{"id":17420,"date":"2016-07-08T10:58:43","date_gmt":"2016-07-08T14:58:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.constructionspecifier.com\/?p=17420"},"modified":"2016-12-13T14:51:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T19:51:19","slug":"the-new-slip-resistance-requirements-in-ibc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.constructionspecifier.com\/the-new-slip-resistance-requirements-in-ibc\/","title":{"rendered":"The new slip resistance requirements in IBC<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"bigstock-Worker-Mopping-Floor-With-Wet--102667850\"
Photo \u00a9 Bigstock.com<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

by George Sotter, PE, PhD, and John C. Sotter
\n<\/strong>Specifying flooring that will not be slippery even when it can get wet or otherwise lubricated in use is critical for safety purposes. The 2012 International Building Code<\/em> (IBC<\/em>) lays out slip resistance, but there are weaknesses with the requirements\u2014not least of all in that it places a burden on flooring specifiers in particular. Design professionals must be able to justify using a specific flooring under various circumstances (e.g.<\/em> lobby, restroom, swimming pool deck, and commercial kitchen), and understand how to use flooring that does not meet IBC<\/em>\u2019s wet slip resistance requirement.<\/p>\n

For decades, it was widely believed the Americans with Disabilities Act<\/em> (ADA<\/em>) required a static coefficient of friction (dry or wet as applicable) of 0.60 or higher for level floors and 0.80 for ramps. In fact, this was never true, and the Access Board of the U.S. Department of Justice has disavowed any responsibility for this custom. (For more, see the letter <\/a>by David Capozzi [United States Access Board] to J.G. Sotter, dated May 17, 2011). The previously used test method, ASTM C1028, Standard Test Method for Determining the Static Coefficient of Friction of Ceramic Tile and Other Like Surfaces by the Horizontal Dynamometer Pull-meter <\/em>Method, <\/em>was withdrawn in 2014 with no replacement. The worst part of ASTM C1028 was it sometimes gave very high slip resistance ratings for floors that were very slippery when wet. Consequently, the poor test method and its misleading results were likely the cause of many accidents and hundreds of millions of dollars expended on flooring inappropriate for its intended use.<\/p>\n

The 2012 IBC <\/em>(in effect in most states at this writing), Section \u201c2103.6\u2212Ceramic tile,\u201d states:<\/p>\n

Ceramic tile shall be as defined in, and shall conform to the requirements of, ANSI A137.1.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is all it says about the subject. However, there is no indication other flooring\u2014such as granite, vinyl, marble, or wood\u2014should have any different slip resistance requirement from that of ceramic tile. Simply put, we do not change our shoes when we step from tile onto marble, so many in the industry assume the same test and safety standard applies to all types of indoor flooring.<\/p>\n

\"slip_Pic1\"
A pendulum swings from right to left after the trailing edge of its 75-mm (3-in.) wide black rubber slider contacted a 126-mm (5-in.) path on the floor. The black pointer holds the highest point of the swing, indicating the Pendulum Test Value (PVT) on the right-hand scale. <\/span>
Photos courtesy Sotter Engineering Corporation <\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

ANSI A137.1
\n<\/strong>Coefficient of friction (COF) describes the ratio (F\/W) between the force necessary to cause an object to slide across a surface and the weight of the object. When the object begins at rest, the ratio is the static coefficient of friction. When the object is already in motion, it is the dynamic COF (DCOF). Static friction applies to pedestrians who are standing still.<\/p>\n

In 2014, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A137.1, American National Standard Specifications for Ceramic Tile<\/em>, was revised to read:<\/p>\n

[DCOF] does not predict the likelihood a person will or will not slip on a tile surface \u2026 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 [wetting agent] solution as per [BOT-3000E tribometer procedure].<\/span><\/p>\n

Tiles with a DCOF of 0.42 or greater are not necessarily suitable for all projects. The specifier<\/strong> 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\u2019 guidelines and recommendations [emphasis added].<\/span><\/p>\n

The latter is normally nowhere to be found, as most manufacturers do not want a suggestion of liability. The IBC<\/em>, by reference to ANSI A137.1, puts the burden of responsibility for slip safety on \u201cthe specifier.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Tile Council of North America (TCNA) made major contributions to ANSI A137.1. Among these, is the addition of the possibility a slip may also be affected by:<\/p>\n

The material of the shoe sole and its degree of wear, the speed and length of stride at the time of a slip, the physical and mental condition of the individual at the time of a slip, whether the floor is flat or inclined, how the surface is used, how the tile is structured, and how drainage takes place if liquids are involved. (See Katelyn Simpson\u2019s article for the Tile Council of North America [TCNA], \u201cCoefficient of Friction: New Method, New Requirements\u2014Introducing the DCOF AcuTest<\/a>.\u201d).
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\"slip_BOT\"
A BOT-3000E display after four runs using the procedure in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A137.1, American National Standard Specifications for Ceramic Tile. <\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

However, neither ANSI nor TCNA give any method of evaluating any or all of these variables. So what is a specifier to do? Slip and fall awards can at times far exceed $1 million in cases where, for instance, someone incurs brain damage and must be supported for life. For this and other general reasons of good practice and respect for safety, it behooves the specifier not to be negligent in setting slip resistance requirements. Negligence is the key word in litigation.<\/p>\n

Slip resistance testing can be conducted in the laboratory or in the field, the latter of which may be required by some municipal building inspectors. The DCOF is not always what the manufacturer lists, since it may have been tested years before when raw materials and manufacturing conditions were different.<\/p>\n

It is best for all concerned when the proper slip resistance is dictated by a legitimate and legally defensible specification and testing. After all, no one wants the headache of remediating the situation after installing the wrong flooring.<\/p>\n

The ANSI A137.1 slip resistance test is conducted using only the BOT-3000E digital tribometer\u2014a relatively recent slip test device made in the United States and backed up by human traction research carried out in Germany. However, it has no situation-specific safety standards (e.g.<\/em> 0.42, 0.60, 0.80, etc.) for various circumstances.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s a specifier to do?
\n<\/strong>Fortunately, there are detailed situation-specific recommendations in Standards Australia (SA) HB 198:2014, Guide to the Specification and Testing <\/em>o<\/em>f Slip Resistance of Pedestrian Surfaces<\/em>, which has been in use Down Under, with minor modifications, since 1999. The authors believe<\/a> this provides the best justification for a specifier to set guidelines.<\/p>\n

The Australian standard uses a different instrument\u2014the pendulum skid tester, which has been in use continuously for pedestrian slip resistance since 1970, and is now a national standard in at least 49 nations. (This is thanks to European Standard EN 13036-4, Road and Airfield Surface Characteristic\u2013Test methods Part 4: Method for Measurement of Slip\/Skid Resistance of a Surface: The Pendulum Test)<\/em>. It is employed for ASTM E303, Standard Test Method for Measuring Surface Frictional Properties Using the British Pendulum Tester<\/em>, and has been endorsed by the Ceramic Tile Institute of America (CTIOA) for all types of flooring since 2001. (See CTIOA\u2019s \u201cFloor Safety Reports: No. 1, Portable Methods\u201d from 2001).<\/p>\n

The Australian standard recommends minimum wet pendulum test values (PTVs) for some 40 different situations, such as:<\/p>\n