| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 829
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 02:41 pm: |    |
Once again I have a fire to put out over how we call out for non-skid tile in our specifications, we reference the SCoF criteria from OSHA and ADAAG, for tile installed on walkways and/or means of egress surfaces, however my client points out that this is not a code requirement nor is it clearly enforced as a law, so client has asked that we delete Performance requirements for SCoF in our Tile specification sections. How does my other specwriting colleagues specify for non-skid tile finishes.
Please don't cite or refer to Bulletin #4 from the US Access Board, that really does not help, my clients are not interested in the actual testing lingo, at this point, nor am I, I am just looking for a valid way to require that the contractor provide a tile that won't become a slip and fall lawsuit. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 355
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 05:04 pm: | |
I would suggest your client speak to their insurance underwriter. |
Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC, LEED Green Associate
Senior Member
Username: dale_roberts_csi
Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 06:05 pm: | |
There is a new standard for COF. In the 2012 ANSI A137.1 “DCOF” Using the BOT 3000 it determines DCOF under wet conditions. The 2012 version states that tiles suitable for level interior spaces expected to be walked upon when wet shall have a wet DCOF of 0.42 or greater when tested with the BOT-3000 per the procedure in the standard (per the DCOF Acu Test) |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 831
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 01:29 am: | |
Dale, so when is this new standard enforceable? Are any specwriters referencing this standartd in their specifications? |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 495
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 04:10 am: | |
For a standard to be enforcable it must be required by some governmental body.
According to the ADA regulations "...the 2010 Standards require that floor or ground surfaces along accessible routes and in accessible rooms and spaces be stable, firm, slip-resistant,.."
The ADA regulations have not referenced the referenced standard nor have they adopted other objective criteria.
The problem is that there is no formal regulatory criteria for determing compliance but if there is a problem somebody will be responsible for non-compliance under ADA. How does your client suggest that you help them to fulfill their obligation to comply with ADA?
If the Owner gives clear instructions to ignore the problem and there is a problem will the architect have liability. |
Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC, LEED Green Associate
Senior Member
Username: dale_roberts_csi
Post Number: 101
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 09:14 am: | |
It is enforceable now. Manufactures are including it in their data sheets.The book just came out. I am meeting with spec writers and updating them on the changes. |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 418
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 09:57 am: | |
Dale - when you say it is "enforceable", is that because it has been adopted by any authority having jurisdiction?
Jerome - I am not clear if your client is the Owner or the Architect. If it is the Architect requesting you remove the performance data, remind them that they must provide services similar to that of a typical member of the profession. In this case, it is commonly accepted that the referenced SCOF is industry standard, despite not being codified. If a person does slip and sues, the architect will likely be found negligent for ignoring this standard. So, maybe mention that. If your client is the Owner, I would suggest the same argument, but definitely get something in writing, either way, showing that you recommended against the removal of the performance data (This is not to be construed as providing legal advice nor the establishment of a client-attorney relationship) |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 863
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 10:02 am: | |
Robin,
It does not have to be adopted by any jurisdiction, ADA falls under the authority of federal law, not local codes or other guidance of local authorities.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 419
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 10:06 am: | |
William - AHJ would include Federal Law. But, my understanding is that the ADA does not reference any specific standard as the minimum requirement. Dale references a new standard and I am asking if that standard is codified anywhere (including local and/or federal law) that would make it enforceable. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 473
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 10:29 am: | |
When I did some research into COF a number of years ago, what found was that COF was measured in several ways. Moreover, the COF did not have a direct correlation with the safety of the surface. What did matter was the condition of the surface (presence of water, grease/oil, ice, etc.). Although one can say that "slick" surfaces (very smooth surfaces with low porousity) might more prone to being unsafe under certain conditions, certain conditions may cause carpet to be more of a slip-n-fall hazard than polished granite that has a clean dry surface.
The problem with measuring COF on surfaces is that you have to know the material and condition of both surfaces (in this case the floor and the surface treading on the floor). So leather soles, rubber soles, bare feet, rubber tires; all of these will have a slightly different COF depending on the test method used. Accessibility standards also recognize that a higher COF means that using certain assistive devices (canes and walkers) may be more difficult.
At the risk of being accused of spec heresy, I would suggest that this is much more of a matter of maintenance than material selection, and I have tended to delete this requirement unless otherwise directed. That being said, I would never recommend use of a polished traffic surface in an exterior condition that might be subject to rain or icing. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 864
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 10:37 am: | |
Robin,
That's the wonder of the legal system. If its published, adopted or not by anyone, its usable for defense (or offense) in legal case. Its like changing the speed limit signs on a road, you may not notice the new sign, but 'ignorance of the law is not a excuse'. And that's what any claimant is going to state.
And even for existing conditions, not just new installs, they (claimants) are going to come back and say the existing tiles, flooring, whatever, does not comply and that the facility owner should have known this and should have taken appropriate precautions such as sealers or some modification of the surface and then reference the new ANSI requirements.
All it takes is for one of the major standards organization to publish a new or revised standard and ADA with its 'non-specific' language lets the claimant hold up the new requirements as 'the standard of the industry'.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 420
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 10:44 am: | |
William - that is the point i was making. there is a difference between "standard of care" for the industry and a code requirement (in the legal arena). Also, the Owner would not necessarily be held accountable for knowing the ANSI standards and maintaining the floor as such. An Architect likely would, but if the Owner was not in the business of owning and mainting facilities open to the public, then they would not likely be held responsible for knowing the nuances of the industry standards.
In response to Jerome's original question, I merely suggest referencing the industry standard of care and get any request to vary from that standard in writing. |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 02:47 pm: | |
Whether ADAAG is an enforceable code or not depends on the jurisdiction. As originally passed, it was a Civil Rights federal law. Many jurisdictions incorporated it into their building codes. So it might be an enforceable code requirement. It is definitely a federal law and the recourse that an individual has is a law suit. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 04:01 pm: | |
The ADA is federal law and enforced, for the most part, by the Department of Justice through the application of the 2010 ADA Standards.
The IBC references ANSI A117.1 as the codefied version of the ADA standards, even though the ANSI and ADA Standards are not exactly aligned--however, they are very close. The requirement in each for slip-resistant floor surfaces are identical.
As mentioned earlier, there is no specific COF required by either the ADA or ANSI standards. The former ADAAG did have a explanatory note that specified recommended COFs, but it did not provide the standard upon which to measure it. That has been the controversy for the past 20 years.
The BOT 3000 is not a standard, but the instrument used to measure the COF based on ANSI B101.1 and B101.3 standards for SCOF and Dynamic COF (DCOF), respectively. These standards have been available for almost three years now.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 356
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 04:32 pm: | |
The California Building Code, as do other codes, only requries that walking surfaces be "slip resistant". The difficulty is to try to assign a standard of care to "slip resistant". We must also remember that this is not entirely an accessibility issue. The first experience I had with slip resistance was when tasked to make a new pool deck less slippery, because healthy young swimmers in their prime of life were falling flat on their faces.
Searching for a standad of care and moving away from accessibility you might want to look at this from the standpoint of worker safety.
OSHA: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=24511&p_table=INTERPRETATIONS
There is some interesting general background discussion here:
http://www.safety-engineer.com/adasurfaces.htm
But as you can see, there is no simple black versus white standard. |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 499
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 - 08:14 pm: | |
There is confusion between standard of care and standard practice. Specifying a give test standard for COF would be an example of having adopted a standard practice.
Standard of care is about the care you use to identify and resolve issues. Following a given practice may help to establish that you were exercising sufficient care but does not constitutte standard of care.
If a given practice does not comply with the regulations or it is believed that the level of the standard practice is too low then you may be found to have breached the standard of care. Just because everybody follows poor practices is not an excuse. Thus you cannot blindly rely upon a standard practice. On the other hand researching the issues and consulting with experts would he ways to show you had exercised sufficient care in making the decision. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 316
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 10:50 am: | |
Jerome, it sounds like you're trying to provide reasonable and customary level of service to your client. Your client is documenting that they don't care to meet that level of performance. It seems that all you can do is advise your client that with their acknowledgement they may be opening themselves to future claims in the event of a slip-and-fall incident. It won't prevent future lawsuits from mentioning you or your firm, but it should protect you legally in the event they are sued. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 288
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2014 - 03:51 pm: | |
Anyone else trying to preemptively deal with this before it becomes a big problem?
The wording of ANSI A137.1 Section 6.2.2.1.10 in the 3rd paragraph says:
"Unless otherwise specified, tiles suitable for level interior spaces expected to be walked upon when wet shall have a wet DCOF of 0.42 or greater when tested using SLS solution as per the procedure in Section 9.6.1. However, tiles with a DCOF of 0.42 or greater are not necessarily suitable for all projects. The specifier shall determine tiles appropriate for specific project conditions, considering by way of example, but not in limitation, type of use, traffic, expected contaminants, expected maintenance, expected wear, and manufacturers’ guidelines and recommendations."
Here it falls (no pun intended) terribly short of being a useful standard, by providing only one value and no details for atypical circumstances, like hotel bathroom floors, exterior surfaces, places where kids may be running or disable people are likely to be walking, etc.
This wording which points to the specifier as though we are omnipotent may also be problematic because it does not recognize who really makes product selections (i.e. designers of record) and how specifications are really done (in response to DoR selections, or else we would just add conflicts and cause change orders at best). What if we add some arbitrarily high DCOF and no product exists for it? I wondered if interior designers have been working on this so I tried to reach a number of them about it, admittedly it may be a 4-day weekend for some. One responded so far, directing me to look at a great article from TCNA but pretty much the same information I already presented to him about ANSI A137.1, so apparently he did not have any more detailed recommendations for his practice either.
In a Google search of tile manufacturers websites I could not find recommendations about using DCOFs except Americanoleum mentions that they can be available by special order, which is no help on deciding how high to specify, nor any help for interior designers how to select such a product, and Daltile's page for Octagon & Dot came up which currently seems to indicate that hotel bathrooms are fine with 0.42 but that does not make me feel better with the wording of A137.1. If manufacturers were working on this I would expect to see several useful hits but this was all that came up.
It seems a safer position to take than just 0.42 for a hotel bathroom floor, may be to alert the Architect and ask them to coordinate with the Owner and Interior Designer to make sure their selections comply with this open-ended statement in ANSI A137.1, and until further notice, in addition to the required brand standards SCOF test, and in addition to the industry's current DCOF test, the specifications will also require "ASTM E 303, wet PTV (Pendulum Test Value, i.e. BPN British Pendulum Number) of not less than 20 (measured using a Slider 55 TRRL soft rubber slider to simulate bare feet or soft shoe bottoms). Available testing agencies include but are not limited to www.safetydirectamerica.com/" to supplement the other tests for hotel bathroom floors until the Owner updates their standards, and until the US tile industry's DCOF standards provide more guidance. It would be hard to say that $230 is an unreasonable testing burden for saving someone from debilitating injuries. This information is based on preliminary research and is without any warranty for accuracy, I am not offering legal advice, batteries not included, do not incinerate, void where prohibited, etc., etc., etc. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 289
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2014 - 03:53 pm: | |
What solutions have you fine folks come up with to this dilemma of the wide-open wording putting onus on specifiers to arbitrarily choose higher DCOF numbers? |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 290
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2014 - 04:14 pm: | |
http://blog.safetydirectamerica.com/improving-the-worlds-most-sophisticated-floor-slip-resistance-testing-standards/ |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 790
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2014 - 05:42 pm: | |
As I noted before, I believe the safety issues to be more a matter of maintenance than product selection. A glass surface can be "safe" if there are no foreign substances on it while a highly textured surface that is not porous may be dangerously slippery if coated with oil or detergent.
The reality is that most surfaces, even very smooth ones, are "slip resistant" if kept reasonably clean and dry. Polished surfaces can be more slippery when wet, but not necessarily more so than textured surfaces. Don't use smooth surface walking surfaces where they are likely to become wet, typically exterior walkways.
It seems to me that this discussion has been driven by a certain amount of defensive practice in response to predatory lawyers armed with bad science. Before you put this stuff in your specs (and it won't hurt you), understand what is really going on. The installed material may not prevent a dangerous slip and fall, but good maintenance will. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 291
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2014 - 07:59 pm: | |
Peter, I sure agree with you on all that. Hoping to keep clients protected from claims whether they be legitimate, or predatory, or fraudulent. We spec writers can't control how facility maintenance is done either, that is for sure. We can only give them something reasonably good to start with. I think that is what the A137.1 was trying to say, but they didn't finish the job in my opinion, and maybe even hung us out to dry when truthfully little to none of this has anything to do with the specifier. So I will raise the issue with designers and have something in the spec as a draft that should protect. I don't want it to confound the bidders either but it will take Designer of Record or Owner input to change that because this is exactly what the standards dictate for now. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 814
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2014 - 06:24 pm: | |
This was the subject of "Excuse me, but your slip is showing!" , published in April of this year.
I offered no solutions, but some of the comments indicated other sources of information. |
Jonathan Miller, FCSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: jmma_specs
Post Number: 22
Registered: 04-2009
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2014 - 05:24 pm: | |
ADAAG 4.5.1 only requires that “accessible routes to be stable, firm, and slip resistant.”
Note that it does not require a specific SCOF (Static Coefficient of Friction).
Also the 1991 ADA advisory of 0.6 SCOF on a flat surface and 0.8 SCOF on a ramp was withdrawn in May of 2011.
ASTM International (and CTIOA) retired ASTM C1028 last May, replacing it with ANSI A137.1 Dynamic Coefficient of Friction (DCOF) that Chris was speaking to above.
BTW... ASTM retiring C1028 (and ASTM D2047 no longer being relevant not being a DCOF) looks to have a major impact on industry manufacturers and their reps.
ANSI has been developing their B101 series with their latest being ANSI B101.3-2012, Test Method for Measuring Wet SCOF of Common Hard-Surface Floor Materials.
I'm waiting for the ANSI / NSF issue of B101.5, Standard Guide for Uniform Labeling Method for Identifying the Wet Static Coefficient of Friction (Traction) of Floor Coverings, Floor Coverings with Coatings, and Treated Floor Coverings... to resolve some of this uncertainty for us all.
ASTM also uses ASTM E303 to introduce the internationally recognized British Pendulum Method, also standardized under CSN EN 13036-4, Road and airfield surface characteristics - Test methods - Part 4: Method for measurement of slip/skid resistance of a surface: The pendulum test.
The bottom line is responding to the ADAAG language “accessible routes to be stable, firm, and slip resistant.”
Whether we specify the use of a British Pendulum Tester, a BOT-3000E Tribometer or a TORTUS II tribometer... the key is establishing what DCOF threshold to use for different surfaces. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 292
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2014 - 03:41 pm: | |
There are at least two issues about specifying slip resistance that may be unclear in general:
1. What are the regulatory requirements - and they may vary by jurisdiction.
2. How much protection from lawsuits - whether legitimate or not - does the Owner want? (like Jerome mentioned in the initial post)
For the 1st item, there still does seem to be a major lack of specific recommendations in U.S. standards, i.e. it says you might need higher than 0.42 but we're not going to give you any clues how to decide how much.
For the 2nd item, their maintenance may have the primary effectiveness as long as the material and installation allows for #1 and #2 above also, which is secondary in effectiveness but comes first in the sequence of events.
The only useful help I was able to find, was the Australian implementation of ASTM E303 at the link above (the-worlds-most-sophisticated-floor-slip-resistance-testing-standards). This is from a California-based testing agency who points out that Australian requirements are very detailed for various circumstances. (scroll down at that link for detailed slip resistance values recommended for various circumstances, but using the British pendulum test - which we call ASTM E303.) About ANSI A137.1 they write "Does this system make more sense than a one-size-fits-all minimum such as 0.42 after which the customer must make important decisions based on no advice or data whatsoever? The Australian standard we refer to is a minor revision of one that’s been in effect since 1999. We think that’s something to hang your hat on when you try to prevent injuries — or to defend yourself in court. The pendulum test instrument used in this situation-specific test has been testing floors involved in actual real-world slip and fall accidents in the United Kingdom since the 1950s, so the research into these safety standards are unparalleled with any other instrument or test method. It’s used in at least 49 nations on five continents."
You may say Australian standards cannot be enforced in the U.S. It is actually a long-time British and US standard, they have just gone a step further by providing the detailed recommendations that we lack. About whether or not things are enforceable - Non-codified standards can be and often are specified. That makes them the basis of the bidding, and once awarded then they are the basis of a contract. Construction contracts are enforceable by law unless there is a contract modification. This goes for public and private entities alike. Private Owners may have more leeway to uphold non-codified standards during the pre-contract stage than public Owners do.
It doesn't help to just go with DCOF 0.42 when it adds a wide-open statement that THE SPECIFIER must go higher than that in many situations without telling us how high. Like William says, just the fact that one standard is updated and this information is available may be usable for defense (or offense) in a legal case. So an Owner my wisely want to enforce a provision for even higher slip and fall avoidance in some circumstances.
DCOF at all is the big shift the last couple years in the U.S. (which can be measured by the British Pendulum Tester, or BOT-3000E, or others) and the U.S. tile manufacturers are all doing BOT-3000E pretty much now, so what does it do to interior designer's selection of products to add testing few people here are using for their products? That is another issue. Last I checked, specifiers do not control interior designers.
Also, what about other types of flooring? Why is this addressed in guide specs for ceramic tile (albeit poorly due to the standards) and not other surfaces? Is it because tile is harder to fall on? I have seen very high dry coefficient of friction requirements discussed for pro basketball court floors, that is about it. |
Jonathan Miller, FCSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: jmma_specs
Post Number: 23
Registered: 04-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2014 - 05:43 pm: | |
I'm waiting for the ANSI / NSF issue of B101.5 to address this lack of DCOF standards.
All we can do at this time is to "make an effort" towards compliance with the ADAAG language.
Not making an effort leaves the Owner and A/E open to possible ADA litigation. |
Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC, LEED Green Associate
Senior Member
Username: dale_roberts_csi
Post Number: 116
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2014 - 11:33 am: | |
Daltile has tried to address some of these concerns. They do have a chart that address specific areas of concern as you mentioned and some other minimum guidelines
Dry and level areas Interior areas no DCOF required
Wet and Level public areas likely to be walked on wet DCOF of 0.42 or greater
Dining areas (front of House) DCOF of 0.50
Ramps, Inclines & Uncovered Exterior DCOF of 0.65 or greater (textured tile required for tile greater than 6” x 6”)
Covered Exterior (patios, gazebos, covered walkways) DCOF of 0.60 or greater (textured tile required for tile greater than 3” x 3”)
Minimal Footwear in a wet area (public showers, steam rooms, pool decks) DCOF of 0.55 or greater (textured tile required for tile greater than 3” x 3”)
Oils (back of house kitchens, food prep, auto areas) DCOF of 0.06 (Textured tile required if a glazed tile is used). |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2014 - 12:18 pm: | |
What would would be the problem with simply specifying a requirement of DCOF 0.60 for all floor tile? I find it hard to believe that any floor tile would have difficulty meeting this requirement. If my assumption is correct, this becomes a non-issue. Specify that worst-case value for all floor tile, thereby satisfying the client's concern that it be stipulated in the documents, and move on. |
Jonathan Miller, FCSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: jmma_specs
Post Number: 24
Registered: 04-2009
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2014 - 05:19 pm: | |
Maybe for ceramic floor tile but what about the different finish types of resilient flooring, wood flooring, natural & synthetic stone, etc.?
A 0.60 DCOF may not be universal to all conditions of use and many finish types.
It's why I hope ANSI / NSF issues the B101-5 soon. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 293
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2014 - 05:54 am: | |
Dale, I hunted through Daltile's site and could not find the data you listed or the table you mentioned. I may try to reach them, it does sound like they are ahead here. I was hoping so since one of their tech guys wrote an article posted by TCNA. So far on their site though I can only find outdated C1028 info, and even in their 3-part spec.
Anon, I think Dale was saying to accomplish a DCOF of 0.60 (I'm pretty sure he transposed the digits accidentally) e.g. for food prep / auto service where you could have greasy spills, those will probably require a textured tile, especially if glazed tile is being used. I doubt the designers or owners are going to want textured tile in places where it is not needed. They will very likely indicate (or have already indicated) basis-of-design products that do not meet the spec requirements. If we just introduce a probable conflict in the documents, that is like kicking the can down the road.
I'm sure Jerome has solved somehow for his project by now but I'm thinking in terms of masters and various project specs because of the wide-ranging effect this has on many projects that have floor tile, until the standards have specific recommendations. |
Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC, LEED Green Associate
Senior Member
Username: dale_roberts_csi
Post Number: 117
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2014 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I could not find it on Daltile’s website either. I do have the chart that the Daltile Reps still hand out and I am told it is still valid. I can scan it and email to you if you like. And yes you’re correct that was a typo, thanks for the correction it is DCOF of 0.60 for back of house.
Anon, a universal 0.60 DCOF would eliminate 60% to 80% (guesstimate) of all tiles. Probably 80% of all tiles would meet the 0.42 DCOF Most of your floor tiles are manufactured to meet that standard. Tiles manufactured to meet or exceed the 0.60 DCOF has to have an aggressive texture to meet that requirement. With that type of finish it will also be more difficult to maintain due to the texture on the surface of the tile. |
another anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2014 - 03:18 am: | |
How do you know the designer will pick a tile that is either 1) already tested to 0.60, or 2) that can pass specially arranged testing?
Or what if they already selected it with no regard for this, and the selection has to be what it is? Then if we specify this way we only introduce a conflict in the documents and no one is any safer. |
another anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 07:27 pm: | |
How do you know the designer will pick a tile that is either 1) already tested to 0.60, or 2) that can pass specially arranged testing?
Or what if they already selected it with no regard for this, and the selection has to be what it is? Then if we specify this way we only introduce a conflict in the documents and no one is any safer. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 852
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 08:01 am: | |
Has anyone worked with any of the clear, penetrating sealers that claim to impart various levels of slip-resistance?
I've been inundated in the past by folks like Miracle Sealant (https://miraclesealants.com/msds/s_tile_stone_sealer_msds.pdf) and Slip Doctors (http://www.slipdoctors.com/products-msds.asp). I've used Miracle Sealant as a last resort on a couple of stone projects in building lobbies and had good results. It didn't change the appearance of the stone during the time I was checking it but I never went back to see what the long-term effects were after enduring years of maintenance. Anyone else ever use these sorts of products. There are other manufacturers as well. I think Hillyard used to make something similar for wood floors. Vexcon makes one for polished concrete. |
|
4specs.com Home Page