## 3 Evaluation of the Measured Values
### Comparisons of Samples 6-10  
Table 8 shows the weight loss of the individual samples and the average weight loss under each strategy. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compared Samples**} & **Same Fiber** & **Different Fiber** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compared Samples**} \\  & **Orientation** & **Orientation** & \\ \hline
2 vs. 1 & 0.0847 & 0.0729 & 0.0117 \\
3 vs. 5 & 0.1340 & 0.0631 & 0.0709 \\
4 vs. 5 & 0.0641 & 0.0631 & 0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Weight differences among similar Samples 1–5 (g). Figure 7: The differences in weight losses for Samples 1–6, represented graphically. The plotted dependence of the samples with \(Z\)-orientation fiber deposition (Figure 8) after the ASTM G65-16 tests shows the weight loss of the materials tested. Among these, Sample 8 (material loss was more than 0.11 g) showed the lowest resistance to abrasive wear and, thus, the largest weight loss of the material, where the fiber deposition strategy was in the horizontal plane (90\({}^{\circ}\)) in both layers with respect to direction of wear. The second largest weight loss was shown in Sample 7 (material loss was just over 0.11 g) with the fiber deposition strategy under 45\({}^{\circ}\) in both the even and the odd layers in the same direction. Sample 9 followed (material loss exceeded 0.10 g), where the fiber deposition strategy in the even layer was under the 90\({}^{\circ}\) angle in the direction of wear and, in the odd layer, the orientation was perpendicular to direction of wear. This was followed by Sample 10 with a strategy of fiber deposition parallel to the direction of wear in both layers with a weight loss just below 0.10 g. Sample 6 showed the greatest resistance to abrasive wear due to weight loss, with alternating strategies under a 45\({}^{\circ}\) angle in the layers. The loss of material in Sample 6 was just over 0.09 g.  
To determine the effect of the layer deposition strategy on the tribological properties of the surface, we subtracted weight losses between the samples similar in fiber orientation and different only by individual layers. This loss is expressed numerically in Table 9 and represented graphically in Figure 9.  
Figure 8: Weight differences among similar Samples 6–10 (g). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample Type** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **Average Loss (g)** \\ \hline
**6** & 0.0981 & 0.0906 & 0.0911 & 0.0933 \\
**7** & 0.1102 & 0.1200 & 0.1127 & 0.1143 \\
**8** & 0.1003 & 0.1258 & 0.1269 & 0.1177 \\
**9** & 0.1087 & 0.1114 & 0.1022 & 0.1074 \\
**10** & 0.0931 & 0.0998 & 0.1045 & 0.0988 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Weight losses for Samples 6–10 (g). From the comparison of the layers, we can see higher abrasion resistance of the surface layers perpendicular to the direction of wear. However, the greatest abrasion resistance, in this case, is shown in Sample 6, with the fiber orientation under a 45\({}^{\circ}\) angle, but with the opposite tilt in the individual layers. In samples extruded vertically (with Z-orientation of fiber extrusion, Samples 6-10), the values of the variance of weight loss are not as large as in the samples with the X-orientation (Figure 9). In Samples 6-10, the layering strategy is not significant in nature. When the fibers are laid in the same direction in all layers, this results in a greater loss of material, as shown graphically in Figure 9. Sample 8 (with the fiber deposition strategy under a 90\({}^{\circ}\) angle with respect to the direction of wear in both the even and the odd layers) which had a material loss of 0.1177 g, and Sample 7 (with fibers deposition strategy under the same 45\({}^{\circ}\) angle in both layers) which had a material loss of 0.1143 g, showed the greatest wear.