If you have looked for standards and found none then the answer to that is obvious. If a manufacturer complies with a standard it is in his own best interest to mention that standard.

Wear resistance is always subjective. Certain manufacturers of metal items use accumulated metal loss measurements to claim quantification of wear. This does not identify the wear. If a component wears and does not fail then it is not critically worn. There are many examples of this scenario.

The issue with wear is always replacement cost and time, provided that contamination is not important. Wear is akin to poverty: it is always there and very subjective.

I have come across polymer screen decks where the only noticeable feature was the stacks of spent liners lying on the walkways. These were multi deck screens which allegedly were an improvement on cyclones. Suppliers were praising durability while the maintenance crew were accepting futility.

If the particular equipment is so troublesome it might be worthwhile examining the process. If you have such a high degree of unreliability it is most unlikely that detail selection is ever going to make a substantial improvement in performance. ■