Is there is any correlation between the Wyzenbeek and Martindale methods? In short, no. The methods are conducted in completely different manners, with differing weights, tension, and abradants. All factors in which contribute to the materials performance. Just because a material performs well on one of the methods, does not mean it will on the other method. But does that mean one is better than the other? Again, no. Both tests have a substantial history of providing guidance for abrasion resistance, which is why the Association for Contract Textiles (ACT), has included the ASTM Martindale method (ASTM D4966) in its performance guideline as an alternative to Wyzenbeek abrasion. Their recommendation is a minimum of 20,000 cycles for low traffic environments and 40,000 for high traffic environments.

    In conclusion, Wyzenbeek and Martindale are both valid methods for assessing abrasion resistance even results do no correlate. Sometimes, one test may more accurately reflect a particular construction’s abrasion resistance than the other. Particularly when it has known reliability in the field, but performs poorly on a test.  When it comes to meeting ACT requirements, you have the option of selecting the method that best reflects your construction’s true performance.