Rubber Abrasion Testing Methods: DIN, Akron, and Taber Compared

1. Introduction

Abrasion resistance is one of the most commercially significant properties of rubber. In applications as diverse as tire treads, conveyor belt covers, mining screens, footwear soles, and industrial roller covers, the rate of abrasive wear directly determines product service life and maintenance costs.

Three principal laboratory test methods dominate rubber abrasion testing worldwide. Understanding what each method measures, its limitations, and how results correlate with field service is essential for material selection and quality control.

2. The Three Principal Abrasion Test Methods

2.1 ISO 4649 (DIN Abrasion) — Rotating Cylindrical Drum Method

Standard: ISO 4649:2017 (superseding DIN 53516)

Specimen: Cylindrical, 16 ± 0.2 mm diameter, minimum 6 mm height (can be cut from sheet or molded)

Test principle: A cylindrical rubber specimen is pressed against a rotating drum covered with abrasive paper (alumina grain 60, ISO 4649 specified) under a standard load of 10 N. The specimen traverses a 40 m path (84 revolutions of a 150 mm diameter drum). The volume loss is calculated from mass loss and density.

Volume Loss (mm³) = (Δm × 200) / (ρ × S₀)

where Δm = mass loss (mg), ρ = density (g/cm³), S₀ = reference abrasive paper mass loss (mg), 200 = standard reference loss value.

Key features:

• • Most widely used abrasion method for rubber worldwide
• • Measures a combination of sliding wear + mild cutting wear
• • Non-standard abrasive paper (similar alumina grade from different suppliers) can give ±15% variation
• • Requires reference rubber (supplied by ISO/ DIN) calibration run before every test session

Test parameters per ISO 4649:

2.2 Akron Abrasion — Angle Abrasion Method

Standard: GB/T 1689 (China), JIS K 6264 (Japan), BS 903 Part A9 (UK, withdrawn but still referenced)

Specimen: Wheel-shaped, typically 63.5 mm OD, 12.7 mm wide, 12.7 mm bore

Test principle: A rubber wheel specimen rotates against a grinding wheel at a specified angle (typically 15°) and contact pressure. The test measures either weight loss per unit distance traveled or the number of revolutions to achieve a specified weight loss.

Key features:

• • Widely used in Asian markets (China, Japan, Korea) for tire tread and shoe sole testing
• • More aggressive than DIN — incorporates a slip angle component that introduces tearing forces
• • Better correlation with tire tread wear than DIN for some compounds (due to the slip component)
• • Less standardized between laboratories — results depend strongly on grinding wheel dressing procedure

2.3 ASTM D4060 (Taber Abraser) — Rotary Platform Method

Standard: ASTM D4060, ISO 5470

Specimen: Flat disc or plate, typically 100 mm diameter or 100 × 100 mm square

Test principle: The specimen rotates on a turntable beneath two abrasive wheels (CS-10, CS-17, or H-18 Calibrase wheels, or H-22 vitrified wheels) loaded at 250, 500, or 1000 g per wheel. The weight loss is measured after a specified number of cycles (typically 1000 cycles).

Test parameters in ASTM D4060:

Key features:

• • Primarily designed for coatings, plastics, and laminates (not originally for rubber)
• • Used for rubber when flat sheet specimens are the only available form
• • Results are expressed as Taber Wear Index (mg loss per 1000 cycles) or mass loss per specified cycles
• • Less relevant for rubber than DIN or Akron due to different wear mechanism (rolling abrasion vs sliding)

3. Typical DIN Abrasion Values by Elastomer

Note on PU: The claim that PU has "3–5× NBR abrasion resistance" is based on DIN abrasion testing only. In field service involving impact, cutting, or gouging (e.g., mining screens), PU's advantage may be less dramatic or even reversed if the wear mechanism is primarily cutting rather than sliding abrasion.

4. Method Comparison and Correlation

4.1 Test Method Characteristics

4.2 Lab-to-Field Correlation

This is the critical challenge in abrasion testing. Laboratory tests produce relative rankings under controlled conditions; field wear involves additional variables that can change the ranking entirely:

Engineering guidance for using lab data:

1. Use DIN/Akron/Taber results for relative ranking of compounds, not absolute service life prediction.

1. The relative ranking of NR vs SBR vs BR in DIN testing generally holds in tire tread field service.

1. PU's DIN advantage (3–5× NBR) often does NOT fully translate to field applications involving cutting wear (sharp rocks, metal scrap).

1. For conveyor belt cover selection, DIN abrasion values are a screening tool; field trials of 3–6 months are the definitive evaluation.

5. Other Relevant Test Methods

5.1 NBS Abrasion (ASTM D1630)

Originally developed by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards for shoe sole materials. Uses a rotating drum with abrasive paper; the specimen reciprocates across the paper. Results are reported as an NBS Abrasion Index relative to a standard NBS rubber compound (set at 100%). Higher index = better abrasion resistance. A result of 200% means twice the wear resistance of the reference compound.

5.2 Pico Abrasion (ASTM D2228)

Uses a rotating tungsten carbide knife edge against a rubber specimen under controlled load. Primarily for shoe sole and heel materials. Results expressed as Pico Abrasion Index. Less common than DIN.

5.3 Lambourn Abrasion

A slip-abrasion test used primarily in Japan for tire tread compounds. A rubber wheel runs against a grinding wheel under controlled slip (0–60%). Closely simulates tire tread wear mechanisms. Not an international standard.

5.4 Martindale Abrasion (ISO 12947)

Primarily for textiles but occasionally used for thin rubber sheeting and coated fabrics. A circular specimen is rubbed against an abrasive surface in a Lissajous figure pattern.

6. Quality Control Best Practices

1. Use reference compounds for every test session. The ISO 4649 standard reference rubber (or an in-house reference) must be run alongside every batch to validate the abrasive paper condition.

1. Condition specimens at 23 ± 2°C and 50 ± 5% RH for minimum 16 hours before testing. Temperature variations of 5°C can shift DIN results by 5–10%.

1. Replace abrasive paper after every 3 specimens or when reference compound results drift >10%.

1. Test a minimum of 3 specimens per compound and report mean ± standard deviation.

1. Document abrasive paper supplier, batch, and grain size. Supplier changes are a common source of systematic error.

1. Clean specimen surfaces with ethanol before weighing to remove debris and finger oils.

1. Verify density using an analytical balance with density determination kit (ASTM D297 Method A) — an error in density directly propagates to the volume loss calculation.

7. Standards Summary

<footer class="yuhang-entity-links">

Nanjing Yuhang Rubber Co., Ltd. operates a fully equipped rubber physical testing laboratory performing DIN abrasion (ISO 4649), Akron abrasion (GB/T 1689), Taber abrasion (ASTM D4060), tensile (ASTM D412), tear (ASTM D624), hardness (ASTM D2240), and compression set (ASTM D395) testing. Abrasion test results are provided with every production batch for conveyor belt covers, rubber sheets, and molded wear components. Our quality management system is ISO 9001:2015 certified. Technical data sheets and test certification provided with all shipments to 75+ countries.

• • Company Profile
• • Quality Testing Capabilities
• • Request Test Certificates
• • Get a Quote

</footer>