Slip Resistance

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 93 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:53 am:    We have a client who has asked us to delete SCOF for slip resistance from the flooring spec sections or prove to him why it is required. ADA does not require it, nor does the Florida Building Code. OSHA may be the only source, however the location of the flooring is inside condominium units and yes Fair Housing Act also has no requirement. The best we can find is that for stone floors, MIA recommends that stone be tested according to ASTM 1028 for COF of 0.50 or higher. What I am looking for is what success other spec writers have had with requesting that tile and stone surfaces have a the SCOF minimums that Masterspec lists, primary 0.60 or higher for level surfaces and 0.80 for ramps. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 107 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:59 am:    In the ADAAG Appendix, it states: "A research project sponsored by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) conducted tests with persons with disabilities and concluded that a higher coefficient of friction was needed by such persons. A static coefficient of friction of 0.6 is recommended for accessible routes and 0.8 for ramps." Although not in the mandatory portion of the ADAAG, it would be a very difficult case to win if an owner was sued over a slipping case having this information in print in the ADAAG. Mandatory or not, I wouldn't take the risk. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 353 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:21 pm:    I concur with Ron, ADAAG does address the issue. However, if we are talking specifically about inside residential units, then Fair Housing governs, and I don't think they do address it. But for all the public spaces, that ADAAG clause is going to come back and haunt him (and possibly you if you change the documents). William Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 94 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:43 pm:    Fair Housing refers to ADAAG. Not much help there. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 354 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:52 pm:    Well, look at it this way. Refer the client to the ADAAG requirement quoted from the appendix. Show them also the reference from Fair Housing to to the ADAAG. Tell them that the ADA is a law, not a code. That failure to provide for it will leave him open to law suits from slippage, and that if the surface does not comply, then the ADAAG appendix is simply going to be listed as evidence against them. I include a requirement in my sections that are hard flooring materials that the manufacturer show that the product complies with the ADAAG slip requirements. The only proof you need is the ADAAG requirements, and that given that it is a law, that this is a condominimum that removing it from your documents leaves you also open to the law suit. William Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 169 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:53 pm:    as for your original question: we regularly get certifications from stone suppliers quoting the .60 and .80 values. In some cases, a coating can be put on the floor that increases the slip resistance -- terrazzo often has that applied. So yes, the values are achievable and apparently realistic. In general, we also look for slightly less slippery finishes for tile and stone when its used on a floor -- our designers have be "trained" by now to look for honed instead of polished finishes. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 01:03 pm:    The following is some of what the latest Masterspec support documents have to say about this issue: "The ADAAG appendix suggests a minimum value of 0.6 for the static coefficient of friction for level surfaces and 0.8 for ramps. Coefficient of friction is not a simple, inherent property of a floor material; it depends on shoe material and the condition of the floor's surface. Contaminants (such as water, soil, mud, oils, etc.) and coatings (such as floor polishes) can greatly alter the value for a floor material. For this reason, a slip-resistance requirement is included for the floor wax applied over the brick flooring. This requirement is based on test procedures and criteria for floor polishes developed at Underwriters Laboratories in the 1940s and supported by experience since then. Some authorities claim that the presence of contaminants, rather than the static coefficient of friction of the floor material, is the primary cause of most slipping accidents. However, designers cannot control contaminants; they can only anticipate them and try to get a coefficient of friction high enough to make up for their presence. The slip-resistance requirement for floor polishes referenced in the Section Text is an industry standard easily met by many products, so no harm is done by retaining it. The slip-resistance requirement for brick, however, will definitely limit selection; some argue that it is overly cautious. The specifier has to decide if the ADAAG appendix has established a reasonable standard of care and whether to retain the slip-resistance requirement." Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 18 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 02:09 pm:    Interesting discussion! Suggestion: If this is not a publicly bid project and if your architect client/designer has presented finishes to the owner and receieved sign-off then you may simply specify the actual products with a provision that substitutions will not be considered. You will be safe as long as the designer has selected products complying with the ADAAG appendix. Hopefully they have been "trained" as Anne states. Obviously, publicly bid projects present greater challanges to the specifier. William, I'm curious to know if you include the requirement to submit certification attesting to compliance with ADAAG when you prepare a closed proprietary specification. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 355 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 02:23 pm:    Steve, What I state is a requirement for a sealer where the floor material does not comply with the ADAAG requirement, and that the sealer be certified by its manufacturer to comply with the ADAAG slip resistance requirements for the surface to which it is being applied. I have hardly ever had this actually be used - our designers are trained for floor material requirements. This appears in many different sections - for each material used for foot traffic. William George A. Everding, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 02:33 pm:    Some unedited notes I took at a tile seminar last week. The speaker was Bob Daniels from the TCA: “Much discussion in the industry about (lack of) an adequate slip resistance standard. ASTM C-1028 SCOF test uses neolyte pad (old fashioned shoe sole material) and 50# weight; measures the amount of horizontal force it takes to move the weight. For example, if it takes 30#, SCOF = 30/50 = 0.6.” “SCOF doesn’t really address wet vs. dry conditions, other real life conditions. Oil? Floor wax? Some smooth tiles have a higher wet reading than dry, because of “suction effect”. “Other methods: The “German Method” uses a “standard person” with a “standard gait” harnessed to an inclined ramp floored with tile sample. Test is run dry, then wet, then with oil. Degree of incline when subject starts to slip is measured.” I had done some research a couple years ago while with a previous employer regarding our obligations to specify SCOF. The only ADA reference I found was in the appendix cited above. There is also a CTIOA tech note found at www.ctioa.org titled “CTIOA/COF Report # 5 Liability Considerations Related To Flooring Products” by Bernard L Endres Ph.D., J.D. (no guarantees it is still available at that site). After looking at the information available then, our conclusion was that the SCOFs of 0.6 and 0.8 as recommended were minimums to meet the standard of care. We decided not to eliminate it. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 170 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 12:15 am:    most flooring suppliers will also provide some additional recommendations: use walk off mats when it rains (in Seattle buildings, these appear regularly); make sure that dust, grit, etc is "walked off" in the entry way and not on the stone flooring. There is not much we can do about slippery shoes, and I slip regularly on our wood flooring in the 24th floor lobby -- but never on the stone flooring at the entry way. Robin E. Treston Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 11:13 am:    I have several clients that insist that their specs call for a minimum of .06 (wet). Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 150 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 07:27 am:    In light of the discussion above, is there a field method for measuring the COF and establishing the exact slip resistance of an installed material? If so, how is this done? Is there a gauge or other device involved? Thank you! Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 108 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 11:36 am:    ASTM C 1028 (most common), ASTM F 609, ASTM F 1677, and ASTM F 1677 are described as usable in the field. However, there is some controversy about the use of ASTM standards. A company called Voices of Safety International (VOSI) has strong reservations about the ASTM standards that relate to SCOF. You can read for yourself about their opposition to ASTM and ANSI at their website: http://www.voicesofsafety.com/index.htm None of the ASTM standards are referenced in the IBC, so there is no restriction as to which one to use. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 43 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 04:12 pm:    Several years ago, I was asked by the firm I worked for to look into slip resistance and floor materials. The firm had a long-standing policy against using polished stone on floors (based on involvement with a slip-n-fall incident in the 80s--no consideration given to COF); however, in the particular project we were working on, the designer was proposinging to use polished granite inserts in a terrazzo field. Did you know that there is a guy on the staff at S. C. Johnson who does nothing but research and expert testimony on slip-n-fall issues? I ran across a WSJ article from the mid to late 1990s about him. In every case that they reported, they were able to pin liability on poor maintenance rather than installed product or maintenance products. In further discussions with a local expert witness, I came to the conclusion that COFs for even "slick" surfaces are surprisingly high--try moving 15 or 20 lbs with a rubber "sole" bearing on a horizontal glass mirror surface. If it takes 15 or 20 lbs to move, you have a CPF of 1.0. However, water, ice, grease, or oil on a safety surface like "checkered plate" can cause a slip. It is possible to slip and fall on a carpeted surface. Intrestingly enough, the reason that some of this comes under accessibility standards is that a certain COF level is required for canes and crutches with rubber tips to work as well as for rubber-tired wheel chairs. On the otherhand, there is research to indicate that a higher level is not necessarily better. Keeping a COF requirement would seem to be the more defensive action, given the ambiguity of the issue. However, it may be more prudent to err on the side of caution, preserving the appearance of design consideration to this hazzard. If you are going to use the COF requirements from MasterSpec's ceramic tile section, you may wish to look at other floor finishes to see if the requirement is consistent. You may also wish to specify that floor surfaces such as tile, brick, of VCT that are to receive "sealers" or "polishes" should maintain a certain COF. In my view, special consideration should be given to using polished floor surfaces in exterior or near exterior conditions no matter what the manufacturer says the COF is. I believe a little common sense must prevail over "scientific" testing in such instances. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 04:20 pm:    The website of VOSI (referred to above by Ronald Geren), reveals a suspiciously political agenda: "VOSI is dedicated to overthrowing "Capitalism" and substituting "Humanistic Capitalism" (see "Public Health" V50.4 "Standard for World Health Organization Participation in VOSI Standards Development"). This revolution is in progress." It has not only an agenda, but an attitude. The remaining text of this post quotes the website verbatim (the 'demockeries' paragraph seems logically flawed, to say the least): "The Following Quotations are by D. Meserlian. P.E., VOSI Chairman "'Governments & Corporations for the people are democracies. Governments & Corporations for special interests are demockeries. All Democracies are DEMOCKERIES' "'Politicians and Bureaucrats are like fish The longer they are kept the more they stink' "'The bedrock of Capitalism is greed. The bedrock of Humanistic Capitalism is heed.' "'Capitalism is fool's gold; Humanistic Capitalism is REAL gold' "Note: None of the above quotes, or the VOSI standards for improving the health and safety of people and the environment should be taken lightly !!!" Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 109 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 04:39 pm:    Robert: I obviously hadn't spent as much time reviewing their website as you had. They've attempted to get their standards approved by ICC, but to date have been unsuccessful. They're the most vocal of the opposition, but there are others. As J. Peter Jordan clearly shows, there is more to COF than a number. VOSI's main point (in regard to COF, not capitalism) is the use of Neolite rubber in the tests. They state that leather is the more common shoe material, which tends to have a lower SCOF compared to the rubber. But, even that is highly suspect, since most shoes probably don't have leather soles anymore. (I own dress, casual, and sport shoes that have rubber-like soles; no leather.) With so many variables to deal with, and until someone can design a test method that can duplicate a typical human gait (how about that for a variable!), it will be difficult to establish a true scientific representation of COF. Until then, we have to live with what's available. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 171 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 07:44 pm:    Ron- "girl" shoes still have leather soles. The more expensive the shoe, usually the thinner and more slick the sole. In addtion to that, the little heels for high heels are usually a high density composite, so if the sole on the foot doesn't cause a slipping problem, the teensy heel will. If a building is one where women are dressed for "black tie" events (opera house, theater, restaurant or even downtown office building where women wear heels) you can bet that at least 50% of the women will be wearing shoes that are slip hazards all by themselves. (affection is not the only reason I hang on to someone's arm... safety is the other reason.)