a tensile speed of 50 mm/min was used with gauge lengths set to 100 mm and 75 mm, respectively.
Specimen preparation
Specimen preparation for the strip method: Specimens were cut from fabrics #1 through #8 in both the warp and weft directions. For each fabric, 10 specimens were prepared—divided into two groups of five—measuring 50 mm in width and 200 mm in length; additionally, five specimens measuring 50 mm in width and 100 mm in length were prepared for each fabric.
Specimen preparation for the grab method: Specimens were cut from fabrics #1 through #8 in both the warp and weft directions, with five specimens measuring 100 mm by 100 mm and five specimens measuring 100 mm by 75 mm prepared for each fabric.
All specimens were pre-conditioned for 24 hours and then tested using a constant rate of extension (CRE) tester; the results are presented in Table 2.
| Sample | Test Direction | Strip Method (200mm / 20mm/min) | Strip Method (100mm / 100mm/min) | Strip Method (100mm / 100mm/min) | Grab Method (100mm / 50mm/min) | Grab Method (75mm / 50mm/min) |
| 1# Polyester-Cotton Blend | Warp | 1923.15 | 1961.83 | 1998.24 | 1363.9 | 1385.47 |
| 1# Polyester-Cotton Blend | Weft | 1189.31 | 1201.27 | 1245.78 | 811.53 | 837.46 |
| 2# Pure Cotton Fabric | Warp | 499.75 | 513.10 | 527.35 | 103.25 | 120.4 |
| 2# Pure Cotton Fabric | Weft | 188.95 | 216.95 | 249.45 | 66.3 | 78.9 |
| 3# Denim | Warp | 987.20 | 1092.17 | 1131.62 | 620.77 | 653.49 |
| 3# Denim | Weft | 663.37 | 697.57 | 730.36 | 447.90 | 473.45 |
| 4# Polyester-Viscose Blend | Warp | 1399.22 | 1455.83 | 1500.74 | 1138.5 | 1161.49 |
| 4# Polyester-Viscose Blend | Weft | 740.18 | 774.33 | 803.61 | 535.17 | 569.72 |
| 5# Pure Polyester Fabric | Warp | 1075.83 1127.14 | 1186.40 | 751.26 | 782.35 | |
| 5# Pure polyester fabric | Weft direction | 523.37 | 556.49 | 590.15 | 399.60 | 421.76 |
| 6# Polyester-cotton blend fabric | Warp direction | 845.43 | 887.62 | 933.78 | 524.19 | 550.19 |
| 6# Polyester-cotton blend fabric | Weft direction | 587.29 | 603.71 | 643.43 | 347.25 | 358.97 |
| 7# Oxford fabric | Warp direction | 2188.62 | 2259.33 | 2311.15 | 1412.64 | 1470.41 |
| 7# Oxford fabric | Weft direction | 1568.96 | 1614.02 | 1698.27 | 941.83 | 970.51 |
| 8# Cotton-linen blend fabric | Warp direction | 950.83 | 995.68 | 1057.49 | 622.9 | 653.87 |
| 8# Cotton-linen blend fabric | Weft direction | 764.54 | 796.91 | 849.73 | 498.31 | 525.66 |
Table 2
Data results and analysis
A comparison of the results for specimens 1# through 8# reveals that, using the strip method with a gauge length of 200 mm, groups tested at higher tensile speeds yielded higher breaking strength values; conversely, at a tensile speed of 100 mm/min, specimens with shorter gauge lengths exhibited higher breaking strength values. Similarly, with the grab method at a tensile speed of 50 mm/min, specimens with shorter gauge lengths demonstrated higher breaking strength values.
Overall, the breaking strength values obtained via the grab method were significantly lower than those obtained via the strip method.
The observed patterns can be summarized as follows:
First, in the strip method, when the effective clamping width and gauge length remain constant, a higher tensile speed results in a higher fabric breaking strength. This is because higher tensile speeds enhance the orientation of internal molecular chains within the fibers, making the structure more resistant to slippage and failure, thereby exhibiting a higher instantaneous load-bearing capacity. In contrast, slower stretching may allow molecules time to adapt to the external force, resulting in a lower strength value; however, the increase in fabric breaking strength is relatively small compared to the magnitude of the increase in tensile speed.
Second, in both the strip and grab methods, when the effective clamping width and tensile speed are held constant, a shorter gauge length results in a slightly higher fabric breaking strength, while a longer gauge length results in a slightly lower value. This occurs because, during tensile deformation, internal forces arise between different parts of the fiber molecules to resist the external force and attempt to restore the original structure. As the gauge length increases, the path of tensile deformation experienced by a unit area of the fabric lengthens, altering the overall stress state and causing a slight downward trend in the observed breaking strength. However, the magnitude of this change is relatively limited and does not vary significantly in direct proportion to the gauge length.
Third, the overall test data indicate that while tensile speed and gauge length do influence breaking strength results, the extent of this influence is relatively limited. The breaking force values obtained via the grab test method are significantly lower than those obtained via the strip test method, primarily due to the difference in clamping dimensions. The clamping area in the grab test is substantially smaller than that in the strip test; this results in fewer fibers actively bearing the load and a more concentrated area of constraint. Consequently, the number of effective load-bearing fibers within the specimen is reduced, leading to a lower overall resistive force during stretching and, ultimately, a lower measured breaking force.
Recommendations
Research indicates that the primary factor influencing the breaking strength of woven fabrics is the size of the specimen clamping area, followed by the rate of extension and the gauge length. Significant discrepancies in results arise between different testing methods when evaluating woven fabrics prior to their final product form; therefore, the testing objective and application scenario must be clearly defined before selecting a method.
For different woven fabric products, the strip method or the grab method should be selected in accordance with the relevant product standards, with particular attention paid to any specific provisions or additional requirements regarding breaking strength metrics. In cases where both methods are applicable, priority should be given to verifying whether specimen dimensions meet sampling requirements; furthermore, the systematic differences between the results of the two methods should be clearly explained to relevant parties to ensure consistency and comparability in the use of the results.
Reference: *China Fiber Inspection* (March 2025) — “Comparison and Analysis of Testing Methods for Tensile Strength of Woven Fabrics”. If any copyright infringement is detected, please contact us.
