What ASTM F510 abrasion testing reveals about appearance retention in high-traffic floors

On Spec #4 — published by Finish + Form

Author's note: This article interprets published laboratory testing comparing epoxy terrazzo with matte finish and Durabella Biopolymer Terrazzo with matte finish under controlled conditions. Its purpose is to provide context for architectural specification, not to prescribe a particular solution. The discussion that follows is based on the following sources:

• Primary source: Intertek Building & Construction, Test Report N3216.01-106-31 R0, issued July 18, 2022

• Testing Standard: ASTM F510-14, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Abrasion of Resilient Floor Coverings Using an Abrader with a Grit Feed Method

• Comparative systems: biopolymer terrazzo (Matte Finish) and epoxy terrazzo (Epoxy with Matte Finish)

---

Owners rarely replace a floor because it failed structurally. More often, they begin spending money long before replacement becomes necessary. In airports, hospitals, and other high traffic buildings, floors gradually lose their original appearance as millions of footsteps carry abrasive grit across the surface. Traffic lanes become dull, maintenance crews increase burnishing cycles to restore gloss,

and what is often a cosmetic issue begins to be perceived as a cleanliness issue.

But its important to remember that every floor wears. This doesn't happen because it was poorly specified or because it failed. It's simply because every step carries abrasive particles across its surface. This means that when specifying, the important question isn't whether a floor will lose material but how quickly will it lose material?

Forget the common misconception that harder materials resist wear better. Hardness measures resistance to indentation while abrasion resistance measures loss of material under repeated friction. They are different physical phenomena measured by different tests and they often tell different stories about the same floor. Abrasion resistance is ultimately a conversation about how long a floor maintains its intended appearance and how much effort it takes to keep it there. ASTM F510, which is used as the testing standard for this article, is the test method that measures the underlying mechanism directly.

Abrasion resistance is ultimately a conversation about how long a floor maintains its intended appearance and how much effort it takes to keep it there.

The Design Challenge

Picture two terrazzo floors fifteen years after installation. Both are structurally sound and would pass any load test you ran today. One still reads as elegant with its surface consistent and its aggregate clearly defined. The other reads as tired, dull in the traffic lanes, and worn at the thresholds. Nothing is broken. One's material has simply left the surface faster than the other. That's the owner's experience of abrasion and it is what ASTM F510 attempts to quantify.

Foot traffic presses tracked-in mineral grit against the floor and drags it across the surface thousands of times a day like a slow-motion sanding operation that never stops while the building is open. Architects often evaluate flooring as part of a broader design language intended to endure for decades. Surface wear does not simply change a material's performance. It changes how the space is perceived. Abrasion resistance therefore becomes a question of architectural longevity as much as material durability. People do not replace floors because the floors are no longer hard. They replace them because the floors no longer look the way they were intended.

The standard

ASTM F510-14, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Abrasion of Resilient Floor Coverings Using an Abrader with a Grit Feed Method, measures how much material a flooring surface loses under controlled abrasive attack. The method mounts a specimen on a rotating platform beneath two weighted wheels while a feeder continuously delivers fresh aluminum oxide grit into the wear path. The grit feed is the important detail. Without it, abrasive particles embed in the wheels and dull and the test drifts away from real conditions. Feeding fresh grit simulates what actually happens in a building: a constant introduction of new abrasive that arrives through every shoe all day, every day.

The result is reported as volume loss, calculated from the specimen's measured mass loss and density. Volume loss is the number that connects to what an owner sees because a floor's appearance changes as material physically leaves the surface.

The evidence

Testing was performed by Intertek Building & Construction at its materials laboratory in York, Pennsylvania, with results issued July 18, 2022 under Report N3216.01-106-31 R0. Four specimens of each material, nominally 4 by 4 by 0.5 inches, were tested per ASTM F510-14.

Each specimen was run for 1,000 abrasive cycles on a Taber Abraser equipped with 1,000-gram weights, S-39 leather covered wheels, and continuously fed S-41 aluminum oxide grit. Mass was measured before and after, and volume loss was calculated from mass loss and density.

	Biopolymer Terrazzo (Matte Finish)	Epoxy Terrazzo (Epoxy with Matte Finish)
Average volume loss (cm³)	0.062	0.076
Average mass loss (g)	0.137	0.169

The biopolymer terrazzo tested here is Durabella, manufactured by Duracryl International. Previous articles in this series examined structural behavior under bending and tension. Here we shift to surface behavior.

What the results mean

Durabella exhibited approximately 18 percent lower average volume loss than the epoxy terrazzo under identical ASTM F510 conditions, 0.062 cm³ versus 0.076 cm³. This means that under a standardized simulation of gritty foot traffic, the biopolymer surface gave up less of itself than the epoxy surface. For a space where appearance retention matters, the material that loses volume more slowly is the material that retains its intended appearance longer under the same traffic conditions.

It's worth noting that Durabella is the more flexible of the two systems, a property documented earlier in this series. Intuition often assigns better wear performance to the stiffer, harder-seeming material. But the abrasion data points the other way, which is precisely why abrasion resistance should be evaluated on its own evidence rather than inferred from other properties.

What the test does not prove is equally important. An 18 percent difference in average volume loss over 1,000 laboratory cycles does not translate into a predictable number of additional years of acceptable appearance. It establishes relative behavior between two systems under one controlled condition, nothing more.

Specification considerations

For high traffic interiors, project teams may find it useful to request ASTM F510 volume loss data directly rather than accepting hardness values as a durability proxy. Where a manufacturer publishes hardness but not abrasion data, that gap is itself worth probing.

Teams evaluating floors for hospitals, terminals, schools, and retail could also weigh abrasion behavior alongside maintenance planning. In many high traffic installations, epoxy terrazzo floors require periodic burnishing or refinishing to restore appearance as traffic lanes become dull, with frequency depending on traffic levels, maintenance practices, and the flooring system itself. A surface that loses material more slowly may contribute to longer intervals between appearance-restoration procedures, although those intervals also depend on traffic levels, maintenance practices, cleaning methods, and the flooring system itself. For many seamless flooring systems, those appearance-restoration intervals can become a significant part of lifecycle maintenance planning.

Finally, comparisons are most meaningful when the data comes from the same laboratory under the same protocol, as it does here. Volume loss figures from different labs, cycle counts, or abrasive media are not interchangeable.

Honest limits

ASTM F510 measures abrasion resistance under controlled laboratory conditions: fixed load, fixed abrasive, fixed cycle count. It does not simulate long-term field performance under variable traffic patterns, cleaning chemistry, maintenance regimes, furniture dragging, or environmental exposure.

The dataset here is four specimens per material. The averages differ by approximately 18 percent, but the individual specimen results overlap: Durabella specimens lost 0.072, 0.054, 0.071, and 0.053 cm³, while epoxy specimens lost 0.063, 0.075, 0.085, and 0.080 cm³.

The best-performing epoxy specimen lost less volume than the two higher Durabella specimens. The direction of the finding is consistent at the average level, and the sample size counsels against treating 18 percent as a precise, guaranteed margin.

Abrasion data should be one input among several. Slip resistance, structural behavior, substrate compatibility, and installation quality all shape how a floor actually performs, and no single test value should carry a specification on its own.

A floor's appearance over decades is not decided by how it resists a single hard impact. It is decided by how slowly it surrenders material to the millions of ordinary footsteps it was built to receive.

Full test reports referenced in this article are available on request.

SPEC-tacular by design, not by accident.

Finish + Form connects architects and designers to sustainable, high-performance materials with the specification support, samples, and documentation to bring projects to life. To explore Durabella for your next project, schedule a consultation.