43

Hf#r^nce book not to be

taken Irurn the Library.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

On request, the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, will place your name on a special mailing list to receive notices of new reports in this

series as soon as they are issued. There will be no charge for receiving such notices. An alternative method is to deposit with the Superintendent of Documents the sum of $5,

with the request that the reports be sent to you as soon as issued, and that the cost thereof be

charged against your deposit. This will provide for the mailing of the publications without

delay. You wiU be notified when the amount of your deposit has become exhausted.

If 100 copies or more of any report are ordered at one time, a discount of 25 percent is allowed. Send all orders and remittances to the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D. C.

The following publications in this series are available by purchase from the Superintendent of Documents at the prices indicated:

BMSl Research on Building Materials and Structures for Use in Low-Cost Housing 100 BMS2 Methods of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions 10^ BMS3 Suitability of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base 10^ BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 10^ BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 15^ BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States 15^ BMS7 Water Permeability of Masonry Walls 10^ BMS8 Methods of Investigation of Surface Treatment for Corrosion Protection of Steel 10^ BMS9 Structural Properties of the Insulated Steel Construction Co.'s "Frameless-Steel" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs lOfS BMSIO Structural Properties of One of the "Keystone Beam Steel Floor" Constructions Sponsored by the H. H. Robertson Co 100 BMSll Structural Properties of the Curren Fabrihome Corporation's "Fabrihome" Constructions

for Walls and Partitions 100 BMS12 Structural Properties of "Steelox" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs

Sponsored by Steel Buildings, Inc 150 BMS13 Properties of Some Fiber Building Boards of Current Manufacture 100 BMS14 Indentation and Recovery of Low-Cost Floor Coverings 100 BMS15 Structural Properties of "Wheeling Long-Span Steel Floor" Construction Sponsored by

the Wheeling Corrugating Co 100 BMS16 Structural Properties of a "Tilecrete" Floor Construction Sponsored by Tilecrete

Floors, Inc 100 BMS17 Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 100 Supplement to BMS17, Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 50 BMS18 Structural Properties of "Pre-fab" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by the Hamischfeger Corporation 100 BMS19 Preparation and Revision of Building Codes 150 BMS20 Structural Properties of "Twachtman" Constructions for Walls and Floors Sponsored

by Connecticut Pre-Cast Buildings Corporation 100 BMS21 Structural Properties of a Concrete-Block Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association 100 BMS22 Structural Properties of "Dun-Ti-Stone" Wall Construction Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn

Manufacturing Co 100 BMS23 Structural Properties of a Brick Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the Brick

Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc 100 BMS24 Structural Properties of a Reinforced-Brick WaU Construction and a Brick-Tile CavityWall Construction Sponsored by the Structural Clay Products Institute 100 BMS25 Structural Properties of Conventional Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions,

Floors, and Roofs 150 BMS26 Structural Properties of "Nelson Pre-Cast Concrete Foundation" Wall Construction

Sponsored by the Nelson Cement Stone Co., Inc 100 BMS27 Structural Properties of "Bender Steel Home" WaU Construction Sponsored by the Bender Body Co ._ 100 BMS28 Backflow Prevention in Over-Rim Water Supplies 100 BMS29 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Northeastern States 100 BMS30 Structural Properties of a Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Douglas

Fir Plywood Association 100 BMS31 Structural Properties of "Insulite" Wall and "Insulite" Partition Constructions Sponsored by The Insulite Co 150

[List continued on cover page in]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Jesse H. Jones, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • Lyman J. Briggs, Director

BUILDING MATERIALS

and STRUCTURES

REPORT BMSlOO

Relative Slipperiness of Floor and Deck Surfaces

by

PERCY A. SIGLER

ISSUED JULY 1, 1943

The National Bureau of Standards is a fact-finding organization;

it does not "approve" any particular material or method of construction. The technical findings in this series of reports are to be construed accordingly.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • WASHINGTON • I943

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D. C. • PRICE lO CENTS
Foreword

A new and practical method of determining the relative slipperi- ness of floor surfaces imder both dry and wet conditions has been

developed at the National Bureau of Standards. This report describes the method and gives the results of tests of a variety of floor and deck materials. The test data show the efi'ect of abrasives,

embossments, and different wax finishes on the antislip properties

of selected floor materials.

Lyman J. Briggs, Director.

[11]
Relative Slipperiness of Floor and Deck Surfaces

by PERCY A. SIGLER

CONTENTS

Page

Foreword ii

I. Introduction 1 II. Description of the apparatus • 2

III. Test procedure 2

Page

IV. Floor surface conditions 3

V. Materials tested and results 4

VI. Summary of results and comments 9

ABSTRACT

A new pendulum-type machine and a method for determining the relative slipperiness of floor surfaces under various conditions are described. The surfaces were tested when drj' and clean, dry and dirty, wet and

clean, wet and dirty, wet and soapy, and in a few cases,

oily. The results of tests of various floor materials

are given, including such general types as stone, ter- razzo, cement-mortar, magnesite, ceramic tile, metal,

asphalt, rubber, linoleum, and wood. The surfaces of the materials were tested after grinding them with No.

180 silicon carbide. Tests were also made of the original surfaces of many of the materials. The test data show

the effect of different wax finishes on the antislip properties of several selected floor materials. In general, considerable difference in slipperiness was found between dry and wet surfaces. Most of the

floor materials showed satisfactory antislip properties

when dry. Many would be classed as hazardous when

wet.

I. INTRODUCTION

The slipperiness of any surface is important

to the physical well-being of those who walk on it. The practice of sprinkling sand or ashes on ice-coyered pavements to make them less hazardous is a familiar one. This practice, of course, would be very objectionable for indoor

floors and, in addition, on hard surfaces where

the rough particles could not become anchored

it would likely create a more hazardous condition. Considerable thought has been given to ways of improving the antislip characteristics

of paving and flooring materials. Probably the

most common method is to provide a roughened

surface. This is accomplished in some floor coverings, such as metal stair treads and rubber

matting, forming corrugations or embossments in the surface; in others, such as ceramic

tile and troweled monolithic floors, by embedding rough abrasives, like aluminum oxide or

silicon carbide, in the surface. Rough surfaces are difficult to maintain and keep clean and are thus not desirable for general indoor use. Smooth-faced materials are extensively used

as floor coverings, and information on their

relative slipperiness in desired.

In most of the previous investigations of the

slipperiness of floors, measurements were made

of the coefficients of static friction between floor surfaces and leather soles. A few included measurements of kinetic or dynamic friction. The

coefficients obtained for dry surfaces often appeared to be indicative of the relative slipperi- ness of the surfaces. However, the coefficients

obtained for wet surfaces were usually liigher

than those obtained for the same surface when

dry. This was found to be especially so for smooth-faced materials. Apparently, the re- sults obtained by the methods previously in use are not indicative of the slipperiness of floor surfaces when wet. An appreciable area of contact between a leather sole and a floor sur- face was generally involved in these methods,

which would be more representative of a person

standing on a floor rather than in process of

walking, at which time most accidental falls occur. In view of this, a machine was constructed at the National Bureau of Standards

that incorporated a new and more practical

method of determining the relative slipperiness

of floors. The tests were sponsored by the Federal

Interdepartmental Safety Council and fmids

525955°—43 [1]
Figure 1.

Pendulum-type sUpperiness tester.

were contributed by the U. S. Maritime Commission, Public Buildings Administration, Post

Office Department, Navy Department, and War

Department toward the expenses of the project.

W. C. Clark, of the Public Buildings Administration, assisted in formulating the project,

and M. N. Geib, of the National Bureau of

Standards, assisted in obtaining the test data.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPARATUS

The machine is primarily a compound pendulum which sweeps a leather or rubber heel over

the sm-face to be tested (see fig. 1). A pointer

attached to the framework at the center of

oscillation of the pendulum indicates on a quadrant the maximum height to which the center of

gravity of the pendulum rises above its lowest

position. The surface of a floor specimen is held at a definite relationship to the pendulum

by clamping it against the underside of a base

plate. The base plate has a rectangular opening in its central portion to permit contact

between a leather or rubber heel and the floor specimen.

A mechanical heel forms the lower end of the

pendulum (see fig. 2) and swings over the

surface of the floor specimen. This mechanism

consists of a metal block, A, at the front of

which and on the underside is hinged a metal

strap, B. The metal strap is bent so that the

unliinged end is approximately at right angles

to the rod of the pendulum. A 2-inch square of

leather or rubber, C, is clamped on the face of a wedge-shaped block, D, which is fastened to the

underside of the metal strap, B. The slope of

the wedge-shaped block is approximately 10'^ so

that only the rear edge of the leather or rubber

heel contacts the floor specimen. A coil spring,

E, is placed under compression between the

metal strap, B, and the metal block, A, so that

the edge of the heel is pressed against the floor specimen during contact. A stop, F, prevents

the metal strap from swinging below a fixed

position.

III. TEST PROCEDURE

The procedure in testing consists of swinging

the pendulum back or to the right and fastening

it in a fixed position (see fig. 1). Preliminary

tests, with the pendulum released at heights of

5, 10, and 15 in., indicated that a height of 10

in. was the most suitable. The maximum

Figure 2.Detail of mechanical heel.

[2]
velocity attained by the heel from this height

is approximately 500 fcet/min. The floor specimen, in a dry and clean condition, is then

clamped against the base plate of the machine

and the 2-in. square of leather (with the grain

side down) or rubber fastened on the mechanical heel. The edge of the leather or rubber is lightly ground with No. 0 flint paper and then

tliorouglily brushed with a soft-bristled brush

in order to bring the edge to a uniform condition. The pendulum is then released and the

edge of the heel permitted to sweep over the

surface of the floor specimen. The height to which the pendulum swings beyond the floor specimen or to the left is indicated by the

pointer and is recorded. Tests are repeated

using other edges of the heel, and the results are averaged. The agreement between the

results obtained on individual edges is usually

very good. The surface of the floor specimen

is then changed to a desired condition and

tested in a similar manner. Separate heels are used in testing under dift'erent conditions in

order to facilitate the maintaining of uniform

heels for each condition. Under wet conditions, the leather and rubber heels are bufted

and immersed in water prior to making tests. The work done in sliding the mechanical heel over the floor surface is fXD, where / is the

frictional force, and D is the distance tlu-ough

which it acts. This may be equated to the

energy lost by the pendulum, W{H—h), where

W is the efl'ective weight and {H—h) is the

difference in the heights of the center of gravity

at the end of the swing without and with the

specimen in place. The frictional force, /, is by definition, equal to the coefficient of friction,

u, multiplied by the force, P, normal to the

plane of contact. From the above relations, it is found that

W (H-h)

For the present machine, W=12.1 lb, H=9.7

in., Z>=5.1 in., and P=6.5 lb. Substituting

these values in the equation, we find ti=3.54 —

0.37 h. Since the above reasoning has involved

making certain assumptions and is based on dynamic friction, which is not independent of

velocity or necessarily analogous to static

friction, it is not strictty correct to call u the

coefficient of friction. We have chosen rather

to call it the "antislip coefficient."

IV. FLOOR SURFACE CONDITIONS

In selecting the various conditions under

which the floor materials were tested, an en- deavor was made to simulate service conditions

and at the same time adopt procedures which

could be controlled or duplicated in the laboratory. Specimens in equilibrium with an at- mosphere of 65 percent relative humidity and

72° F were classed as dry. From a practical

standpoint the clean conditions would represent an exceptionally clean floor. Dirty conditions were simulated by sprinkling china clay on the

specimen and would represent a very dirty

floor. Preliminary tests in which dirt consisting

chiefly of sand and clay and passing through a No. 200 sieve was used gave results similar to those obtained when china clay was used. A

puddle of water was maintained on the floor surface for wet conditions. As a practical

comparison, the wet and dirty condition would

be representative of the condition frequently

encountered during a rain on a floor just inside

and entrance from the street. A 0.5 percent

soap solution was used for the wet and soapy

condition and would represent a maintenance

procedure involving the use of a very strong

soap solution with no rinsing.

Preliminary tests of several stone materials

having various finishes indicated that the finish

is an important factor. A grinding procedure was developed in order to determine the relative

antislip characteristics of the materials after exposure to the same type of abrasion. A hard

marble, a soft marble, and a hard sandstone were selected for study. They were groimd

with silicon cai'bide abrasives of various grain

sizes to change the original surfaces and their

antislip characteristics determined after each

grinding. Grain sizes used were Nos. 80, 150,

and 180. The fuaishes obtained on the Tennessee hard marble were compared with the finish on stair treads of the same type of marble in

service at this Bureau. From the nature of the

results and the finishes obtained. No. 180 grit was selected for use in a uniform grinding pro- cedure. This grinding procedm-e should not be

[3]
interpreted as representative of wear on all types of floor surfaces regardless of their

location.

A revolving cast-iron disk approximately 40

in. in diameter was used in grinding the speci- mens. The disk was kept wet with water and

the abrasive sprinkled on the disk at frequent

intervals throughout the grinding procedure.

A more convenient means was adopted later. A stationary cast-iron slab was substituted for the revolving disk, and the specimens were ground by hand, using a circular motion.

V. MATERIALS TESTED AND RESULTS

The floor and deck materials are listed in

table 1, along with the results of the tests. The antislip coefficients of the materials were

determined for both leather and rubber heels

and under five different conditions. Tests were made on the original surface of many of

of the materials as well as after being ground

with No. 180 silicon carbide. Materials having

a corrugated surface were tested in both of the

principal directions; that is, parallel to and

perpendicular to the grooves.

Oily conditions were not extensively investigated. Tests of a cement mortar and a few

ceramic tiles in which mineral oil, SAE No. 40, was used to obtain an oily condition gave the

following results: With excessive oil on the

surface, the antislip coefficients were extremely

low. With all excess oil wiped from the surface, the coefficients were appreciably higher,

approximately the same as obtained under wet

conditions. The coefficients were increased

slightly by sprinkling china clay on the oily

surfaces.

Table 1.Relative slipperiness of floor and deck surfaces under various conditions

Antislip coefficient Floor or deck material Sample Leather heel Rubber heel number Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet

Type and description Surface « and and and and and and and and and and

clean dirty clean dirty soapy clean dirty clean dirty soapy NATURAL STONE

Minnesota white granite, 4-cut do Minnesota red granite, honed

Tennessee red marble, honed Vermont white marble, honed

do Arkansas limestone, honed

Tennessee sandstone, split do - Virginia greenstone, edge-grained.

Original- Grounddo-_- do—

Original- Ground - do—

Original. Ground _ do—

0.44

.40 .44

.44

.37 .42

.47

.44 .46

.44

0.47

.44

.47

.49

.39

.51 .44

.47

.49

.47

0.44

.18

.26

.33 .26 .42

.18 .49

.53 .26

0.40

. 18 .22

.26 .22

.37

. 15 .49

.47

. 18

. 15 .15

. 11 .15 .24

.11 .47

.46

. 18

0. 77 .62

.66

.88 .80

.86

.62

.75

.90

0. 58 .47 .47

.51 .39

.51 .47

.55

.51 .47

0. 62

.47

.44

.33

.15

.40 .55

.62 .62

.55

0. 55 .40

.37

.28

.13 .35

.47

.58

.55 .47

0. 58

.44 .40 .22

.07

.29

.40

.60

.57 .47 TERRAZZO (1:2)

Marble chips, no abrasive do

1 Carborundum:3 marble chips—. do

1 Carborundum:1.7 marble chips.

1 Carborundum: Imarble chpis... do

1 Carborundum:0.6 marble chips. Carborundum, M lb/ft do

1 Alundum:3 marble chips

1 Alundum:1.7 marble chips

1 Alundum:l marble chips

1 Alundum:0.6 marble chips

1 Vittrazzo:3 marble chips

1 Vittrazzo:l marble chips

1 Vittrazzo:0.6 marble chips

Vittrazzo, H lb/ft 2 i> 1 Anti-Slip:3 marble chips

1 Anti-SIip:l marble chips

1 Macanite:4 marble chips

Original. Ground,

Original

Ground.

do...

Originall Ground.

do... Original. Ground.

do...

do... do...

do... do...

do...

do...

do...

do...

do...

do....

0. 37 0.40 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.80 0.44 0.26 0.18 0.15

.40 .44 .33 .29 .22 .75 .42 .42 .33 .26

.44 .47 .26 .22 .15 .86 .47 .40 .26 .29

.40 .47 .40 .26 .15 .77 .47 .62 .51 .44

.40 .47 .29 .26 . 18 .77 .47 .55 .47 .44

.44 .44 .22 .18 .15 .69 .47 .40 .29 .37

.40 .47 .37 .29 .26 .77 .47 .55 .47 .44

.44 .47 .29 .26 .18 .77 .55 .55 .47 .44

.40 .47 .22 .18 .15 .73 .47 .44 .33 .40

.44 .47 .40 .29 .22 .73 .47- .58 .51 .51 .44 .47 .29 .18 . 11 .73 .47 .51 .47 .40

.47 .51 .22 .22 .18 .73 .55 .58 .47 .51 .44 .55 .33 .29 .29 .73 .51 .66 .51 .51 .44 .51 .29 . 18 .18 .77 .51 .62 .47 .51 .40 .51 .26 .37 .18 .73 .55 .58 .44 .40

.44 .51 .22 .22 .15 .77 .55 .55 .47 .47

.44 .47 .29 .37 .18 .73 .55 .55 .51 .47 .44 .51 .22 . 18 .18 .80 .51 .55 .37 .47 .44 .51 .26 .33 .15 .73 .51 .51 .47 .40 .44 ..55 .29 .22 .18 .77 .55 .58 .47 .51 .46 .47 .37 .24 .17 .86 .51 .46 .33 .35

See foo tnotes at end of table.

[4]
Table 1.

Relative slipperiness of floor and deck surfaces under various conditions—Continued

Sample

uuinFloor or deck material

Antislip coefficient

Leather heel Rubber heel

ber Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet

Type and description Surface and and and and and and and and and and

clean dirty clean dirty soapy

j clean dirty clean dirty soapy CEMENT MORTAR (1:2^)

Wood-float finish Trowel finish, acid etched Trowel finish do Xo. 20 Carborundum, H lb/ft 2 «b No. 30 Carborundum, I4 lb/ft 2 ft No. 12-30 Alundnm, K lb/ft ''b No. 30 Alundum", H lb/ft 2 Metalicron (Fe and AeOa), H lb/ftOripinal- do._ Ground. do—

do—

do—

do-._ do—

do—

0. 44 0. 47 0. 40 0.40 0.33 0. 66 0. 58 0.55 0. 55

.44 .47 .37 .40 .37 .84 .51 .55 .55

.47 .55 .40 .40 .33 .80 .51 .62 . 55 .47 .51 .44 .44 .40 .84 .51 .69 .58

.44 .51 .37 .40 .33 .73 .55 .58 .51 .44 .51 .40 .40 .33 .80 .55 .62 . 55 .47 .51 .33 .33 .26 .84 .51 .62 .58

.47 . 51 .44 .40 .29 .77 ..55 .66 .62

.47 .47 . 18 .15 . 11 .77 .47 .58 .51

0.55

.55 .58

.66

.55 .58

.62

.62

.51 CEMENT MORTAR (1:2)

34

34 Trowel finish ^ ... do

Original Ground0.37

.47

0. 47

.47 0.11 .29

0. 07

.18

0. 07

. 15

0. 77 .690. 47

.47

0. 22

.47

0. 22

.40 0.26.44 CONCRETE

35 Iron borings, 1 lb/ft 2 "i> _____ __ Ground _ ._ 0.44 0. 55 0.18 0. 22 0. 15 0. 73 0.55 0.58 0. 47 0. 47 MAGNESITE

Silica, asbestos fiber do

Talc, asbestos fiber, sawdust

do Marble dust, cotton fiber, copper _ Calcite dust do

do Marble (J^ in. to dust) do__ Granite chips do

Fine emery . do

Granulated cork do

Original 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 0. 66 0. 47 0. 26 0. 26 0.26 Ground .44 .44 . 11 .11 . 11 .69 .47 .55 .47 .51 Original .51 .47 .07 .04 .04 .80 .47 .26 .22 .22 Ground .40 .47 .26 .18 .18 .84 .47 .44 .37 .40 do .40 .47 .18 .18 . 15 .84 .51 .51 .44 .51 do .44 .44 ..33 .26 .22 .77 .47 .58

.37

.51 .26

.55 Original .40 .40 . U .07 .07 .77 .40 .47 Ground .40 .44 .26 .22 .26 .80 .44 .58 .44 .62 Original .37 .44 .15 . 11 . 15 .69 .40 .33 .37 .44 Ground .40 .44 .26 .22 .26 .84 .44 .55 .40 .58 Original .40 .44 .29 .29 .,33 .80 .44 .55 .47 .55 Ground .37 .44 .26 .18 .22 .73 .44 .44 .40 .62 Original .33 .40 .07 . 11 . 11 .62 .40 .15 ..37 .33 Ground .40 .44 .26 .22 .26 .73 .44 .55 .47 ..58 Orieinal .40 -.47 . 18 .15 .18 .95 .47 .33 .33 .40 Ground .47 .47 .26 .22 .26 .84 .47 .33 .29 .33 MAGNESITE TILE

Coarse abrasive, 35% AI2O 3 abrasive. do Medium abrasive Fine abrasive _._OriginaL Ground _ do—

do___

0. 37 0.44 0.40 0. 29 0. 37 0.77 0.51 0.47 0.40

.44 .47 .47 .44 .44 .77 .51 .66 .58

.47 .51 .40 .37 .22 .77 .55 .62 .62

.47 .47 .18 .18 . 15 .88 .47 .58 .47 CERAMIC TILE

Alundum, 80% AI2O3 abrasive do Alundum, 35% AI2O3 abrasive do

Natural clay, no abrasive do

Natural clay, 7}^% AI2O3 abrasive,. do

Natural clay, 12% AI2O3 abrasive. _ do

Natural clay, 35% AI2O3 abrasive.

do

Porcelain, no abrasive. do

Porcelain, 6% AI2O3 abrasive do

Porcelain, 12% AI2O3 abrasive do

Porcelain, 35% AI2O3 abrasive ___ do

Quarry, even surface _. _ do

Original 0. 47 0. 47 0.44 0. 37 0. 33 0.84 0..51 .058 0. 55 0. 55 Ground .49 .49 ..W .51 .47 .93 .55 .69 .58 .66 Original. .40 .44 .22 .18 .15 .73 .44 .37 .37 .33 Ground .44 .47 .33 .26 .22 .77 .47 .62 .55 .58

Original--. _ .40 .40 . 15 .07 .07 .73 .44 .26 .22 .22 Ground _ _ .40 .44 .22 .22 .15 .69 .47 .40 .29 .40 Original .40 .40 . 11 .11 .07 .69 .44 .40 .29 .33 Ground. . . .40 .44 .22 .22 . 15 .73 .47 .47 .37 .44 Original .40 .44 . U .11 . 11 .69 .44 .37 .33 .33 Ground. .40 .44 .18 . 15 . 15 .69 .47 .44 .37 .40 Original .37 .44 .26 .22 .22 .69 .44 .51 .37 .47 Ground .40 .47 .26 . 18 . 18 .77 .47 .58 .47 . 55 Original .44 .44 .07 . 15 .04 .69 .44 .22 .22 .18 Ground .40 .44 .26 .18 .18 .66 .47 .44 .37 .40 Original... . .40 .44 .07 . 11 .07 .69 .47 .29 .29 .26 Ground .40 .47 .22 .18 .15 .69 .47 .47 .40 .44 Original .44 .47 . 11 .11 .07 .73 .47 .37 .37 .33 Ground .40 .47 .22 .18 .15 .69 .47 .47 .47 .44 Original .44 .47 .22 .18 .18 .77 .47 .44 .40 .40 Ground.. ._ .44 .47 .22 .22 .18 .69 .47 .51 .47 .47 Original .40 .44 .07 .07 .07 .73 .44 .29 .26 .29 Ground. __ _ .44 .44 .18 .15 . 15 .69 .47 . 55 .47 .47

See footnotes at end of table.

[5]
Table 1.

Relative slipperiness of floor and deck surfaces under various conditions—Continued

Antislip coefficient Floor or deck material Sample Leather heel Rubber heel number Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet

Type and description Surface « and and and and and and and and and and

clean dirty clean dirty soapy clean dirty clean dirty soapy

CERAMIC TILE—Continued

Quarry, straight grooves «. do d do = .-.._do J Quarry, diagonal grooves-

do

Quarry, diamond pattern.. do

Quarry, diamond and dot. do

Original. .__do Ground-.

...do

Original. Ground..

Original. Ground..

Original. Ground..

0.40 0. 47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0. ?0 0. 47 0. 33 0.29 0.29 .40 .47 .18 .26 .18 .69 .55 .37 .37 .33 .40 .47 .29 .22 .26 .66 .47 .51 .37 .47 .44 .47 .40 .44 .37 .84 .62 .55 .47 .51 .40 .44 .15 .15 .15 .77 .51 .33 .29 .33 .40 .47 .33 .33 .29 .69 .55 .55 .44 .51 .37 .44 .11 .15 . 11 .77 .47 .33 .29 .29 .40 .44 .29 .33 .33 .69 .51 .55 .44 .51 .?3 .44 .11 .18 .11 .73 .47 .26 .26 .26 .40 .44 .33 .29 .26 .69 .51 .55 .47 .51

Aluminum, AI2O3 abrasive. do...

Iron, AI2O3 abrasive do

Iron, embossed (ellipse) do

METAL

Original 0.44 0. 47 0. 51 0.47 0. 47 0. 77 0.58 0.58 0. 51 0.58 Ground ... .47 .47 .33 .26 .29 .77 .47 .66 .51 .66 Original .51 .51 .40 .40 .37 .84 .55 .37 .37 .40 Ground .. . .46 .47 .32 .28 .22 .69 .51 .47 .44 .44 Original .33 .44 .15 .15 .18 .62 .47 .26 .18 .26 Ground .37 .44 .22 .18 .22 .73 .55 .47 .40 .51 ASPHALT

Mastic, volcanic ash, cement .. do Pavement block do

Tile, plain, black, H in do

Tile, plain, black, \im

do

Tile, marbleized, white, li in. do

Tile, plain, red, Me in do

Original 0. 47 0.47 0. 26 0.26 0. 22 0. 77 0. 51 0.55 0. 44 0.51 Ground .47 .47 .40 .40 ..37 .99 .51 .69 .55 .66 Original .47 .44 .18 .11 .11 .80 .44 .33 .33 .33 Ground... . .40 .44 .18 .11 . 11 .69 .44 .47 .37 .47 Original .55 .44 .18 .11 .07 .91 .44 .29 .26 .22 Ground .47 .44 . 11 .11 . 11 .80 .44 .26 .22 .22 Original .56 .43 .25 .25 .15 .87 .44 .32 .26 .21 Ground . .51 .44 .32 .32 .22 .78 .46 .37 .32 .27 Original .47 .44 .18 .11 .07 .80 .44 .29 .26 .26 Ground .47 .44 .15 .15 . 11 .69 .47 .37 .33 .33 Original .47 .44 . 15 .11 .07 .80 .44 .29 .26 .26 Ground.. . .55 .44 .18 .15 . 11 .73 .47 .40 .37 .37 RUBBER

Latex, cement, marble chips dododo

Sheet, marbleized, brown, \i in do

Tile, marbleized, gray, \i in

Tile, diamond weave, sand blasted do

Soft, tile AI2O3 abrasive do Hard tile, AI2O3 abrasive Matting, even surface Matting, embossed (coarse) Matting, embossed (medium)

Matting, embossed (fine) --. Matting, straight grooves (fine) °1 do d—

do « do d Matting, straight ribs (6-ply strip on edge) do <• do « do i

Original. Ground..

Original. Ground..

Original. Ground.. -do

Original- Groimd-.

Original. Ground..

...do

.--do .--do

.-.do

...do Original. ...do Ground.

...do

Original.

...do Ground., —do

0. 47

.55

.40

.51 .32

.59

.46

.33 .40

.44 .02

.42

.66

.62

.C6

.69

.44 .58

.55

.73

.51 .55 .62

.55

0. 44

.51 .40

.55

.33

.47 .47

.40 .44

.47

.47 .46

.47

. 53 .55

.53 .40

.55

.47

. 51 .47

. 51 .47

.51

0.07

.33

. 11 .33

.15

.21 .09 .18

.22 .18

.21 .24

. 15

. 15 .22

.24

.26

.33 .26

.26

.22 .29

.18 .29

0.15

.29

.11 .33

.15

.18

.09

.18

.18

.18 .15

.17

. 11 .18

.22

.20

.26

.29 .22

.18

.22 .26

.18 95

0.44

.55

.44

.62

.34

.47

.47

.44

.47

.51 .49

.50

.51 .55

.58

.55

.58

.69

.51 .55

.47 .58

.51

0.18

.40

.18 .44

.10

.27

.15

.22

.29

.28

.29

.40

.22

.24 .29

.29

.26

.37

.22

.22

.26

.29

.22

.22

0. 18 .37

.18 .40

.16

.21 .15

.33 .37

.26

.23 .34

.18 .26

.26

.26

.26

.33

.22 .22

.18

.26

.18 .18 CORK TILE

0.40 0. 40 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.88 0. 40 0.11 0. 11 .51 .47 .24 .19 .17 .73 .47 .44 .33

.47 .47 .22 . 15 .11 .73 .47 .37 .22

.47 .47 .26 .20 .20 .73 .51 .33 .26

Light shade, factory finish. do High density, no finish doOriginal. Ground.

Original. Ground.

See footnotes at end of table.

[6]
Table 1.

Relative slipperiness of floor and deck surfaces under various conditions^ ContlnuoA

Floor and finish materials

Antislip coefficient

lysather heel Rubber heel

Type and description Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet Dry Dry Wet Wet Wet

Surface

and and and and and and and and and and

clean dirty clean dirty soapy clean dirty clean dirty soapy LINOLEUM

Battleship, brown, Hin

do

Battleship, green, \im

Marbleized, white, H in Camposition tile, gray, % inOriginal. Ground.

do-.

do--

do...

0. 43 n. 40 0. 19 0.22 0. 16 0. 80 0. 44 0.18 0.18 0. 16 .43 .44 .34 .29 .25 .78 .47 .40 .33 .26

.44 .47 .18 . 15 . 11 .73 .47 .40 .29 .37

.44 .44 .15 . 11 .07 .62 .47 .29 .22 .26

.44 .44 .18 .11 . 11 .69 .47 .40 .33 .33 FELT BACKED

0. 40 0. 44 0. 21 0. 15 0.13 0. 77 0. 47 0. 33 0. 22 0.26

.47 .47 .24 .19 .13 .88 .47 .33 .26 .22

.44 .44 .19 .15 . 11 .80 .44 .26 .26 .26

.47 .40 .18 .11 .07 .88 .40 .04 .11 .04

.44 .47 .22 .17 . 13 .66 .47 .37 .26 .29

Wearing surface: Linoleum composition

Cellulose nitrate composition. Resin treated cellulose fiber... Enamel

....do -

Ground.

do-_

do--

Original. Ground. WOOD

Original 0. 26 0.40 0. 33 0. 29 0. 29 0. 84 0. 40 0. 33 0. 33 0.26 Ground .29 .47 .26 .22 .18 .84 .47 .26 . 18 .15 Original .26 .44 .29 .26 .26 .91 .47 .33 .26 .22 Ground .29 .44 .26 .18 . 18 .77 .47 .26 .18 .15 Original. .26 .40 .33 .26 .26 .80 .40 .33 .26 .22 Ground .29 .44 .29 .26 .22 .80 .47 .26 .18 .18

Original .33 .37 .07 .04 .04 .80 37 .18 .18 .18 Ground .40 .44 .24 . 15 .17 .77 .47 .33 .26 .26 Original .40 .47 .22 . 11 .11 .84 .47 .40 .29 .29 Ground .40 .44 .24 .15 .15 .80 .47 .33 .22 .26

No finish: Strip maple, flat-grained ...do

Strip white oak, flat-grained ...do

Strip red oak, flat-grained. .

...do Factory finish: Rock-elm plywood tile --.-do Pressed fiberboard tile --.-do

SPECIAL DECKING

Original 0. 69 0. 62 0. 69 0. 66 0. 66 1. 10 0. 73 0.80 0. 77 0.77 Ground .44 .47 .44 .40 .37 0.80 .51 .66 .55 .66 Original .69 .66 .69 .66 .66 1. 10 .80 .84 .80 .80 Ground .44 .51 .51 .47 .47 0.91 .55 .69 .66 .66 Original .62 .62 .62 .55 .58 .99 .80 .73 .69 .69 Ground .44 .51 .47 .40 .40 .80 .58 .66 .58 .66 Original .62 .62 .62 .55 .58 .99 .80 .73 .66 .69 Ground ... .40 .47 .44 .40 .44 .77 .58 .62 .55 .62 Oiiginal .62 .58 .62 .51 .55 .88 .73 .66 .62 .62 Ground .40 .51 .47 .44 .47 .80 .58 .62 .55 .62 Original .51 .55 .51 .44 .47 .77 .69 .55 .51 .51 Ground .40 .47 .51 .47 .47 .80 .66 .62 .55 .58 Original .55 .62 .66 .55 .55 .84 .73 .69 .62 .62 Ground .40 .47 .40 .40 .40 .80 .51 .62 .55 .62

Original .51 .55 .55 .51 .51 .77 .62 .62 .58 .69 Ground .51 .47 .26 .26 .26 .80 .51 .51 .47 .47 Original .44 .47 .37 .33 .33 .69 .55 .37 .37 .33 Ground .47 .47 .37 .37 .37 .73 .55 .55 .47 .55 Original .47 .51 .44 .44 .44 .73 .55 .51 .47 .51 Ground .47 .51 .40 .37 .37 .77 .55 .62 .51 .62 Original .44 .47 .47 .47 .47 .69 .62 .55 .51 .55 Ground

.47 .47 .33 .33 .33 .84 .55 .47 .44 .47 Original .33 .44 .37 .37 .33 .62 .55 .44 . 40 .44 Ground .40 .47 .26 .22 .22 .69 .47 .58 .51 .55 Original .40 .44 .26 .29 .22 .84 .55 .29 .29 .26 Ground .47 .47 .26 .18 .15 .78 .47 .44 .40 .40

Original .44 .44 .26 .29 .26 .80 .51 .33 .29 .29 Ground .47 .47 .29 .29 .26 .73 .47 .51 .44 .47

Original .55 .47 .26 .26 .22 .66 .62 .22 .26 .22 Ground .62 .47 .22 .18 .22 .77 .62 .26 .26 .26 Original .37 .51 .44 .40 .33 .77 .55 .47 .40 .37 Ground .40 .58 .40 .26 .33 .80 .58 .44 .29 .40 Original .40 .44 .26 .26 .26 .77 .51 .33 .33 .40 Ground .44 .51 .18 .15 .18 .84 .55 .26 .22 .22

Abrasive cloth cemented to metal backing: No. 100, SiC abrasive do No. 80, SiC abrasive do No. 60, SiC abrasive.. do No. 50, SiC abrasive do -. No. 40, SiC abrasive... . do No. 24, SiC abrasive do .- No. 60, Trimite cloth do

Coating on metal: Rubber dispersion and abrasive ' do

Synthetic resin and abrasive do

do

do

Asphalt mastic and sand. do

Paint and ligneous abrasive do

Synthetic resin and walnut shell do Coating on pressed fiberboard: Synthetic resin and AbOj abrasive do

Material cemented to metal: Rubber matting (pyramid) do Impregnated lelt (pebble grain) do Impregnated isbestos fabric do

« Grinding was done with No. 180 silicon carbide and water,

b Sprinkled on surface after material was in place.

= Parallel to grooves. Perpendicular to grooves.

[7]
Table 2.

Relative slipperiness of floor finishes under various conditions

Floor and finish materials

Antislip coeflBoient

Leather heel Rubber heel

Type and description Surface Dry

and

clean

Dry Wet Wet

and and and

dirty clean dirty

Dry

and

clean

Dry Wet Wet

and and and

dirty clean dirty MAPLE FLOORING

No finish material do Wood floor sealer (2 coats) Paste wax A (2 coats) Spirit wax B (2 coats)

Wator-oniiil'iinn wax C (2 coats)- No fitiisli iiiDlcrial Floor varnish (2 coats) Paste wax A (2 coats) Spirit wax B (2 coats) Water-emulsion wax C (2 coats)

No finish material Spar varnish (2 coats) Paste wax D (2 coats)

Original Ground »_

Sealed Waxed

dodo Ground «_ _ Varnished-. Waxed

do

do Ground ». _ Varnished-. Waxed

0.28 0. 39 0. 29 0. 27 0. 26 0.78 0. 41 0.28 0.23 0.22

.29 .41 .36 .30 .28 .78 .41 .36 .29 .27

.41 .44 .21 .23 .18 .87 .45 .21 .22 .17 .22 .33 .18 .22 .18 .62 .37 .18 .18 .15

.26 .37 .22 .18 .18 .66 .37 .18 .18 .15 .29 .40 .22 .18 .15 .80 .40 .18 .18 .15 .29 .40 .32 .30 .27 .81 .40 .33 .27 .25 .46 .39 .1.5 .16 .11 .89 .40 .21 .21 . 12 .26 .33 . 18 .18 . 11 .66 .33 .18 .18 .11 .26 .29 Ah .15 . 11 .58 .33 .15 . 15 .07 .47 .40 .11 . 11 .07 .91 .44 . 15 .18 .07 .29 .40 .37 .33 .29 .80 .40 .37 .33 .29

.47 .44 .22 .18 .15 .91 .44 .29 .26 .18 .26 .37 . 15 .18 .11 .69 .33 .18 .18 .11

WHITE OAK FLOORING

0. 26 0. 41 0. 36 0.28 0. 26 0. 79 0. 45 0. 39 0. 27 0.25

.29 .43 .36 .28 .27 .79 .43 .37 .28 .26

.41 .44 . 19 .19 .17 .89 .44 .22 .21 .18 .22 .33 . 18 .18 . 15 .62 .37 .15 .18 .11 .22 .29 . 15 .15 .11 .58 .37 .15 .15 .11 .33 .37 . 18 .18 .15 .84 .40 .18 .18 .15

.28 .40 .32 .27 .26 .78 .40 .32 .26 .23

.48 ..39 . 15 . 15 .11 .89 .40 .26 .22 .15 .26 .29 . 15 . 11 .11 .62 .33 .15 .18 . 11 .26 .26 .11 .11 .11 .55 .33 .11 .15 .07 .47 .37 .18 . 15 . 11 .80 .44 .18 .18 .11 .29 .40 .33 .26 .26 .80 .40 .33 .26 .26

.47 .40 . 15 .11 .07 .84 .44 .22 .22 .11 .29 .29 .11 . 11 .07 .77 .40 .15 . 15 .07

No finish material do Wood floor sealer (2 coats) Paste wax A (2 coats) Spirit wax B (2 coats) Water-emulsion wax C (2 coats)

No finish material Floor varnish (2 coats) Paste wax A (2 coats)

Spirit wax B (2 coats)— Water-emulsion wax C (2 coats)

No finish material Spar varnish (2 coats) Water-emulsion wax E (2 coats)

Original Ground «-

Sealed Waxed

do

do Ground

Varnished- Waxed

do

do Ground

Varnished

Waxed

BATTLESHIP LINOLEUM

No finish material do

Paste wax A (2 coats)

Spirit wax B (2 coats) Water-emulsion wax C (2 coats)

.

Water-emulsion wax F (2 coats)

Water-emulsion wax G (2 coats) - Water-emulsion wax H (2 coats,.

OriginaL- Ground Waxed

do—-.

do-.-. do—.

do—.

do—-.

0.43 0. 40 0. 19 0. 22 0. 15 0. 80 0. 44 0. 18 0. 18 0. 16 .43 .44 .34 .29 .25 .78 .47 .41 .33 .26 .29 .37 .22 .22 . 18 .73 .40 .22 .22 .18 .26 .37 . 18 . 18 . 11 .69 .40 .18 . 18 .11 .44 .40 . 18 .18 .15 .99 .44 .22 .22 .18

.37 .40 .07 .07 .07 .88 .47 . 18 .18 .11 .37 .37 .07 .07 .07 .88 .47 . 15 . 18 .11 .40 .40 .07 .07 .07 .91 .40 .22 .26 .11 SHEET RUBBER

No finish material do

Paste wax A (2 coats) Spirit wax B (2coats) - Water-emulsion wax C (2 coats) -

Original--. Ground K. Waxed

---dodo—-

0. 32 0. 33 0. 15 0. 15 0.11 0.46 0. 34 0. 13 0. 16 0.10

.59 .47 . 21 . 18 . 12 .87 .47 .27 .21 . 15 .40 .40 . 11 . 11 . 11 .84 .47 . 11 . 15 . 11 .40 .37 . 11 . 11 .07 .80 .47 . 11 . 18 .07

.55 .40 . 11 . 11 .07 .95 .44 . 18 . 18 .11 ASPHALT TILE

No finish material do -

Paste wax A (2 coats)

Spirit wax B (2 coats) Water-emulsion wax C (2 coats)-. Water-emulsion wax F (2 coats)_. Water-emulsionwax G (2 coats)-. Water-emulsion wax H (2 coats) -

Original-

Ground i>- Waxed

do—-. do—.

do—.

do—.

do---.

0. 56 0. 43 0. 25 0. 25 0. 15 0. 87 0. 44 0. 32 0.26

.51 .44 .32 .32 .22 .78 .46 .37 .32

.33 .40 . 11 . 11 .07 .77 .40 . 15 . 18 .33 .40 .18 .18 .11 .80 .44 .18 . 18 .47 .40 . 11 .11 .07 .91 .40 . 18 .18

.40 .37 .18 .18 .11 .88 .40 .22 .22

.40 .40 . 18 . 18 . 11 .84 .40 .26 .26

.44 .40 .22 .22 . 15 .88 .44 .29 .29

a Ground with No. H and No. 0 flint papers.

t> Ground with No. 180 silicon carbide and water.

In order to determine the effect of finishing

materials on the sHpperiness of floors, several

selected floor materials were given different

finishing treatments. The floor materials and

finishing treatments are listed in table 2, along

with the results of the tests. For these tests the wood floors were ground with No. K flint paper, followed by a light grinding with No. 0

[8]
flint paper rather than by the normal procedure—with No. 180 silicon carbide and water.

It was found that wetting adversely affected

the wood floors, especially the oak, in that they were discolored and showed a tendency to warp

upon drying. All finish materials were applied

in accordance with recommended procedures

and all waxed specimens thoroughly polished.

VI. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND COMMENTS

The results obtained on selected varieties

of floor materials are presented graphically in figm-es 3 to 7, inclusive. The results of tests of different finishes on selected floor materials are shown graphically in figures 8 to 11, inclusive.

The original four-cut finish on the granite,

sample 1, was rough, whereas the original

honed finish on the marble, sample 4, approached a polish. With the original finishes, the

hard granite showed much better antislip

qualities than the soft marble, but after grinding with No. 180 silicon carbide, the antislip

coefB.cients were greater for the marble under

Al^TISLir OOETFIOIEIITS

ANTISLIP COEFFICIENTS

LEATHER HEEL

.6 .U .2

RUBBER HEEL

.11 .6

No. 1 ORIOINAL,

1;-CUT

MARBLE

US. It ORIGINAL, HONED

MO. b ORIOINAL, SPLIT

m. 9 ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

TERRAZZO

!16. 11 ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

a. Dry and dean; b, dry and dirty; c, wet and clean; d, wet and dirty;

e, wet and soapy. Figure 3.

Antislip characteristics of natural stone and

terrazzo.

LEATHER HEEL

.6 .» .J

RUBBER HEBL A .6 CEUENT

MORTAR

V6. Jit ORIOIhAL, TROWELED

ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

CERAMIC

V6. ki

ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

CmAllIC m. Itj ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 4.

Antislip characteristics of cement-mortar,

7Hagnesite, and ceramic tile.

ANTISLIP COEFFICIENTS

LEATHER HEEL

.6 A .?

RUBBER HEEL

.14 .6 CERAMIC ORIOINAL

CERAMIC

NO. Jl* ORIOINAL

CERAMIO

NO- 57 ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

CERAMIC

HO. tl ORIOINAL, GROOVED

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 5.

Antislip characteristics of ceramic tile.

9]
^ISLIP COEmCIENTS

LS&TUDt HEQ, FLOOR RUBBER HKKt

SURFACE

• 8 .6 .It .2 .0 .0 .! .k .6 ,8 1.0

UETAL

US. 63 ORIOINAL, c e — e ABRASIVE

KO. 6J OROUND

UETAL

US. 65 ORIOINAL,

El!B036ED

NO. 65 OROUND

ASPHALT

Kfi. {>{> ORIOINAL, TROWELED

NO. 66 OROUND

ASPHALT

US. 71 ORIOINAL

NO. 71 OROUND

RUBBER

No. 7!; ORIOINAL

KO. 74 OROUND

RUBBER 115777

ORIOINAL, ABRASIVE

NO. 77 OROUND

—

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 6.

Antislip characteristics of metal, asphalt,

and rubber.

ANTISLIP COEFFICIENTS

LEATHER HEEL FLOOR RUBBER HEEL

SURFACE

•° •» .0 .0 .2 .<* .6 .8 1.0 CORK

b — tl6. il, c ORIOINAL — t J

e

NO. 86 —6 e

OROUND

LINOLEUM

ORIOINAL

NO. 87 OROUND

ENAMEL ORIOINAL

NO. 9lt OROUND

UAPLE

NO. 95 ORIOINAL

NO. 95 OROUND

OAK 1157^6

ORIOINAL

KO. 96 OROUND

FISEHBOARD

"1157-59 ORIOINAL

NO. 99 OROUND

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. FiGUEE 7.

Antislip characteristics of cork tile, linoleum, enamel felt base, and wood.

many of the conditions (see fig. 3). Of course, the granite has better resistance to wear than

the marble, and would thus maintain a roughened siu-face for a longer time.

The antislip properties of terrazzo were improved by the addition of abrasive aggregates. The results obtained on ground speci- mens were not materially altered by the differ- ences in amounts and types of abrasives (see

table 1 and fig. 3). The abrasives consisted of

Carborundum, a silicon carbide aggregate;

Alundum, an aluminum oxide aggregate; Vit- trazzo and Anti-Slip, crushed ceremic tiles containing abrasives; Macanite, a natural aggregate containing aluminum and iron oxides.

The marble chips in terrazzo samples 8 to 23,

inclusive, consisted of equal proportions of No.

1 and No. 2 granules of Tennessee marble.

The marble chips in sample 24 were of Red

Antique marble.

As a further investigation of the possible

antislip merits of abrasives in nonuniform materials, such as terrazzo, several specimens of terrazzo containing different amounts of an

acid-resisting abrasive were etched with hydrochloric acid prior to buffing. A leather-covered

block was used instead of a cast-iron slab in the

grinding procedure. The purpose of the above

treatment was to cause the harder abrasive

aggregates to protrude prominently in the

surface of the terrazzo and thus represent more

nearly a possible service condition. The antislip coefficients of the specimens, under wet

conditions and with leather heels, were materially increased by the above treatment. The

coefficients obtained with rubber heels were not

appreciably altered by the treatment.

Figure 4 shows typical results of the tests on

magnesite.

The antislip characteristics of ceramic tiles were improved by the addition of 35 percent

abrasive. They were improved to a less degree

by corrugations and embossments. The improvements were more pronounced on the

original sm*faces than on the ground surfaces

(see fig. 5). The antislip properties of maple, oak, rubber,

linoleum, and asphalt tile were, under most of the conditions, increased by grinding the

original surfaces and were subsequently lowered by coating the groimd surfaces with finish-

[10]
AMTISLIP COErnOIENTS AUTIBLIP COEFFICIENTS LEATHER HEEL

.e .6 .t .2

RUBBER HEEL A .6

WATER- EMULSION

»AXED, WATER- EMULSION

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 8.

Effect of different wax finishes on the antislip

properties of strip maple.

AJITIaLIP COEFFICIENTS

LEATHIR HEEL

.6 .11 .5

RUBBER HEEL

.1* .6

oriJinaj

WAXED, WATER- QIULSIOK

WAXED, WATER. EUULSION

a, 6, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 9.

Effect of different wax finishes on the antislip

properties of strip white oak.

LEATHER HEEL

.6 .1* .2

RUBBER KEEL

.It .6

WAXED, WATER- EMULSION

WAXED, WaTEREliULSION

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 10.

Effect of different wax finishes on the antislip

properties of linoleum and rubber.

ing materials (see figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11). The

results indicate that water-emulsion wax has

better antislip properties than either paste or

spirit waxes. The results further show that

waxed floors are more hazardous, especially

under dry conditions, with leather heels than

with rubber heels. It is of interest to note some differences that

appear to exist between leather heels and

rubber heels. The antislip coefficients obtained with rubber heels under a dry and clean

condition were, in general, much higher than

those obtained with leather heels imder the same condition. However, under similar dirty

or wet conditions this difference was not nearly

so great. In this respect, the element of sm*-

prise or a sudden and marked lowering of the

antislip property due to a change in conditions

from that of dry and clean would be more prevalent with rubber heels than with leather heels. The coefficients obtained with leather heels were influenced by the degree of wetting of the

leather, being lower with increase in wetting.

This necessitated a thorough soaking of the

leather heels prior to testing under wet conditions and probably represents a more severe condition than is usually encoimtered in service.

[11]
In view of the above, when the machine is to be used to estabhsh a rating for a floor, the

experimenter should take into account the kind

of heel used for the testing, and set the hmits

accordingly. From a survey of the data

presented in tables 1 and 2, the following linaits are suggested:

Antislip value Leather heel Rubber heel

(classi- (antislip (antislip fication) coefficient) coefficient) Poor Less than 0.15 Less than 0.25. Fair 0.15 to 0.30 0.25 to 0.40. Good More than 0.30 More than 0.40. On the above basis, practically all of the floor surfaces would be rated as good under dry

conditions, the principal exceptions being

waxed specimens of maple, oak, and linoleum.

However, under wet conditions many would be

rated poor. The following floor and deck

materials showed veiy good antislip characteristics after grinding with No. 180 silicon

carbide; that is, their antislip coefficients were

not less than 0.50 with a rubber heel and not

less than 0.40 with a leather heel under all five test conditions (see table 1): sandstone (sample

6), cement mortar (sample 28), magnesite tile

ANTISLIP OOEPPICIENTB LEATHER SEEL

.6 .k .2

RUBBER HEEL

.U .6

WAXED, WaTERE11UL3I0N

a, b, c, d, and e—see figure 3. Figure 11.

Effect of different wax finishes on the antislip

properties of asphalt tile.

containing a course abrasive (sample 45), ce- ramic tfle containing 80 percent abrasive (sample

48), and abrasive cloths (samples 101 to 106,

inclusive). Original sm-faces which were out- standing are: four-cut granite (sample 1), split sandstone (sample 6), aluminum with an

abrasive embedded in the siu-face (sample 63),

and abrasive cloths (sample 100 to 106, mclusive).

Washington, March 29, 1943.

o

[12]


BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

tContinued from cover page ii] BMS32 Structural Properties of Two Brick-Concrete-Block Wall Constructions and a Concrete- Block Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association. 10^ BMS33 Plastic Calking Materials 10^ BMS34 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 1 10^ BMS35 Stability of Sheathing Papers as Determined by Accelerated Aging 10j5 BMS36 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall, Partition, Floor, and Roof Constructions With

"Red Stripe" Lath Sponsored by The Weston Paper and Manufacturing Co 10^ BMS37 Structural Properties of "Palisade Homes" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and

Floors, Sponsored by Palisade Homes 10^ BMS38 Structural Properties of Two "Dunstone" Wall Constructions Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co lOfS BMS39 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of "Pfeifer Units" Sponsored by the Wisconsin Units Co 10j5 BMS40 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of "Knap Concrete Wall Units" Sponsored

by Knap America, Inc 10^ BMS41 Effect of Heating and Cooling on the Permeability of Masonry Walls 10^ BMS42 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall and Partition Constructions with "Celotex"

Insulating Boards Sponsored by The Celotex Corporation 15j5 BMS43 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 2 10^ BMS44 Surface Treatment of Steel Prior to Painting 10^ BMS45 Air Infiltration Through Windows 10^ BMS46 Structural Properties of "Scot-Bilt" Prefabricated Sheet-Steel Constructions for WaUs,

Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by The Globe-Wernicke Co 10j5 BMS47 Structural Properties of Prefabricated Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by American Houses, Inc 10^ BMS48 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built" Frame Wall and Partition Constructions

Sponsored by the Homasote Co lOjS BMS49 Metallic Roofing for Low-Cost House Construction 10^ BMSoO Stability of Fiber Building Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging 10^ BMS51 Structural Properties of "Tilecrete Type A" Floor Construction Sponsored by the

Tilecrete Co 10(S BMS52 Effect of Ceiling Insulation Upon Summer Comfort lOjS BMS53 Structural Properties of a Masonry Wall Construction of "Munlock Dry Wall Brick"

Sponsored by the Munlock Engineering Co 10j5 BMS54 Effect of Soot on the Rating of an Oil-Fired Heating Boiler 10^ BMS55 Effects of Wetting and Drying on the Permeability of Masonry Walls 10^ BMS56 A Survey of Humidities in Residences lOfS BMS57 Roofing in the United States—Results of a Questionnaire 10j5 BMS58 Strength of Soft-Soldered Joints in Copper Tubing 10^ BMS59 Properties of Adhesives for Floor Coverings 10j5 BMS60 Strength, Absorption, and Resistance to Laboratory Freezing and Thawing of Building

Bricks Produced in the United States 15{5

BMS61 Structural Properties of Two Nonreinforced Monolithic Concrete WaU Constructions 10^5 BMS62 Structural Properties of a Precast Joist Concrete Floor Construction Sponsored by the Portland Cement Association 10^ BMS63 Moisture Condensation in Building Walls 10^ BMS64 Solar Heating of Various Surfaces 10^ BMS65 Methods of Estimating Loads in Plumbing Systems 10^ BMS66 Plumbing Manual 20#

BMS67 Structural Properties of "Mu-Steel" Prefabricated Sheet-Steel Constructions for Walls,

Partitions, Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by Herman A. Mugler 15^ BMS68 Perform^jice Test for Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 3 15^5 BMS69 Stability of Fiber Sheathing Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging lOjS BMS70 Asphalt-Prepared RoU Roofings and Shingles 15 BMS71 Fire Tests of Wood- and Metal-Framed Partitions 20f5 BMS72 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built, Jr." Prefabricated Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Homasote Co 10^ BMS73 Indentation Characteristics of Floor Coverings lOfS BMS74 Structural and Heat-Transfer Properties of "U. S. S. Panelbilt" Prefabricated SheetSteel Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Roofs Sponsored by the Tennessee

Coal, Iron & Railroad Co 15^ BMS75 Survey of Roofing Materials in the North Central States 15^ BMS76 Effect of Outdoor Exposure on the Water Permeability of Masonry WaUs 15^ BMS77 Properties and Performance of Fiber Tile Boards lOfi BMS78 Structural, Heat-Transfer, and Water-Permeability Properties of Five Earth-WaU Constructions 20^ BMS79 Water-Distributing Systems for Buildings 15^ BMS80 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 4 15^ BMS81 Field Inspectors' Check List for Building Construction (cloth cover, 5X7% inches) —- 20f5

[List continued on cover page iv]
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

[Continued from cover page iii] BMS82 Water Permeability of Walls Built of Masonry Units 20^ BMS83 Strength of Sleeve Joints in Copper Tubing Made With Various Lead-Base Solders 10^ BMS84 Survey of Roofing Materials in the South Central States 15^ BMS85 Dimensional Changes of Floor Coverings With Changes in Relative Humidity and

Temperature 10^ BMS86 Structural, Heat-Transfer, and Water-Permeability Properties of "Speedbrik" Wall

Construction Sponsored by the General Shale Products Corporation 15^ BMS87 A Method for Developing Specifications for Building Construction 10^ BMS88 Recommended Building Code Requirements for New Dwelling Construction With Special

Reference to War Housing . 20j5 BMS89 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built, Jr." (Seond Construction) Prefabricated Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Homasote Co 15(5 BMS90 Structural Properties of "PHC" Prefabricated Wood-Frame Construction for Walls,

Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by the PHC Housing Corporation 15^ BMS91 A Glossary of Housing Terms 15jS BMS92 Fire-Resistance Classifications of Building Constructions 25^ BMS93 Accumulation of Moisture in Walls of Frame Construction During Winter Exposure 10^ BMS94 Water Permeability and Weathering Resistance of Stucco-Faced, Gunite-Faced, and

"Knap Concrete-Unit" Walls 10^ BMS95 Tests of Cement-Water Paints and Other Waterproofings for Unit-Masonry Walls 15^ MBS96 Properties of a Porous Concrete of Cement and Uniform-Sized Gravel 10^ BMS97 Experimental Dry-Wall Construction with Fiber Insulatiag Board 10^ BMS98 Physical Properties of Terrazzo Aggregates 10^ BMS99 Structural and Heat-Transfer Properties of Multiple Box-Girder Plywood Panels for Walls, Floors, and Roofs 10^ BMSlOO Relative Slipperiness of Floor and Deck Surfaces 10^