{"id":11316,"date":"2026-06-03T10:06:17","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T08:06:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/analytical-group.com\/?p=11316"},"modified":"2026-06-03T10:56:15","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T08:56:15","slug":"step-by-step-abrasion-resistance-uppers-linings-martindale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/analytical-group.com\/en\/news-en\/step-by-step-abrasion-resistance-uppers-linings-martindale","title":{"rendered":"Step by Step: abrasion resistance of uppers, inner linings and visible surfaces"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Lining complaints don’t arrive in production: they arrive in store.<\/strong><\/h5>

Abrasion problems almost never surface during outgoing quality control at the factory: the material is intact, the workmanship is correct, the product passes visual inspection. Failure comes after a few weeks or months of use, when the shoe has already been sold and worn. At that point the damage is not just technical: it’s a return to manage and a dissatisfied customer.<\/p>

Abrasion is a cumulative phenomenon<\/strong>: every step imprints a micro-cycle of localised friction on the internal material at pressure points, heel, toe, and ankle<\/em>. Step by step, the material degrades and fibre failure sets in.<\/p>

The Martindale test<\/strong> according to ISO 17704<\/strong> is designed to anticipate in the laboratory what the market discovers too late. It is not a faithful simulation of use, no test truly is, but it is a standardised, repeatable and comparable measure, capable of distinguishing in advance between materials that would appear equivalent at the selection stage. And it applies equally to inner linings and to visible surfaces<\/strong>, such as the internal coverings of sandals and exposed quarter linings,\u00a0 where structural failure is compounded by visible aesthetic degradation, which the standard evaluates using distinct criteria that not all quality specifications monitor with equal attention.<\/p>

Three risks a specification without data does not cover<\/strong><\/h4>

By the time the problem becomes visible, the batch has already been distributed. The operational consequences for a brand unfold across three distinct levels.<\/p>

The first risk is financial<\/strong>: returns, replacements, and out-of-contract management of non-conformities.
The second is commercial<\/strong>: a defect that emerges mid-season damages the relationship with distribution in ways that cannot be recovered in the following season.
The third is regulatory<\/strong>: in markets where abrasion resistance is a compliance requirement, for example for occupational footwear under EN ISO 20347<\/strong>, or certain export categories to regulated markets, the absence of technical documentation represents an exposure that no system audit alone can cover.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"DSC_6674-Edit\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Methodology: from cycle to data<\/strong><\/h5>

The Martindale machine<\/strong> replicates friction in a way that differs from any linear test: the specimen holder moves along a Lissajous curve<\/strong>, a closed figure that never repeats itself identically. This is the difference between rubbing always in the same direction and rubbing the way a foot actually does: unpredictably, multidirectionally, cumulatively.<\/p>

The sample is fixed on a flat specimen holder and brought into contact with a standardised abradant fabric under a predefined load. The machine counts the cycles; the technician evaluates the sample at set intervals, applying the reading criterion appropriate to the component under examination.<\/p>

For inner linings<\/strong> and insoles<\/strong>, the breakage criterion<\/strong> is used: the test stops when the first hole forms, or when two or more threads of the surface layer break visibly. The result is the number of completed cycles.<\/p>

For uppers<\/strong> and visible surfaces, <\/strong>such as internal sandal coverings and exposed quarter linings, an aesthetic evaluation criterion<\/strong> comes into play: the sample is compared at regular intervals against standardised reference scales to detect surface alterations that do not compromise the structure but degrade the perception of the product. Here “failure” is not measured by a numerical value but through a qualified judgement, which requires trained operators and controlled observation conditions.<\/p>

Equipment: the right machine is not enough<\/strong><\/h5>

In the laboratory, having a machine does not automatically guarantee the accuracy of the output. The Martindale test relies on a well-established and standardised piece of equipment, yet the reliability of the test depends entirely on the control protocols governing it.<\/p>