NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

8975

Investigation of Performance Characteristics

for

Sanitary Plumbing Fixtures

By

Building Research Division

Institute for Applied Technology

to

Building Research Advisory Board

National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council

Washington, D. C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards is a principal focal point in the Federal Government for assuring

maximum application of the physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in

industry ana commerce. Its responsibilities include development and maintenance of the national standards of measurement, and the provisions of means for making measurements consistent with those

standards; determination of physical constants and properties of materials; development of methods

for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and making such tests as may be necessary, particularly for government agencies; cooperation in the establishment of standard practices for incorporation in codes and specifications; advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical

problems; invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government; assistance

to industry, business, and consumers in the development and acceptance of commercial standards and

simplified trade practice recommendations; administration of programs in cooperation with United

States business groups and standards organizations for the development of international standards of

practice; and maintenance of a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of scientific, technical, and engineering information. The scope of the Bureau’s activities is suggested in the following

listing of its four Institutes and their organizational units. Institute for Basic Standards. Applied Mathematics. Electricity. Metrology. Mechanics. Heat. Atomic Physics. Physical Chemistry. Laboratory Astrophysics.* Radiation Physics. Radio Standards

Laboratory:* Radio Standards Physics; Radio Standards Engineering. Office of Standard Reference

Data. Institute for Materials Research. Analytical Chemistry. Polymers. Metallurgy. Inorganic Materials. Reactor Radiations. Cryogenics.* Materials Evaluation Laboratory. Office of Standard Refer- ence Materials.

Institute for Applied Technology. Building Research. Information Technology. Performance Test Development. Electronic Instrumentation. Textile and Apparel Technology Center. Technical Analysis.

Office of Weights and Measures. Office of Engineering Standards. Office of Invention and Innovation.

Office of Technical Resources. Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information.**

Central Radio Propagation Laboratory.* Ionospheric Telecommunications. Tropospheric Telecommunications. Space Environment Forecasting. Aeronomy.

* Located at Boulder, Colorado 80301. ** Located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22171.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

NBS PROJECT

421-03-4210531 September 21, 1965

NBS REPORT

8975

Investigation of Performance Characteristics

for

Sanitary Plumbing Fixtures

By

Building Research Division

Institute for Applied Technology

to

Building Research Advisory Board

National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council

Washington, D. C.

IMPORTANT NOTICE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANT

for use within the Government. Bet and review. For this reason, the pu whole or in part, is not authorized Bureau of Standards, Washington, D

the Report has been specifically pre

Approved for public release by the

Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

on October 9, 2015.

jccounting documents intended

ijected to additional evaluation

ting of this Report, either in ffice of the Director, National

»e Government agency for which

is for its own use.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
Project Staff

The planning and execution of the various phases

of this project were carried out principally by

the following staff members of the Building

Research Division:

D. Watstein, T. Reichard, and L. F. Skoda of the

Structures Section; R. S. Wyly, R. W. Beausoliel,

and C. J. Seay of the Environmental Engineering

Section; D. G. Moore, J. C. Richmond, J. W. Pitts,

and W. C. Wolfe of the Materials and Composites

Section. P. R. Achenbach of the Division Office

served as project director and coordinator.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1. Introduction 1I

1.1 Statement of the Problem 1

1.2 Background Information 1 1.3 Authorization and Funds 1 1.4 Work to be Performed 2 1.5 Test Specimens 4

1.6 Field Surveys 5 1.7 Performance Tests and Performance Levels 5

2. Test Procedures and Performance Levels 8

2.1 Uniform Loading (S101) 8

2.2 Concentrated Load, Static (S102) 10

2.3 Rim Load (S102A) 18

2.4 Concentrated Dynamic Load (S103) 21

2.5 Concentrated Load, Sump Sidewall (S104) 27

2.6 Drain Fitting Load (S105) 33

2.7 Watertight Joint Potential (S106) 44

2.8 Surface Inspection (M2 01) 45

2.9 Water Absorption (M2 02) 49

2.10 Abrasion Resistance (M203) 51

2.11 Cleanability and Soilability (M203A) 60

2.12 Surface Impact Resistance (M204) 69

2.13 Dimensional Stability (M205) 75

2.14 Bond Maintenance, Mechanical (M206) 76

2.15 Surface Slip Resistance (M207) 77

2.16 Scratch Resistance (M208) 82

2.17 Drainability (M209) 91

2.18 Hot Water Resistance (T302) 100

2.19 Cigarette Burn Resistance (T303) 114

2.20 Radiant Heater Resistance (T303A) 122

2.21 Resistance to Thermal Shock (T304) 132

2.22 Resistance to Household Chemicals (C501) 137

2.23 Stain Resistance (C502) 145

2.24 Color Stability (C 503) 157

2.25 Surface Texture Aging (C504) 162

2.26 Odorlessness (C505) 163

2.27 Noise Control (N401) (N402) 164

2.28 Biological Characteristics (B601) (B602) (B603) 165

3. Tests Requiring Further Development 166

3.1 Cleanability and Soilability (M203A) 166

3.2 Surface Slip Resistance (M207) 166

3.3 Resistance to Thermal Shock (T304) 166

Appendix A. Inspection of FRPE Manufacturing Processes and

Installed Fixtures 168

Appendix B Telephone Survey of Pressed Steel Bathtubs 175

iii
INVESTIGATION OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

for

SANITARY PLUMBING FIXTURES

by

Building Research Division

ABSTRACT

This report gives findings and recommendations developed during an investigation of performance requirements for sanitary plumbing fixtures, conducted at the request of the Building Research Advisory

Board of the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. The report describes test methods that are recommended for the

evaluation of 16 performance requirements, and the nature of further

work required to complete the development of four or five additional

test procedures.

The suitability of various existing test methods for evaluating the

functional and performance characteristics of sanitary plumbing

fixtures was investigated in the laboratory. In addition, new or modified tests for certain characteristics were developed. Field

inspection trips were made to provide the NBS project staff with

up-to-date information on certain manufacturing processes and on installation and use problems. Levels of performance are suggested

- for the characteristics for which the development of test procedures

was completed. The complexities involved in the selection of valid

performance levels are discussed, as well as the elements of judgment involved in the process.

While some of the recommended test methods apply to more than one fixture type, the laboratory work was performed only on bathtubs

and flat specimens provided by industry through appropriate arrangements with the Building Research Advisory Board.

iv
1.1 1 . INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Plumbing fixtures such as bathtubs, water closets, lavatories, sinks,

and showers have been in use for many years. However, the recent

introduction into the market of new materials, such as reinforced

plastics, has emphasized the need for functional or performance criteria for these fixtures that would be applicable regardless of the

materials used. The wide difference in the physical, chemical, and

engineering properties of plastic fixtures and the more conventional

enameled metal or vitreous china fixtures tends to make a determination of the properties of the materials themselves inadequate for

the purposes of specifications, standards and codes. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to study the functional and technical

performance characteristics of sanitary plumbing fixtures and to

select or develop the test procedures required to evaluate these characteristics. Recommendations would then be published and made available to organizations who have the responsibility for preparing specifications, standards, and codes.

1.2 Background Information

Recognizing the need for establishing realistic performance requirements for plumbing fixtures, the plumbing industry and agencies of

the Federal Government requested the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, through its Building Research Advisory

Board, to undertake the development of the essential performance

requirements and methods for their evaluation. An ad hoc committee

of the Building Research Advisory Board, consisting of persons from

the academic, government, and industrial communities, was appointed

to plan and direct the study.

The National Bureau of Standards was requested by the Building Research

Advisory Board to carry out field and laboratory investigations, and

the development of test procedures for sanitary plumbing fixtures; and

to recommend suitable test procedures and performance limits to the ad

hoc committee of the Building Research Advisory Board. The ad hoc com- mittee and sub-committees formed within it met with members of the staff

of the National Bureau of Standards at selected intervals to review

the progress of the program and to advise on its broad phases.

1.3 Authorization and Funds

The project undertaken by the National Bureau of Standards was authorized by the ad hoc committee on June 17, 1964, in accordance with a proposal prepared by the Bureau. The National Bureau of Standards

authorized its project staff to initiate actual work on the project

the last week in July, 1964. The project proposal indicated that the

effort of the National Bureau of Standards would cost $75,000 during

1
the first year, and that some additional funds would be required in

the succeeding year to complete the project.

The project proposal, authorized by the ad hoc committee on June 17,

1964, was supplemented and replaced by a Memorandum of Agreement

between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Bureau of

Standards under date of May 25, 1965. This Memorandum of Agreement

authorized the expenditure of $67,000, reimbursable by the National

Academy of Sciences, and specified the work to be accomplished.

Since it was known at the time the memorandum was signed that these

funds would not complete the minimum laboratory work required to con- clude the project, the National Bureau of Standards agreed to provide

enough support to complete the tasks described below. The amount of

financial support provided by the National Bureau of Standards during

Fiscal Years 1965 and 1966 was approximately $20,000.

1.4 Work to be Performed

The Memorandum of Agreement described the work to be done under this

project as follows:

"The National Bureau of Standards (hereinafter called the

Bureau) will carry out the steps listed below in assisting the Building Research Advisory Board (hereinafter called the Board) of the

National Academy of Sciences, in connection with the study to identify

and evaluate the essential functional and technological performance

characteristics of sanitary plumbing fixtures. The Bureau will carry

out certain surveys, field and laboratory investigations and development of test procedures on sanitary plumbing fixtures and recommend

suitable test procedures and limits of performance of these fixtures

to the Board.

"Representatives of the Bureau will:

1. Visit large installations of plastic plumbing fixtures in one or more apartment and motel developments, plants and manufacturers of all types of plumbing fixtures, and selected laboratories

where tests of plumbing fixtures have been made.

2. Select and arrange shipment of a representative number of

bath tubs and flat specimens of various materials to serve as test

specimens

.

3.

Review existing test procedures of ASTM, ASA, NBS and other

organizations, commercial standards requirements. Federal specification

requirements, and selected regulatory requirements for suitability,

reproducibility of test results, and applicability to a wide range of

construction materials.

2
4. Identify, based on this review, existing test procedures that

should be tried out on various materials and make an initial estimate

of the areas where new test procedures will be needed.

5. Carry out trials of existing test procedures on flat speci- mens and bath tubs.

6. For the test procedures itemized below, the following tasks are to be accomplished and reported: (a) laboratory work essential to

establish the test procedure; (b) description of recommended test

procedure and necessary test apparatus; (c) rationale for the recom- mended test procedure; (d) recommend limits of acceptance under the

test procedure; and, (e) summary of supporting test data.

Test 102 Concentrated Loading (including bottom loading, rim

loading, and load to failure)

103 Dynamic Loading

104 Local Deflection

105 Drain Fitting Load

201 Surface Inspection

204 Impact Resistance

208 Scratch Resistance

209 Drainability

303 Localized Heat Source

501 Household Chemicals

502 Stain Resistance

503 Color Stability

7. For the test procedures itemized below, the following tasks

are to be accomplished and reported: (a) laboratory work essential to

ascertaining the adequacy of the existing test procedure; (b) laboratory investigation necessary to indicate means for achieving needed new test procedures; (c) rationale for the laboratory work performed,

and (d) summary of supporting test data.

Test 203 Abrasion Resistance

203A Cleanability and Soilability

207 Slip Resistance

302 Bond Maintenance

304 Thermal Shock

8. The preceding tests (6 and 7 above) are to be applied to

bath tubs; however, extrapolations of data and findings to other fixture types are to be provided wherever possible.

"The Bureau shall submit to the Board quarterly progress reports

on the activities being carried out under this agreement and at the con- clusion of the work under the agreement a final report acceptable to the

Board. The Bureau agrees that such additional reports as may be agreed

upon by authorized representatives of the National Academy of Sciences

and the Bureau will be submitted."

3
During the discussion of significant performance characteristics of

sanitary plumbing fixtures in various meetings of the ad hoc com- mittee, a number of additional characteristics were identified, as listed below. Some of these were specifically excluded from the

scope of the work of the National Bureau of Standards in the approved

project proposal; others were deleted by mutual agreement with the

ad hoc committee at a later time; and a few were studied but no test

procedures were recommended for reasons cited in the report. A

brief discussion of each of these characteristics appears at the

appropriate point in this report, as indicated in the Table of

Contents

.

(S101) Uniform Load

(S106) Watertight Joint Potential

(M202) Water Absorption

(M205) Dimensional Stability

(M206) Bond Maintenance (Mechanical)

(N401) and (N402) Noise Control

(C504) Surface Texture Aging

(C505) Odorlessness

(B 601) (B602) (B603) Biological Characteristics

1.5 Test Specimens

Two types of test specimens were utilized: flat squares approximately

4-1/4 in. x 4-1/4 in. in size, and whole bathtubs. The specimens were

furnished by various manufacturers in accordance with arrangements

made by the Building Research Advisory Board and the ad hoc Committee.

The plan adopted for specimen procurement called for 100 squares from

each of three or more manufacturers of vitreous china, enameled steel,

enameled cast iron, fibre-glass-reinforced polyester (FRPE), and stainless steel fixtures, respectively. Four whole bathtubs were to be

furnished by each of three or more different manufacturers of enam- eled steel and enameled cast iron fixtures, respectively, and four

whole bathtubs from each of four or more manufacturers of fiber-glassreinforced polyester fixtures.

This plan for specimen procurement was largely adhered to, except that

(1) no stainless steel specimens were obtained, (2) three brands of

polyester (FRPE) bathtubs rather than four were obtained, (3) only

two manufacturers provided flat FRPE specimens, and (4) two rather

than three makes of enameled steel flat specimens were provided. It

is not believed that these changes in the original plan for specimen

procurement had any substantial effect on the outcome of the investigation.

4
1.6 Field Surveys

Appendices A and B summarize the results of two limited surveys of

bathtubs that had been in service for varying periods of time.

Appendix A relates to glass-fiber-reinforced polyester bathtubs,

and Appendix B relates to porcelain-enameled steel bathtubs.

These surveys were made to acquaint the project staff with typical

manufacturing, installation, and use conditions, and to provide

some guidance in selecting recommended performance levels

Originally it had been expected that an extensive field survey

would be made to obtain statistically significant results relating to

various use factors, physical properties, length of service, etc.

However, this survey was not undertaken, principally because competent statisticians advised that a meaningful survey would be prohibitive in cost.

1.7 Performance Tests and Performance Levels

The information contained in this report concerns (a) performance

tests and (b) performance limits applicable principally to bathtubs,

but also applicable in particular areas to other sanitary plumbing

fixtures such as shower receptors, lavatories, sinks, water closets,

and urinals.

For a piece of equipment as intimately involved in family living as

a bathtub, the desirable functional characteristics include not only

the primary requirements such as water- tightness , drainage characteristics, strength and safety, but also the more subjective concepts

such as ease of cleaning, appearance, durability, resistance to

staining, burn resistance, and resistance to chemical attack. These

latter subjective requirements are likely to be expressed in qualitative terms involving such phrases as "acceptable appearance" , "normal

service life", and "typical use conditions", that have no precise

definition in physical terms.

Developing test methods that will be meaningful requires conception

of a test procedure that simulates to an acceptable degree the kinds

of physical, chemical, and mechanical exposure received by the fixtures in actual use. While simulative service testing is not new,

simulation of the interaction between human beings and household

fixtures in a way that will provide a basis for fair competition

among materials of unlimited variety presents additional complexities. It involves careful analysis of the important processes of

use, wear, and deterioration that are brought to bear on the fixtures

in service, and translation of these processes into a piece of

laboratory equipment that can be described and reproduced and that can measure the effects of these processes in quantitative terms.

5
After an acceptable test procedure and a test apparatus have been

developed, the performance of typical fixtures can be measured under

the selected test conditions. Although prototype fixtures can sometimes be obtained on which to collect quantitative data, more frequently only proprietary items are available. In this latter case,

proprietary information must be used for comparison with user re- quirements.

The selection of performance levels; that is, how much of the desired

characteristic represents acceptability, involves evaluation of human

aesthetic reaction as well as the frequency and duration of exposure

to a variety of human activities. In the case of properties that may

be expected to deteriorate gradually with use over a period of years,

valid performance levels cannot be set without extensive statistical

data on what constitutes use conditions and also on what users con- sider to be long-term acceptability. Such statistical data are usually

not available because of the prohibitive cost of obtaining them.

The factors of use conditions and tolerance level of users are intimately related to standard of living, psychology, and the effect

of long experience with conventional materials. Thus, what might

be considered a reasonably high performance level could be unsuitable

in the view of some users, but entirely acceptable to others. Similarly, after a period of experience with a new material, users might

come to accept or require a different level of performance than formerly. For example, it is not difficult to imagine the attitude of users toward the introduction of glass for windows, if the material

previously used had been some such transparent resilient material

like plexiglas. It might take many years to obtain consumer acceptance of the low impact resistance of glass under these conditions.

In the absence of adequate statistical data on use conditions and

tolerance of users, one practical approach to performance levels is

to select levels that either upgrade, downgrade, or maintain the

existing quality of a class of products in current use, based on the

measured performance of a suitably comprehensive sampling of contemporary products. Decisions with respect to upgrading, downgrading, or maintaining present quality require the studied judgment of experienced persons acting together. Performance levels arrived at in this

way would, of course, be subject to later adjustment as more extensive

service data or user reaction became available.

6
The steps that are considered necessary to establish valid performance criteria for a consumer product are as follows:

(a) Careful analysis of the important processes of use, wear

and deterioration that occur in service.

(b) Design of a laboratory apparatus that can suitably

simulate or reproduce these processes and measure their effects

in quantitative terms.

(c) Collection of performance data on prototype or commercial

specimens of sufficient variety, using the selected test procedures.

(d) Collection of statistical information on use conditions

and user requirements with respect to the various performance

characteristics

(e) Selection of performance levels, based on the laboratory

test methods, that give appropriate weight to user needs and the

measured performance of available products.

This is a complex process involving not only an extensive knowledge

of materials, but also competence and experience in (a) test development and apparatus design, (b) execution of complex field surveys

and statistical analysis, (c) human psychology, and (d) the balancing

of performance benefits with economic costs.

The "recommended performance requirements" contained in this report

are the collective opinions and suggestions of the investigators

based on a comparison of data on contemporary products with their

subjective judgments of user needs. These judgments were guided

by a limited amount of user reaction from field studies, by discussions with the subcommittees of the Ad Hoc Committee, and by technical

analysis of the physical, chemical, and mechanical processes involved.

It will be recognized that some of the recommendations are not supported by sufficient laboratory data to have statistical validity.

The amount of laboratory work carried out was limited by the time

and resources available for the technical investigations.

- 7 -
2. TEST PROCEDURES AND PERFORMANCE LEVELS

2.1 Uniform Loading (Bathtub) (S101)

No test method exists for the uniform loading of bathtubs and no test

method is recommended. This type of loading would be the result of the

weight of the bathwater. The amount of water necessary to fill each of

eight different bathtubs to the overflow outlet hole was measured. The

average weight of water was found to be 339-lb. A 300-lb concentrated

load at the center of the sump would be more severe than a uniform load

of 339-lb. Therefore, if the recommended concentrated static load test

(Sect. 2.2) is used a uniform load test would not be needed.

Load tests were made on three FRPE tubs to determine the effect of a hot-water load on deflections. For these tests 150-lb of water and

three 50-lb cast iron weights were placed in the sump. Deflections and

change in deflections with time were measured by using the procedure

recommended for the concentrated static load test (Sect. 2.2).

Fig. 2.1-1 presents the results of two tests on one of the FRPE tubs.

For both of these tests the three 50-lb weights were centrally placed on the bottom of the sump and covered a combined area of 8 by 16-1/2 in. Room

temperature (72°F) water was added for Test 1 and hot (140*F) water for

Test 2.

For Test 1 the three 50-lb weights produced a center deflection of 0.039-

in. and the addition of the 150-lb of cool water produced an immediate

additional deflection of 0.007 in. The deflections with time and on un- loading were not unusual for this test.

For Test 2 the three 50-lb weights produced a center deflection of 0.032-in

but the addition of the 150-lb of hot water caused an immediate upward move

ment of 0.026-in. at the center of the sump (indicated by a downward movement on graph). It should be noted that the immediate upward movement of

the sump from the hot water load was about double the downward movement

from the cool water in Test 1. However, with time the center deflections

for both tests approached the same value.

Immediately upon removal of the load in Test 2 the expected upward movement

occurred. However, as the tub cooled the thermal gradients caused a downward movement. It is unfortunate that measurements were not continued for

a longer period, but from other test results there is not much doubt that

the sump would gradually return to a position close to the original.

- 8 -
of

UJ s

a:<£z*

03D

ILU

CLcn

U.z<Uoo

h"O

UJ

li- UJOC

UJ

UJo

UJXHZo

UJ2HUo

h*O

UJ

U-u

UlI

CNJ e>

u. 9

AND

COLD

WATER

LOAD.
2.2 Concentrated Load, Static (S102)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to determine if a bathtub will support a 300-lb concentrated load at the bottom center of the tub without excess deflections or surface damage. The service load simulated is that of a heavy person standing in the tub.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Equipment Required for Test

1. Three micrometer dial gages graduated to 0.001 in.

2. A loading device for applving a 300-lb test load without shock to

the center of the tub bottom. Note: Either calibrated weight, or a suitable mechanical or hydraulic load applicator may be used.

3. A distribution pad to distribute the load over a 5- by 10-in. area. The pad shall consist of a sheet of 3/4 in. thick sponge rubber (shore

durometer hardness of 8 to 14) topped with a plate of plywood or stiffer

material having a minimum thickness of 3/4-in. This plate shall be of

sufficient thickness so that there is no more than .01-in. deflection

of the ends when the 300 lb load is applied during test.

(2) Support of Specimen During Test

The bathtub shall be mounted for test in a wood frame simulating normal

installation. Design of the supporting frame shall be such as to allow

for clearance under the tub for deflection measuring dial gages. The

manufacturer's installation instructions when obtainable shall be used

in spacing the 2 x 4-in. studs of the frame and in fastening the tub

to the frame. In lieu of explicit manufacturer's instructions the tub

shall be fastened along the waterbead to each stud of the test frame

by 1 1/2-in. long No. 6 steel wood screws using 3/8 in. steel washers.

The spacing of the studs in the supporting frame shall be no greater

than 16-in. on centers.

The top of the supporting frame shall be at least 12-in. higher than

the top of the installed tub.

If legs or other component parts of the tub are within 1/8-in. of the

floor line, after installation, rigid vertical support shall be provided

for these components.

The front apron shall be supported in a continuous bed of plaster of

Paris

.

For tubs without integral wall surrounds the back ledge of the tub

shall be supported by a continuous horizontal 2x4 in. wood framing

member that is fastened securely to the studs.

10 -
(3) Test Procedure

Before starting the test the finished surface of the bathtub shall

be inspected in accordance with Sac. 2.8 of this report. All defects shall be noted. All test work shall be done with the air

and specimen temperature at 75 ± 5°F.

The distribution pad shall be centered over the horizontal center

lines of the sump with the 10-in. dimension along the length of the

sump. The sump center lines shall be determined by using the average

length and width of the sump.

The three micrometer dial gages shall be placed on a rigid base beneath

the longitudinal center line of the sump, with one directly beneath

the center of the distribution pad and the other two within 2 in. of

each end of the bottom of the sump.

Note : The areas where the tips of the dial gage bear

on the tub must be flat and smooth so that a small lateral

movement will not change the gage reading by more than

0.001-in. These bearing areas can be prepared either by

grinding the under surface or by rigidly fastening a small

flat pate to the tub. In case the drain hole of the bathtub should interfere with the placement of a gage, a standard drain fitting spud can be inserted in the drain

outlet hole and a flat area on the spud used for the dial

gage bearing.

The specimen shall be preloaded by applying the test load of 300 lb at

the center of the distribution pad and left in place for 5 minutes.

The load shall then be removed and the initial dial gage readings made.

The tub shall be reloaded and gage readings made immediately following load application and also 5-minutes later, finally, the load

shall be removed and the dial readings made immediately after removal

and again 10 minutes later.

The average settlement of the tub and supports shall be determined by

averaging the deflections measured by the two end gages. The center

deflection of the sump shall be determined by substracting this average

settlement from the deflection measured by the center gage.

The surfaces of the tub shall then be inspected for cracks and spalls

in accordance with Sec . 2.8. Any other damage that develops from the

testing shall be noted.

(4) Test Report

The test reported shall include the following:

1. Specimen identification.

2. Description of specimen including overall height, width and length.

3. Description of test frame.

- 11 -
4. Method of supporting and fastening bathtub in test frame.

5. Defects, if any, prior to test.

6. Defects, if any, after test.

7. Deflection at the center of sump

a. Immediately after application of load.

b. Five minutes after application of load.

c. Immediately after removal of load.

d. Ten minutes after removal of load.

c. Recommended Performance Requirement 1

The bathtub shall show no damage to either the inside or outside surfaces

from the testing. In addition, the center deflection 5 minutes after the

load is applied shall not be greater than 0.125 in. nor shall the residual

center deflection 10 minutes after the load is removed be greater than 0.003

in. Notet Damage to the inner surfaces of the fixture shall be interpreted

as the appearance of any of the defects described in Sect. 2.8 of this report,

while damage to outer surfaces shall consist of cracking or separation of

reinforcing members.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

A test method for evaluating the structural integrity of FRPE bathtubs

is described in the proposed revision of Commercial Standard CS 221-59.

This test method requires that a full-size unit be installed according

to manufacturer's directions and an applied load of 300 lbs be distributed over a 3-in. diameter area near the center of the bottom of the

bathtub. The applied load is allowed to remain on the tub for not less

than one nor more than 2 minutes. The deflection is 0.150 in. The

residual deflection which is determined 10 minutes after removal of the

applied load is not to exceed 0.008 in.

(2) Test Data

The relationship between the applied loads and deflections are shown

in Fig. 2.2-1. Each pair of curves represent the maximum and minimum

deflections observed during tests of bathtubs manufactured from the

materials designated. The observed deflections for individual units

tested appear in Table 2.2-1.

Table 2.2-1 also includes the results of tests performed on units

using a 3-in. diameter disc as the applied load area. As can be

expected the measured deflections are larger for these tests.

Table 2.2-2 is a summary of static load tests to destruction. The

table includes results of tests on three FRPE units, one enameled

steel tub and one cast iron tub. The table is self-explanatory and

is presented for information only.

Table 2.2-3 is a compilation of various dimensions of all tubs used

in these tests and are presented for information only.

12
(3) Rationale for Test Selection

The basic concepts of the August 1964 proposed revision of CS221 were preserved in the recommended test; however several modifications were incorporated. The first was to enlarge the distribution

pad from a 3-in. diameter circular area to a 5- x 10-in. rectangular area. This change was made to more closely simulate the area covered by a person standing in a bathtub. The larger area also permits the use of dead weights for load application.

The test as described in the proposed revision of CS 221 made no provision for correcting for settlement of the tub in the frame

when the load was applied. The present test procedure considers

the possibility of error from this source and corrects for it

through use of three gages rather than one.

The length of time for the applied load to remain on the bathtub

was increased to 5 minutes to more nearly coincide with service

use

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

There are two reasons for limiting the center deflection to

0.125 in. The first is to ensure that the bath or shower water

will drain completely from the tub even though the bather remains

in the tub. The second reason is that larger deflections tend to

instill a feeling of insecurity in many users.

The reason for limiting the residual deflection to 0.003 in. is

intended to be an insurance against an accumulative permanent set

which might eventually make the fixture unusable. It is thought

that the tendency for the FRPE tubs to acquire a permanent set

would be greater at higher temperatures, but insufficient information is available at the present time to set limits for a test at

greater than room temperature.

An examination of Table 2.2-1 shows that all tubs tested met the

requirements of 0.125 in. center deflection and 0.003 residual

deflection.

13
Table 2.2-1 Center Deflections (300 lb Concentrated Static Load)

Specimen

No. Material

5" x 10" Loaded Area 3" Round Loaded Area Ratio

3" Round to 5"xl0" Areas

Immediately

After Loading

Immediately 5 Min.

After After

Loading Loading

Immed

After

Removal

of Load

10 Min.

After

Removal

of Load

Immed

Immediately After

After Removal

Loading of Load

in. in. in. in. in. in.

PD-1 FRPE 0.055 0.056 0.002 <0.001 0.061 0.001 1.11

PC-1 FRPE .083 .084 .003 .001 .111 .004 1.38

PB-4 FRPE .102 .104 .005 .001 - - -

SE-2 Steel 0.086 0.086 <0.001 <0.001 0.107 0.001 1.24

SA-4 Steel .109 .109 < .001 0 .126 .007 1.16

SC-2 Steel .107 .107 .001 < .001 .128 .004 1.20

CIE-4 Cast Iron 0.012 0.012 -0.001 <0.001 0.013 0 1.08

CIC-4 Cast Iron .015 .015 0 0 .017 0 1.13

CIA-1 Cast Iron .019 .019 0 0 .022 0 1.16

14
Table 2.2-2 Static Load Tests to Destruction (5- x 10-in. Area)

Specimen No. Ultimate

and Material Load, lbs .

PB-4 4,000

FRPE

PC-1 5,100

FRPE

PD-1 8,000^

FRPE

SA-4 5,500

Steel

CIA-4 6,900

Cast Iron

At 3,000 lbs-center longitudinal rib

broken. Failure in top-flange screw con- nections to studding and transverse crack

in sump between applied load pad and front

wall at ultimate load.

At 2,550 lbs-center reinforcing rib broken.

At 3,630 lbs-head end reinforcing rib broken.

At 4,090 lbs-drain end reinforcing rib broken. Transverse cracking of fixture across

sump at max. load.

Audible cracking of plywood stiffening mem- ber began at 2,350 lbs. Sump was bearing on plywood floor of frame when test was discontinued at applied load of 8,000 lbs. No

visible damage to coating. Plywood reinforcing under sump splintered.

At 3,550 lbs-spalling around rim. Primary

structural failure from buckling of flange

at head end. Spalling of coating in bottom

of sump near center and permanent set of

about 1 in. at point of application of load.

Crack in fixture along longitudinal center

line of sump about \ the length of the bottom

at maximum load.

If Loading discontinued

15
o

-GvO

rH

M2

pHm

00V.

Ht

00 1 00 Ov pH rH CO w rH 1 1 | 1 m M CO Ov CT\ U in CM rH pH GoM <2"

vO

rH oo 00 00

W 1 CO CO ««* U CTv pH pH rH in

4-1

M CM 1 1 1 i CO U CTv o <t G m co rH pH

00 pH oo

rH1 oo pH CO rH

m

oo

<3 vO 1 1 1 i CO M CM o o O vO CO rH pH I CMI CM

COI CM

CO

COI 00

00

COI COI o

CM I in

00 vO

rH Ht

i--.

m \ i i pH o CM 00 1 m CM rH

<fr 00 00

vO

pH

pH

pH I-- co pH o pH oo CO m CM rH

42

oo

•pia)

•GGG

40G

4-1 42

4-1 g

COi CM

40

CO H

CMI a

CO

<±

<T»

M2

CO

ooo

oooo o

M2o

vOI o

VOo

VO

Ovmo

VO

vOpHI o

CO I o

COI H

CO

COI Hfr COI coCO I mmi <1-

coi vO

r>.i mi vOo

CM

00r-l oo

r>.

oo

r^.

co

pHI

COI

CM

p-HI

COI CM

CTvI COl CMI CMmi CM

vO CO 00 pH CM G

CO CO pH 42 | 1 t 1 4-1 CM CO pH co

pH in CM CM

mo

M2 M2

CM

pHI

OvI co

int CM I <J\

CTVI com i CM

CMI CM

CMI CO

CM I p-l CMI pH

CM

coI

COI

CO co CM CM in

rH in CM CM 0)

vO

rH CM 00 00

4-1 G

a)o

pH CO pH CO <L) | 1 1 1 i CO

CNJ o CM o CO V4 rH m CM CM G>

COGGU

4-1

a) 42

4-1bo

>H 4-1G

t4

Gt Oh 5 s G G

co co

<4H 4-1 O O

CO • •H • G 44 X) 00 00 G G G •H G G •pi -pi O •pi p •H \ p G G G G G •H Jh co •—*1 CO 44 O 42 42 42 O CO • p O p G CM | G 1 • 1 1 •p4 C G • 4-1 o T2 O c G* pi G G G G G rH 4-1 a) •H G 42 pH G iH •H C* •iH 44 O C* •rH 42 42 •p| -H G G • B •H 00 Ph G CO •pi G 0- 44 -H 44 44 B E

•pi G 42 •pi p •H P2 G p G p

>H 0C hJ Q 42 p G o 9J p 42 p 44 p 42 Jh 44 44 44 44

a) *H 4-1 42 22 4-4 Jh e 42 42 44 42 CO 42 C 44 G <3 <J <3 <3

4-1 CO G oo 4-1 G •H 4-1 4-1 00 44 G 44 -H G 44 G a) 4-1 no G TJ s a, 4-1 Q a> a C rG X) G G •H G S Q 42 •H 0) •p| •H o G G G G •H 'r4 •r4 U & G pHlcMlcol-d-l 0t (0 p2 3 pci H 3 & Q Q t-3 Dc 3 iS G O

42 •pi 4-> B B G a) G n /~s G n n n •H 44 H 3 O G 42 O XJ G co G 42 O X) G PS G - 16 -
o O o o

o o o

ro CJ *S8i ‘avcn Q3llddV

17

FIG.

2.2-1

CONCENTRATED

LOAD

TEST

(STATIC)

50

SQ.

IN.

AREA.
2.3 Rim Load (Bathtubs) (S102A)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to determine if a bathtub will withstand

a 300-lb load applied at the center of the front rim without damage,, The

service load simulated is that of a person sitting or standing on the bath

tub rim.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Equipment Required for Test

1. The load application method shall be as specified in Sec . 2.2

of this specification

2. The load distribution pad shall be as specified in Sec . 2.2

except that the area of the pad shall be 7-by 7-in.

(2) Preparation of the Test Specimen

The bathtub shall be mounted and supported for test as specified in

Sec . 2.2. The inside surfaces of the tub shall be inspected in ac- cordance with the procedure described in Sec. 2.8.

(3) Test Procedure

The test load shall be applied through the distribution pad at the

center of the front rim. The center of the load shall be applied to

the center of the pad. The load shall be applied and left in place

for 5 minutes. After removal of the load the finished surfaces of

the bathtub shall be inspected for damage.

(4) Test Report

The test report shall include the following:

1. Specimen identification

2. Method of supporting and fastening specimen in frame

3. Description of test frame

4. Damage noted prior to test

5. Damage noted after test

c. Recommended Performance Requirement

No surface finish damage which can be attributed to the test shall be

allowed, as determined by the inspection procedure prescribed in Sec. 2.8

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

Commercial Standard CS-221-59 requires that a load of 300-lb be

placed on the deck corners and at the midpoint of the rolled-over

edge of the bathtub. The load which is applied through a pad of

suitable soft material is left in position for 1 to 10 minutes.

The loaded area is 7-in. by the width of the rim. No permanent deformation nor any cracking or crazing is allowed. The proposed Aug.

_ 18
1964 revision of this standard is essentially the same except that

the no-permanent-deforraation requirement was removed.

This revision also specified that the midpoint and one end of the

rim should be loaded through a 3-in. round pad. No provision was made for loading other areas.

(2) Test Development

The basic features of the August 1964 Revision of Commercial

Standard CS-221-59 were considered to be satisfactory. During

test development the 300-lb test load was applied at various

positions about the rims of the tubs. Deflection measurements of

the rim as well as lateral movements of the front apron were made.

Table 2.3-1 describes some of the lateral movement measurements made

on the various tubs. Since deflections of the rim and lateral movements of the apron due to an applied load are largly dependent on the

restraints imposed on the tub as a result of installation none of the

measurements were considered significant. The data presented in Table

2.3-1 is for information only and is not intended for use in evaluating

the tubs. No surface damage attributable to the 300-lb test load was observed on any of the tubs tested.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

The recommended test procedure is similar to that outlined in CS-221-59,

with one exception. The single test area, chosen as the center of the

front rim, subjects the tub to the greatest possible flexural load and

therefore is the most desirable location for applying the test load.

The rim load test is recommended as simulating the service load from

a heavy person sitting or standing on the rim. The test is needed to

evaluate the resistance to surface damage that possibly could result

from high flexural stresses.

(4)

Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The recommended performance requirements states that: no surface

finish damage; which can be attributed to the test shall be allowed.

No limit on deflection or lateral movement is included in this rec- ommendation as the structural rigidity of the tub is determined by

the performance requirements of the static load test. (Sec . 2.2)

In addition, lateral movement and resultant forces in service are affected by the degree of restraint offered by the method of installation, both of which may vary widely. The 300-lb. load recommended

approximates the weight of a very large person. It seems reasonable to expect a bathtub to withstand a service loading of this

magnitude without surface damage.

- 19 -
T'tble

2.3-1

Rim

Load

Test

Results Xa X

T3 a a o O a

t—l Pc • 00 o T3 r-4 o XI C 1 a* o o —1

Pd • 1 o o a 1 + o •H CO (0aQ oo oo

Cl T3 a a a Pc <$ o

fH T3 m a oa

lb.

w

as

in. o CM CO rH

a/ a T“1 O r-4 rH X o a O O o o a o a a a CO o o o X 1 + 1 i a aXXaaao X

•a a) a

Cl a o o o a a T—1

Pc

T“l <4-1 o a a X a £

02 o o Q —4 X CO CO <n CM o 1 a o o o i—4 CM i—4 o a a o O a o o o a CO i o a X 1 1 1 1 a a aX

CMo oo

CMoo oaa

C/2 a a a o o o

r-H r—1rH a a a w Pd w a a a M M M

pa pa pa a a a

oi P*J Pd X X X X X X

Pc Pc E CO co CO

mmm a a a o o a ozaae

•Hoaa

C/2

rH

w

T—1 1 H1 ati Mt-1 CM1 1 < 1o Pd o PD <J o Pd M M M

pa Ph CO CO CO o O O

20

_1/

Negative

deflections

indicate

movememt

away

from

sump.
2.4 Concentrated Dynamic Load (Bathtub) (S103)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to determine if the bathtub will withstand,

without causing visible damage, an impact load simulating a person falling or jumping into a bathtub.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

The falling body test load shall consist of lead shot in a leather

bag. The total weight of the falling body shall be 150 lb (± 1 lb).

The bag shall be cylindrical, 9 in. in diameter by about 18 in.

high. The leather shall be similar to that described in Federal

Specification KK-L-201e for lacing leather. It shall be made from

at least two pieces of leather so that the bottom striking surface

will be seamless. A method for closing the top opening of the bag

shall be provided to prevent loss of lead shot.

Note: As the bursting force is high, the sewing of the seams is

critical. The size of thread used should be as large as practical to reduce the tendency of the thread to cut the

leather

The method of hanging and releasing the bag shall be such that the

center of the point of impact in the tub can be estimated to within

0.5 in. and the height-of -drop can be adjusted to within 0.1 in.

Note: The buckle from an automotive safety seat belt is satisfactory for a release mechanism.

(2) Preparation of Test Specimen

The bathtub shall be mounted and prepared for test as specified in

Sec. 2.2. The center of the sump shall be determined as in Par.

2.2 b(3), and marked.

(3) Test Procedure

The center of the bag shall strike within 0.5 in. of the center of

the sump.

The bag shall be dropped successively from heights of 5, 10, and 15

in., measured vertically from the center of the bottom surface of

the bag to the point marked as the center of the sump. One drop

shall be made at each height.

After the final 15-in. drop, the finished surface of the specimen

shall be inspected for defects in accordance with Sec. 2.8.

- 21
(4) Test Report

The test report shall include the following information:

1. Specimen identification

2. Method of supporting and fastening specimen in test frame

3. Description of test frame

4. Defects noted prior to test

5. Defects noted after test

c. Recommended Performance Requirement

The fixture shall withstand without damage the test conditions specified in

Par. 2.4b(3) (15 in. drop of the 150-lb weight). Damage shall consist of the

presence of any surface defects in tae fixture that were not present prior to

testing.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Test Development

A review of the literature revealed no existing standard test method

that would produce the required conditions. Therefore, a simple

falling-body test was developed to simulate the type of dynamic loading that might occur in service. A variety of containers, weights,

support conditions, shock-absorbing pads, and heights-of-drop were

tried prior to selection of the recommended dynamic test. Metal con- tainers proved to be too difficult to control after impact. Sandfilled bags were too bulky and also difficult to control. Lead shot

in canvas bags burst the canvas when dropped. Finally a leather bag was obtained which would withstand the force from the impact.

Initially a falling body of 300 lbs was used. However, this was

found to produce severe damage to some of the bathtubs except at un- realistically small heights-of-drop. The 300-lb test was abandoned

as unrealistic, as field information indicated very little or no damage from service inflicted loads of this type.

Electronic instrumentation was devised to record the duration of

impact and also the deflections. However, this was deemed too re- fined, costly and time-consuming for the information derived.

The results of the development work indicated that a weight of 150

lbs in a supple leather bag dropped in increments of 6 in. or less

should constitute an adequate test.

A relatively simple method was devised to measure deflections to

0.01 in. by supporting a 6-in. scale in a friction clamping device.

The scale was put into contact with the underside of the bottom of

the tub prior to application of the load and the initial reading

made. The deflection device had to be reset prior to each drop.

As for the concentrated static load tests (Sec. 2.2), three deflection devices were used so that the observed center deflections could

be corrected for tub and support movement.

22
The relationships between heights-of-drop and deflections are shown

in Fig. 2.4-1. Each pair of curves represents the maximum and mini- mum observed values for each type of bathtub tested. These data

are presented for information only and were not intended for use in

evaluating the dynamic properties of the various units. However,

they do illustrate a reason for not including deflection as a performance requirement. For example, for a 24-in. drop, the center

deflection for the castiron tubs was between 0.1 and 0.2 in., but

for the FRPE tubs, the deflections ranged from about 0.4 to 0.75 in. It does not seem to be practical to use a limiting deflection as a performance requirement because of the wide variations in test re- sults between materials and specimens.

The data presented in Table 2.4-1 show that damage to one steel

tub was observed after an 18-in. drop. It should

be noted that damage was observed only for the steel tubs. As the

tubs were tested in height-of-drop increments of 6 in. , it is not

known if the observed damage would have occurred uaa the weight been

dropped once only from a height of 18 or 24 in.

Originally there had been some thought that, in lieu of a dynamic

test, a heavier, static concentrated loading might be used. However, the data shown in Fig. 2.4-2 indicates that, if only deflections are considered, the relationship between the two types of

tests is rather obscure for heights-of-drop above 12 in.

Furthermore, if the static load corresponding to the first observed

damage reported in Table 2.2-2 for the destruction tests is considered, it will be noted that the damage occurred at 3550 lbs for the

steel tub. This static load is well above the equivalent static load

indicated in Fig. 2.4-2 for the 18- or 24-in. drop which produced

damage in the dynamic test.

(2) Rationale for Test Selection

The recommended test was selected because it represents qualitatively

the type of dynamic loading which might result from a person falling

in, or jumping into, a bathtub.

The possibility of using a heavier static load in lieu of the dynamic

load was discarded for the reasons stated in Par. 2.4d(l).

(3) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

No information was obtained regarding forces involved when a person

falls in a bathtub. Therefore, because the energy and force distributions in a tub from the impact of a falling person could not be

established easily, it was necessary to use more indirect means for

arriving at a reasonable performance level. The recommended 15-in.

height-of-drop requirement was based on the following:

" 23
1.

Field information (Appendix B ) was obtained that showed a negligible incidence of damage to pressed-steel bathtubs from

falls. Since some falls did occur, it can be inferred that the

present tub designs are sufficiently strong to withstand this

service condition. The pressed steel tubs that were tested showed

no damage at heights-of-drop of 12 in. or less, and only one showed

damage at 18 in.

2. A person falling in a tub would normally strike the tub bottom

near the end opposite the drain where the tub has enhanced structural

stability rather than near the center, where structural stability is near a minimum. Thus, the recommended performance level based on impact at the center may represent a more severe condition than

would be expected if a person weighing 150 lbs were to fall from a height of only 15 in. Also, the leather bag filled with lead shot

is probably more rigid than the human body and, for this reason,

could transfer more energy to the fixture at the instant of impact.

Thus a 15 in. fall of the 150 lb test weight might simulate a greater

height of fall for a 150 lb person.

3. The use of successive heights-of-drop (5-, 10- and 15-in.) was believed to be a desirable requirement since there was no information

available on the accumulative effects of impact loading; i.e., earlier

impacts of lesser magnitude might possibly lower the impact resistance

of the fixtyre.

Table 2.4-1 Results of Concentrated Dynamic Load Test

with the 150 lb Weight

Speci- men Material

Maximum

Height

of Drop Defects Noted

Center

Deflection

at Maximum

Height of Drop

in

.

in

.

PB-4 FRPE 24 None .74

PC-1 If 24 None .59

PD1

II 24 None .43

SA-4 Steel 24 Transverse crazing at load .37

point

SC-2 ft 18 Star crazing at both legs .47

SE-2 If 24 Star crazing at both legs .35

CIA-1 Cast iron 24 None .18

CIC-4 If II 24 None . 25

CIE-4 If II 24 None . 10

24 -
CAST IRON

,

FR

PE

,

STEEL

GON

CD

in

ro

CM

O

S3HDNI ‘dOdQ dO 1H913H

k 5

-
oo

CM

roOO

ooCMoo

CMoO

CMOO

<0Oo

CMoo

00

</> CDQ<OO

LU<

a:

hUJoooo£

CO o2<z>Qz

CLoxQ H

COLU

h*

LU H > X H O O r-. 3

LU

LU£H

LUm

xH

<0

LUO

»-<H

co o z

I-< Q

_J <

LU O X -I Xo o o z<

CM |_ » CO

M" LU

CM *" 6

Ll 2 6 -
2.5 Concentrated Load, Sump Sidewall (Bathtub) (S104)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to determine if the sidewalls of the sump

of a bathtub can withstand highly concentrated loads of relatively small

magnitude without excessive deflection, denting, indentation, or other

damage. The service load simulated would be the pressure exerted by a person bracing himself against the side of a bathtub, or other similar

load applications during normal use.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

The load application and deflection measuring devices shall be essen- tially as shown in Figure 2.5-1. The 1" steel ball shall be cemented

to the arm. The lengthsof the lever arras for the loading device shall

be equal to within .01 in. to provide for a 1 to 1 transfer of the

load. The counter balance shall be adjusted so that the lever system

is balanced without the weight hanger.

The tripod used for holding the .001-in. dial gage shall have thin

rubber pads mounted on its feet and shall have sufficient stiffness

and weight to prevent movement of the tripod during test.

The hanger for the loading weight shall weigh 0.5 - 0.1-lb. and the

test load weight shall be 25.0 - 0.1-lb. including the hanger. The

load may be applied in increments.

(2) Test Procedure

The bathtub shall be mounted and prepared for test as specified in

Section 2.2. The finished surfaces shall be inspected for defects and damage

in accordance with Sec . 2.8 prior to test: The temperature of the

testing laboratory and specimen shall be maintained at 75 - 5°F.

The test load of 25-lb. shall be applied to the side wall of the sump

at midheight. Four positions shall be tested, two of which shall be

near the midlength of the front and rear side walls. The other two

positions shall be about 12-in. horizontally from the original positions and on nearly vertical walls. The dial gage shall be read immediately after loading.

When setting up the testing device shown in figure 2.5-1 special care shall be taken to ensure that.

1. The lever arm with the load application ball is parallel to the

surface being tested.

2. The stem of the dial gage over the load application point is

directly on the center line of the ball 0

27
3.

The stem of the dial gage is normal to the surface on which it

is restingo

The loading procedure shall be as follows:

1. The hanger shall be applied and initial deflection readings

made on the dial gage.

2. The test load shall be applied and the deflection reading

made

.

3. Inspection of the tested surface shall be made in accordance

with Sec . 2.8. following removal of load. Special care shall

be taken to determine if indentation of the surface at the load point

has occured.

(3) Test Report

The test report shall include the following:

1. Specimen Indenti fication

2. Description of Test Frame and Method of Supporting and Fastening.

3. Defects and Damage Noted Prior to Test

4. Damage Noted After Test

5. Positions of Test Areas

6. Deflection Readings Made at Each Position

c. Recommended Performance

No visible surface finish damage, denting or indentations which can be

attributed to the test shall be allowed and the deflection at any position

shall not exceed 0.200 in. during load application.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Di scussion of Existing Methods

The c onimerc i a l Standard CS-221-59 includes a requirement for a deflection test for unsupported areas. A load of 10-lb is applied through

a 1-in. round steel bar rounded to a 1/2-in. radius at the end in contact

with the bathtub. The maximum deflection allowed under this load is

1/8-in. No permanent deflection is allowed. The proposed revision of

August 1964 to this standard is essentially the same except that the deflection is to be determined with a 0.001-in. def lectometer and the no- perraanent-def lection requirement was withdrawn. In addition this revision

required that the test should not cause surface cracking.

28 -
Both revisions of this standard were lacking in two essentials.

Methods for applying the load and for measuring deflections were

not specified or even suggested.

There are no other known standard test methods which are similar in

purpose to that recommended here.

(2) Test Development

At the start of the development work thought was given to developing

a simple hand-held instrument which would overcome the drawbacks in

the method outlined in CS-221. A preliminary design was developed

for an instrument similar in principle to the rubber-hardness-testing

durometer. As time was of the essence this idea was dropped and the

simple lever-dial gage arrangement shown in Fig. 2.5-1 was adopted

for the test.

The device used in the test work was the same as shown in the drawing

except that an additional dial gage was added to measure deflections

4 1/2-in. from the load point. It was thought that this additional

deflection measurement could be used to judge the extent of the cupping

effect when the load was applied.

The load of 10-lb, specified in CS-221 was thought to be unrealistically

low. After preliminary tests indicated that no surface damage should

be expected, the load was increased to 25-lb, for the test work.

Table 2.5-1 presents the deflection data from both gages for all bathtubs tested. The ratio of the two deflections can be used to judge the

extent of the cupping for flat areas without reinforcing members or back-up material. The more flexible FRPE tubs had stiffening ribs

or back-up materials which affected the deflection-ratios greatly.

For this reason the measurement of deflections 4 1/2-in. from the load

point is not recommended.

The measured deflections at the 25-lb, load point varied considerably

especially for the PB-4 tub. This bathtub had a 3/8-in. plywood stiffener cemented to the backwall but none on the front wall. The wall

thickness varied considerably on the FRPE tubs so some variation in

deflections was expected. No visible surface damage, denting or indentations were caused by the testing.

Table 2.5-2 summarizes the deflections observed when a 10-lb load,

as prescribed in Commercial Standard CS 221-59, was imposed on the

sidewalls. The maximum observed deflection on any specimen was slightly

less than half that permitted by the Commercial Standard.

29
(3) Rationale for Test Selection

The basic principles outlined in CS-221 were preserved, but

methods for applying the load and measuring the deflection were

incorporated. It was felt that these methods should not be left

to each testing laboratory to develop.

CS-221-59 originally required that there be no permanent deflection.

A requirement for no permanent deflection seems unnecessary because

the small permanent deflections resulting from the test have no aesthetic or functional significance. These very small deflections

are difficult to measure, and the lack of precision in measuring

them might lead to difficulties in interpretation of test results.

For determining the presence of any relatively large permanent

indentations, or denting, the use of the surface inspection

routine of Sec . 2.8 is satisfactory.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The reason for limiting the deflection under the load point is

primarily to limit the flexibility of the side wall material.

The limit of 0.200- in. for the deflection was set after considering

the results from the bathtubs tested.

- 30
Table 2.5-1 Deflections of

Unsupported Areas with 25-lb Load

Deflections at Load Point for Various Positions 2/

Specimen

Front

Center

Back

Center

Front

Head End

Front

Drain End

Back

Head End

Back

Drain End

in. in. in. in. in. in.

FB-4 0.145 0.019 0.119 0.066 0.112 0.007

PC-1 .054 . 100 - - - .078

pc-4 u .044 .062 - - - -

PD

.041 .048 .054 - - .052

SA-4 .020 .016 - .011 - .008

SC-4 .019 - .017 .015 - -

SE-4 .018 .014 .016 .017 .009 .014

CIA-1 <.001 <.001 - - - -

CIC-4 ^.001 - - - - -

CIE-4 .002 - - - - -

Deflections at 4 1/2-in. from Load Point

PB-4 0.085 0.013 0.012 0.033 0.119 0.007

PC-1 .025 .038 - - - .029

PC-4 - .017 .032 - - i

PD

.023 .021 .020 - - .026

SA-4 .00 7 .00 7 - .005 - .002

SC-4 .012 - .006 .007 - -

SE-4 .010 .009 .005 .009 .007 .004

CIA-1 <.001 <•001 - -

CIC-4 <.001 - - - -

CIE-4 <.001 _ _ _

1 / All test areas were at midheight of sump

2/ This specimen tested after being subjected

boil test described in Sec . 2.18

- 31 -

to 100-hr
•
Table 2.5-2 Deflections at Load Point

1 / with 10-lb (CS-221-59) Load -

Specimen

Front

Center

Back

Center

Front

Head End

Front

Drain End

Back

Head End

Back

Drain End

in. in. in. in. in. in.

PB-4 0.058 0.007 0.052 0.025 0.042 0,003

PC-1 .017 .036 - - - .209

PC-4 - .014 .023 - - - - PD

.013 .018 .018 - - .019

SA-4 .007 .006 - .004 - .003

SC-4 .006 - .008 .004 - - SE-4 o 005 .005 .007 .006 .003 .005

CIA-1 <.001 ^.001 - - - - CIC-4 <.001 - - - - - CIE-4 <.001 - - - -

— Tested in accordance with Sec. 2.5b c

2 / This specimen tested after being subjected to 100-hr boil test described in

Sec. 2.18.

31a
RIG

32
2.6 Drain Fitting Load (Bathtub) (S105)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to determine if a bathtub will withstand

without damage to the finished surface a bending moment applied to the

waste drain fitting. The service load simulated by this test is that

produced by differential movement between the waste drain fitting and

the vertical waste or soil stack as a result of shrinkage of the floor

joists supporting the bathtub. A similar service load could be caused

by thermal expansion of the waste or soil stack under certain conditions.

The recommended test applies to bathtubs only.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Equipment Required for Test

The apparatus required for this test shall be as shown in Figure

2.6-1. The apparatus consists of a rigid steel connecting device

(adjustable to fit various configurations of the drain hole outlets), a detachable lever arm, and a micrometer dial gage mounted

so as to measure movement of the lever arm when a bending moment

is applied.

The lever arm, with the gage mounted, shall weigh 7.25-lb. to produce an initial moment of 10.0 ft-lb.

The weights and hanger shall weigh a total of 20.0-lb. to produce

an additional moment of 40 ft-lb. Four, or more, weights of approximately equal mass shall be provided.

(2) Preparation of Test Specimen

The bathtub shall be mounted and prepared for test as specified in

Sec . 2.2 of this report. Special care shall be taken to insure

that the specimen is fastened securely to the frame. As an additional precaution at least 100 lb. of added weight shall be distributed on the specimen so that this added weight will tend to cancel

out the overturning moment of the test load.

When assembling the connecting device to the bathtub drain hole the

collar shall be adjusted so that there will be no physical contact

between the top washer and the tub. A bedding of freshly mixed

plaster of Paris shall be placed around the connection as illustrated

in Fig. 2.6-2. The vertical member of the connecting device shall be

plumbed when the plaster is placed.

When the plaster is partially set remove excessive plaster so that

no plaster extends beyond the 3-in. diameter washer and collar.

- 33
Finally, when the plaster is hardened the horizontal lever arm

shall be attached to the connecting device and the deflection

measuring dial gage shall be adjusted for indication of vertical

movement

.

(3) Test Procedure

1 . Before beginning the test the inside surfaces of the bathtub

shall be inspected for damage and defects in accordance with

Sec . 2.8 of this report.

2. This test shall be made in at least 2 radial directions 90°

apart including one for which the lever arm is parallel to the

long direction of the specimen.

3. With the lever arm in place the initial dial-gage reading

shall be recorded. The weights shall be placed individually on

the arm and deflections recorded for each increment of load. The

loading shall continue until the indicated deflection is equal to or greater than 1.25-in., or an additional load of 20 lbs. (40 ft-lbs.

of moment) has been applied.

4. After application and removal of the load, the inside surfaces

of the tub again shall be inspected for damage attributable to the

test in accordance with the inspection procedure prescribed in

Sec . 2.8.

(4) Test Report

The test report shall include the following information.

1 . Specimen identification

2. Description of test frame and method of supporting and fastening

specimen in frame.

3. Damage and defects noted prior to test

4. Damage noted after test

5. Radial direction of lever arm for each test position

6. The deflections for each load increment at each test position

7. The weight added at each increment (including the weight hanger)

c. Recommended Performance Requiremsnt

The bathtub shall withstand the application of 40 ft-lbs. of moment or a deflection of 1.25 in. as described in Par. 2.6b(3) without exhibiting sur- face damage (such as cracking, crazing, spalling, lifting of surface coating,

etc.) that can be detected by the inspection procedure prescribed in Sec . 2.8.

34
d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

A drain fitting connection test is described in Commercial Standard

CS-221-59. This test method requires that a 25 lb. weight be applied

by means of a lever arm 2 feet in length connected to the drain fitting

extending horizontally in a plane parallel to the rim of the tub. The arm and weight are placed in three radial positions, two of which are approximately 180° apart. The performance requirement for this test

is that no visible cracks in the bathtub surface shall be evident

when inspected with the fitting in place using a standard ink test.

In the proposed revision of CS-221-59 dated August 1964 the applied

load was increased from 25 lbs. at 2 feet to 50 lbs. at 2 feet. The

performance requirements remained the same.

(2) Test Development

The test as described in CS-221-59 applies the load through a "drain

fitting connection". After examining several drain fitting connections

produced by different manufacturers it was obvious that the rigidity

of the fittings themselves would be a factor to be considered in the

test. In order to standardize the test it was necessary to design

a "standard" drain fitting connection so that the same test conditions

would apply to all tubs. The recommended apparatus for the drain

fitting test is shown in Fig. 2.6-1.

After the apparatus was designed it was necessary to consider the

magnitude of service loads and/or movements which would be encountered

by a bathtub in service. The applied load in service would usually

result from the restraint offered by the soil or waste stack to the

downward moment of a bathtub supported by framing members undergoing

drying shrinkage. If lumber is not dried before installation the

shrinkage of 2-by 10-in. joists can be as much as 1/2-in. in the

10-in. direction.

An auxiliary test was performed in order to determine how much of

this movement might be transferred to the bathtub as bending moment

through the connecting assembly. This test was made with a cast iron

tub placed upside down on the floor and weighted at each corner to

offset overturning moments. Two different drain fitting assemblies,

complete with overflows and traps were obtained for this test. One

assembly included a cast iron trap and the other a 17-gauge brass

tubing trap. Otherwise the assemblies were similar. Each assembly

was installed on the inverted bathtub and loads were applied to a pipe extension of the trap outlet as shown in Fig. 2.6-3. The distance from the drain outlet to the point at which the load was applied

was chosen as the shortest possible between the drain and the stack.

This would simulate the most severe condition occurring in service as

a result of relative vertical movement. The movement of the outlet

end of the trap was measured by a 0.001-in. dial gage supported on the floor. The results of the tests made in this way are shown in

35
Fig. 2.6-4 and indicate that a load of about 50 lbs. applied at

a distance of 11 1/4-in. from the centerline of the drain caused n relative movement of about 1/2-in. at the point of deflection

measurement

.

Using these data as a guide the drain fitting load test was performed on one specimen of each available bathtub sample. The

test procedure was as recommended in 2.6b and the data are presented in Table 2.6-1. Fig. 2.6-5 presents some typical momentdeflection data obtained for one specimen. As is indicated in

this figure the initial deflection readings were with the 10 ft-lb.

of moment contributed by the weight of the lever arm. Because the

deflection caused by this moment was not measured directly the

moment-deflection curves for each specimen were graphically ex- tended back to 0-moment. Deflections determined by this method

are entered in Table 2.6-1 as the "zero-offset". The zero-offset

data is considered to be approximate because of the curvature of some moment-deflection curves.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

The service load which this test method is intended to simulate is

that resulting from a differential vertical movement between the tub

and waste or soil stack. The material of the tub around the drain

outlet hole should be either (a) flexible enough to bend with this

movement or (b) strong enough to withstand the bending moment caused

by the movement, without damaging the tub.

Thus there is a need for a test that imposes a moment equal to the

probable maximum that can be transferred to the fixture by conventional

drain fitting assemblies as a result of timber shrinkage or building

settlement. The recommended test is based on a consideration of, and

data on, these two factors.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The recommended level is based primarily on the results of the momentdeflection tests involving strength and rigidity of conventional drain

fitting assemblies. Therefore, a higher performance level should be

unnecessary unless new manufacturing or installation developments re- sult in drain fitting assemblies of substantially greater rigidity

than is characteristic of the presently used assemblies.

The limit of 50 ft-lb. of moment is about the maximum which would be

transferred by the presently used assemblies because of their inherent flexibility. The deflection limit of 1.25 in. at 30- in.

(equivalent to 0.5-in. at 12-in.) is conservative because (a) the

deflection caused by the weight of the lever arm is not measured by

36
this method, and (b) in many buildings, such as reinforced con- crete or steel framed buildings, or in well-constructed buildings

framed with dry lumber the differential movements should be much

less than the limit recommended for test purposes. On the other

hand, some factor of safety is needed to take account of differential

movements that can develop in some high-rise systems from thermal

expansion of waste and soil stacks.

It should be noted that all tubs tested resisted the 50 ft-lb.

moment without damage and with measured deflections well below

the limit of 1.25-in. at 30-in.

The test results suggest that presently manufactured bathtubs are capable of withstanding without damage a moment about the drain

outlet equal to or greater than the 50 ft-lb. likely to be transferred by the drain fitting assemblies ordinarily used.

37
ALL

PARTS

ARE

STEEL

38

FIG.

2.6-1

APPARATUS

FOR

DRAIN

FITTING

LOAD

TEST
39

FIG.

2.6-2

INSTALLATION

OF

CONNECTING

DEVICE

FOR

DRAIN

FITTING

LOAD

TEST.
b inches -I*

a inches ro|<r fo|^r

TRAP

CAST

IRON

BRASS

FIG.

2.6-3

TEST

ARRANGEMENT

FOR

EVALUATING

RIGIDITY

OF

COMMERCIAL

DRAIN

FITTING

ASSEMBLIES.
1

DEFLECTION

9f

IN.

FROM

DRAIN,

IN.

FIG.

2.6-4

TEST

FOR

RIGIDITY

OF

DRAIN

FITTING

ASSEMBLIES.
GO

DEFLECTION

AT

30"

FROM

CENTER

OF

DRAIN

HOLE,

IN.

FIG.

2.6-5

TYPICAL

MOMENT-DEFLECTION

DATA

FOR

DRAIN

FITTING

LOAD

TEST.
Table 2.6-1 Drain Fitting Load Test Results

Deflection for 50 ft-lb — Moment

Specimen Direction At 30-in. on Lever Arm Equivalent for 12-in. Arm

of Loaded

end of

Lever Arm

2/ Measured —

T7i Zero Of fset^-7

: Corrected

for Zero

1

Measured-^ Corrected for

Zero Offset

in. in. in. in. in.

PB-4 Out end 0.308 0.105 0.413 0.123 0.165

Out front .533 .168 .701 .213 .280

Out back .392 .09 7 .489 .157 .196

PC-1 Out end .265 .065 .330 .106 .132

Out back .242 .062 .304 .097 .122

PD

Out end .103 .025 .128 .041 .051

Out front .238 .059 .297 .095 .119

SI

Out end .548 .115 .663 .219 .265

Out back .625 .173 .798 .250 .319

SC-2 Out end .567 .132 .699 .227 .280

Out front .465 .107 .572 .186 .229

Out back .488 .117 .605 .195 .242

SA-2 Out end .770 .108 .878 .308 .351

Out back .257 .043 .300 .103 .120

CIA-1 Out end .085 .024 .109 .034 .044

Out back .094 .028 .122 .038

i .049

CIC-4 Out end .121 .026 .147 .048 .059

Out back .100 .026 .126 .040 .050

CIE-4 Out end .112 .030 .142 .045 .057

Out back .114 .037 .151 .046 .060

1/ Includes lOft-lb from lever arm moment.

2/ Measured increment of deflection caused by addition of 40 ft-lb

moment

3/ Extrapolated from moment-deflection curve (See Fig. 2.6-5)

43
2.7 Watertight Joint Potential (S106)

No test method exists for determining the watertight joint potential

of bathtubs and no test method is recommended. It would seem reasonable

that some requirement be made for the water bead along the wall . Federal

Specification WW-P-541b (1954) and Commercial Standard CS-77-63 both

specify a minimum upturn of the wall ledges to be 5/16 in. The minimum

upturn found on the tubs investigated in this test program was 3/8 in.

The watertightness of the joint between the floor and the tub apron is

dependent upon factors other than bathtub design. These factors are

(a) installation and support techniques, (b) differential thermal movements between tub and floor, (c) adhesion, (d) flexibility, and (e)

durability of the jointing material. An investigation into design

features of bathtubs which would affect the watertight joint potential

was beyond the scope of the present program. However, the recommended

tests for Concentrated Load, Sump Sidewall (Sec. 2.5), for Concentrated

Load (Static) (Sec. 2.2), and for Hot Water Resistance (Sec. 2.18) each

limit permissible deflections under loading. These limitations should

indirectly assure some protection against excessive movement of portions

of a bathtub in contact with the wall or with the finished floor when

the tub is subjected to loading. These maximum permissible deflections

also provide some guidance on the amount of movement that should be

accommodated by joint sealants.

- 44
2.8 Surface Inspection (M201)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the surface inspection test is (a) to specify a standard

procedure for inspection of a sanitary plumbing fixture for defects and

blemishes, and (b) to define the type and number of imperfections that

are permissible in a new manufactured fixture. Although the inspection

procedure as specified can be used for all types of sanitary plumbing

fixtures, the types and permissible number of defects and blemishes as stated herein apply to bathtubs only.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Inspection Procedure

Wash the fixture with soap and water and rinse with tap water.

After drying, use a sponge to apply an ink solution consisting of

50 percent by volume water soluble black ink in tap water, or use

an ink that contrasts in color if the fixture is colored. Wipe

excess ink from surface with a damp cloth and allow fixture to dry.

Inspect the surface of the ink-treated fixture visually at a normal

reading distance for blemishes and defects. The light source shall

be partially diffused daylight or substantially equivalent artificial light, with a luminous intensity near the inspection surface

of not less than 100 nor greater than 200 foot-candles. If surface

blemishes or defects are observed to be segregated in a particular

area of the fixture, prepare a small cardboard sheet or thin-metal

sheet with a circular viewing window three inches in diameter. Use

this inspection window to make counts of defects within the area of

maximum concentration of defects.

(2) Surface Finish Requirements

The surfaces of the fixture intended to be visible after installation

shall be smooth and free from local variations in color and texture

that detract from the appearance of the fixture. Some waviness is

typical of certain finishes, and this waviness shall not be a cause

for rejection. Other imperfections in the finish that shall or shall

not be permissible when the fixture is examined as specified in Par.

2.8b(l)are listed in Table 2.8-1.

(3) Definitions

Blisters - Rounded elevations of the surface that can be penetrated

by application of a localized pressure.

45
Cracks - Visible fractures in the finish, usually of a hairline

type.

Chips - Small damaged areas in the finish caused usually by loss

of coating fragments from a localized impact.

Dents - Local depressions or raised portions in the surface caused

by an impact, or a permanent deformation, in which no fracture

occurs

.

Dimples - Slight depressions in the surface that do not extend to

the backing material.

Dunts - Hairline fractures extending through the thickness of the

fixture

.

Die Marks - Visible scorings in the surface finish caused by improper

forming operations.

Lifts - Areas of coating that are separated from the backing material,

usually over a fairly large area.

Lumps - Raised portions on a finish caused usually by an accidental

application of a blob of coating material during the manufacturing

operation.

Molding Irregularities - Any visible distortion of small size

relating to mold imperfections.

Pinholes - Small holes in a coating that extend to the backing

material

.

Pores (surface) - Small voids at the surface of the finish.

Roping - Shallow ridges and valleys in a finish with no decorative

pattern.

Spalls - Small discontinuities in the surface caused by the loss

of fragments after manufacture. These discontinuities may or may

not extend to the backing material. In porcelain enamel coatings,

spalls of this type are often referred to as fish scales.

Specks - Particles of embedded foreign matter that produce areas

of contrasting color on the surface, but not including specks or flecks purposely incorporated into a finish to produce a decorative

pattern.

Wrinkles - Corrugations in the finish that can be seen or felt and

which follow no fixed pattern.

- 46 -
(4) Information to be Reported

The following information shall be furnished in the test report:

1. A qualitative description of color uniformity.

2. A qualitative statement on uniformity of texture.

3. The presence or absence of each surface imperfection listed

in Table 2.8-1 together with the size and number of each, when

present.

4. A statement as to whether the fixture passes or fails the sur- face finish requirements specified in Par. 2.8b(2).

c. Recommended Performance Requirements

The surfaces of the fixture intended to be visible after installation

shall meet the requirements for finish quality listed in Par. 2.8b(2) and

in Table 2.8-1.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Test Development

Surface finish requirements as incorporated into Commercial Standards

and into Federal Specifications were reviewed for each material that

is being used for sanitary plumbing fixtures. All of these requirements were quite similar. This permitted their consolidation into a single surface inspection test. The consolidation was done in such a way that any currently produced bathtub fixture that now passes its own commercial standard for surface inspection will also pass the

requirements set forth in Sec . 2.8(b).

No laboratory investigations were either possible or were they needed

in the development of this particular test. However, numerous inspections of fixtures were made using the specified test procedures.

(2) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

Since new fixtures that pass the requirements for surface finish

specified in the commercial standards are apparently acceptable to

the general public, there would seem to be no legitimate reason for

increasing the surface finish requirements from their present levels.

In effect, the requirements set forth in Par. 2. 8b (2) would insure that

the present quality levels are maintained.

- 47
Table 2.8-1 Surface Imperfection Requirements

Defect or Blemish Size

Max. No.

Permitted

Within Any

3-in. Diam. Area

Max. No.

Permitted

Per Fixture

Blisters — None None

Cracks in coating — None None

Chips — None None

Dents — None None

Dimples — 2 8 Dunts — None None

Die Marks — None None

Lifts — None None

Lumps — 2 8 Molding irregularities — 1 8 Pinholes None below over- flow line - 4 above overflow

line

None below over- flow line - 8 above overflow

line

Pores (surface) — None None

Roping — None None

Spalls — None None

Specks 1/100 - 1/64" 4 Not counted

1/64 - 1/32" 2 8^

1/32 - 1/16" 1 5

> 1/16" None None

Wrinkles — None None

a/ A total of 24 is permitted when a wall surround is an integral part of

fixture.

b/ A total of 12 is permitted when a wall surround is an integral part of

fixture.

- 48
2.9 Water Absorption (M202)

The purpose of a water absorption test for sanitary plumbing fixture

materials is, or should be, to evaluate the effect of water absorption

through the surface finish on other properties of the material that

are considered essential to performance.

No test is recommended for water absorption at this time, because

(1) existing tests are believed inadequate as performance tests for

this property, and (2) certain other tests recommended in this report

probably provide adequate protection against any important effects

attributable to water absorption.

A test method for water absorption of FRPE sanitary ware is specified

in Sec. 6.2 of the August, 1964 Proposed Revision of CS 221-59. This

involves total immersion of specimens cut from an FRPE bathtub in

water at 23° C for 24 hours, according to the procedure of Par. 6(a)

of ASTM D570-63. Water absorption is required not to exceed 0.507.

by weight.

Other test methods for water absorption of sanitary ware are described

in Par. 6.3 of CS 20-63 (Vitreous China), Par. 13 of CS 111-43 (Vitreous-Glazed Earthenware), and Par. 10.11.1 of FS WW-p-541b-54 (Vit- reous China). These involve total exposure of broken specimens to

boiling water, after which the absorption is required not to exceed

specified percentages by weight.

These tests are not considered to be an adequate simulation of typical

exposure of a bathtub to water under normal use conditions. Among the

deficiencies of these tests as performance tests to evaluate the waterabsorption effect on sanitary ware are the following:

1. Some of the tests involve the unrepresentative exposure of

both surfaces and cut or broken edges of a specimen to water at unrealistically high temperatures. Furthermore, different materials with

suitable service records are known to absorb widely varying amounts of

water in immersion tests of cut or broken specimens.

2. For the kinds of materials used for bathtubs, failure caused

by water absorption is more likely to result from flaws or defects

that are widely separated rather than from uniform penetration of

water. The exposure of small specimens cut from the fixture is not

likely to reveal defects at the fillets or curved areas between the

bottom and sidewalls.

- 49 -
3. The existing test methods are considered useful essentially as quality control tests for materials on which some service experience

on performance has been accumulated} hence, without modifications,

they probably would have limited value for new materials even as quality control tests.

Several of the tests recommended in this report are believed to provide

the needed protection against possible deleterious effects of water

absorption through the finished surfaces of sanitary ware. These are given in Sec. 2.18 (Hot Water Resistance), Sec. 2.10 (Abrasion Resistance), Sec. 2.12 (Surface Impact Resistance), and Sec. 2.16 (Scratch

Resistance). However, it is emphasized here that no correlation

between test results and service performance has been attempted as

it relates to water absorption per se, nor were any measurements of

water absorption made in developing the recommended tests.

50 -
2.10 Abrasion Resistance (M203)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate resistance of sanitary plumbing

fixtures to the type of abrasion that occurs in normal use.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

The apparatus for abrading specimens shall be the Gardner Heavy Duty

Wear Tester*. This apparatus as used herein abrades specimens by the

reciprocating action of four brushes moving back and forth across 12

specimens. The specimens are mounted at the same level on a horizontal

bed. A water slurry of scouring powder is fed continuously through

small holes in the brushes while the equipment is in operation. The

brushes, each of which carries a load of 275 grams, traverse the speci- mens at a fixed frequency of 120 strokes (60 cycles) per minute. The

length of the stroke is 13 inches. The velocity of travel is constant

except during the reversal at the end of each stroke. The feed rate

of the slurry through each brush is controlled at 3.0 to 3.5 ml per

minute. The brushes are mounted in brush holders, provided with fittings

for plastic tubing, 1/8-inch inside diameter. The slurry is contained

in a battery jar, 8 inches in diameter by 12 inches high. Four aluminum

tubes extend into the jar and plastic tubing, 1/8-inch inside diameter,

is connected to these tubes. The slurry is kept in suspension with a motor-driven stirring apparatus. The slurry is delivered to the four

brush holders through the plastic tubing by means of a metering pump.

The apparatus for measuring abrasive wear depth shall consist of a dial

thickness or depth gage, graduated in 0.001 inch increments with a sensor stem (1/4-inch in diameter). The gage shall be mounted on a clamp above a flat plate, so that the height above the plate can be

adjusted for specimens of varying thickness.

(2) Standard Abrasive

A "standard" abrasive slurry, rather than the slurry of household

scouring powder specified in the proposed revision of Commercial

Standard CS 221-59, shall be used for the test described herein.

This slurry shall be prepared from the following ingredients:

Ground quartz powder 2700 grams

Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 15 grams

Trisodium phosphate 60 grams

Water 3000 ml

*Available from Gardner Laboratory, Inc., P.0. Box 5728, Bethesda, Md. 20014

51
The ground quartz powder shall conform to the following sizing*:

Through a U.S. No. 80 mesh sieve 100%

Through a No. 160 mesh sieve 98%

Through a No. 200 mesh sieve 93%

Through a No. 325 mesh sieve 74%

(3) Specimens

The specimens for testing shall consist of three flat pieces, 3-3/4

inches square, that have been cut from the sump of the fixture. The

backs of the specimens shall be ground flat and parallel with the face

surface. Also, the edges shall be ground smooth and square. The final

size shall be 3-5/8 inches square. Prior to testing, plastic specimens

shall be glued with a water resistant adhesive to a flat 3-5/8-inch

square. No. 11 gauge, stainless-steel backing plate.

(4) Test Procedure

Test the three specimens following the operating procedure outlined in

Sect. 6.5 of the August, 1964 Proposed Revision of Commercial Standard

CS 221-59, except that the abrasive slurry specified herein in Par.

2.10b(2) shall be used in place of the AJAX brand powder specified

in the proposed revision of the commercial standard.

Dissolve the sodium carboxymethyl cellulose in the water. Next, add

the trisodium phosphate and ground quartz powder and suspend by stirring.

With the power-driven stirrer in operation, adjust the flow rate to 3.0

to 3.5 ml per minute. Note: The flow rate can be determined for each

setting by measuring the volume delivered in 10 minutes to a 100 ml

graduate

.

Clamp 12 specimens in the two trays on the horizontal bed, 6 to each

tray and 3 in a row, the four rows of specimens corresponding to the

four brush positions. Use shims as necessary to adjust the specimens

and end plates to the same height. If there are less than 12 specimens, use specimens of the same or similar material to fill in the blank spaces.

Assemble the scrubbing apparatus, consisting of brushes, holders, and

guide plate, and connect the plastic tubing from the slurry jar to the

brush holders. Start the pump and determine that the slurry is flowing

freely. Scrub for 10,000 cycles (20,000 strokes) except stop the

machine at 2,500, 5,000, and 7,500 cycles to observe specimens, to

wash excess slurry from the specimen trays, and to change the brush

positions (See Table2.10-1 below). Also check brush blocks at each

inspection period to be certain that the holes are free for the passage

of slurry.

* Ground quartz powder with this sizing is used currently in several

popular household scouring powders and is available as "No. 160 mesh

pottery flint" from the Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation, Gateway

Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

52
Table 2.10-1 - Schedule for Changing Brushes

in

Position of Brush/Machine*

Test Period in Cycles

Brush

No. 1 Brush

No. 2 Brush

No. 3 Brush

No. 4

0 - 2,500 1 2 3 4

2,500 - 5,000 4 1 2 3 5,000 - 7,500 3 4 1 2 7,500 - 10,000

* From front to back of machine

2 3 4 1

If the coating on any of the specimens should wear through to the

backing material prior to completion of the test as evidenced by a change in color and texture, remove the specimen from the bed and

replace it with another specimen of the same or similar material.

When the 10,000 cycles (20,000 strokes) have been completed, remove

all specimens from the bed and measure the abrasive wear depth with

the depth gage to the nearest 0.001 inch. In making this measurement,

place the specimen on the flat plate and adjust the clamp on which the

gage is mounted so that the stem of the gage touches the specimen.

Next, move the specimen to a position such that the stem of the gage

contacts the approximate center of the wear pattern. Set the zero of

the dial gage at the lowest depth that is observed in this area. Finally, move the specimen so that the stem of the gage contacts the

unabraded surface. This reading is the abrasive wear depth for the

specimen. The abrasive wear depth for the fixture shall be the

arithmetic average for the three specimens.

(5) Information to be Reported

1. Cycles required to wear through the coating in cases where the

coating is worn through to the backing material, as shown by change

in color and texture.

2. If no wear- through occurs on any of the specimens, report the

abrasive wear depth for each specimen and also the average for the

three specimens.

c. Recommended Performance Requirements

No wear-through to the backing material as evidenced by a change in color

and texture shall occur on any of the three specimens. Also, in those cases where no wear-through occurs, the average wear depth for the three specimens

shall not exceed 0.010 in.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

Three test methods for evaluating the abrasion resistance of sanitary

plumbing fixtures were investigated. One of these is described in the

53
Test for Abrasion Resistance of Porcelain Enamels, ASTM C 448-61.

The method of abrading specimens consists of placing fixed weights

of alloy steel balls, abrasive, and water in a cylindrical container,

with a rubber ring at the bottom to serve as a gasket. The balls

and abrasive rest on the surface of the specimen. The container

is clamped to the specimen and the assembly placed on the platform

of an oscillating shaker ("RoTap" machine with no tapper) . The

treatment time is calibrated through use of standard specimens of

plate glass.

Two types of abrasion are measured. For surface abrasion, the abrasive

is the -70 +100 mesh fraction of Pennsylvania glass sand (quartz), while

for subsurface abrasion, the abrasive is No. 80 electric corundum. Surface abrasion is measured by changes in 45° specular gloss and subsurface abrasion is measured by changes in weight.

Although both surface and subsurface abrasion tests by this method

have been shown to be reproducible, it has not been shown that this

type of abrasive action simulates that which occurs in the normal

use of sanitary plumbing fixtures. Abrasion of installed fixtures occurs largely from the use of scouring powder for cleaning. The

action of oscillating steel balls moving over an abrasive on the

surface of a specimen does not generate the same type of abrasive

action as that of a person cleaning the fixture with a commercial

scouring powder that has been applied to a brush, sponge, or cloth.

Another method which was investigated has been used for resilient

flooring but not for sanitary ware. The Schiefer Abrasion Testing

Machine was developed at the National Bureau of Standards by Herbert

F. Schiefer, Lawrence E. Crean, and John F. Krasny (J. Res. NBS 42,

page 481, RP 1988, 1949) and adapted for testing printed-enamel

felt-base floor covering by George G. Richey, Elizabeth H. McKenna,

and Robert B. Hobbs (Building Materials and Structures Report 130,

May 1, 1952). In modifying the machine for testing floor covering,

a brass cup was added to hold the specimen anda nylon brush and

alkaline soap solution were used to provide the abrasion. Both cup

and brush were rotated at 250 rpm with axes of rotation 1 inch apart.

Trials were made using this modification on specimens of porcelain

enameled steel, circularly cut to fit the brass cup. A slurry of

AJAX brand scouring powder and water was used as the abradant. The

same nylon brush used to test floor covering was employed with 4 lbs.

of force being applied to the brush. After 10,000 revolutions, the

center region of the specimen was worn, rather than the outer portion,

although the brush covered the entire specimen. Apparently only the

"high spots" on the specimens were affected by the treatment. In an attempt to eliminate this difficulty, the bristles were removed

from a nylon brush and replaced with sponge rubber. This pad was

54 -
then used with AJAX slurry to abrade a second porcelain enameled

steel specimen. Again the specimen was worn near the center but

not on the outer portion. In other tests, a cellulose sponge with

AJAX slurry showed practically no effect on a specimen after 10,000

cycles. Also, Pellon non-woven cloth was cemented onto the nylon

brush holder and another porcelain enameled steel specimen abraded

with AJAX for 10,000 cycles at a 4 lb. force. Although this treatment resulted in a more uniform abrasion, the surface being dull over most of the test area, the abrasion was still not uniform enough to measure. Because of these results, further work with the Schiefer

machine was abandoned.

The one test method in current use that closely simulates actual

cleaning practices for sanitary ware is that specified in Sec . 6.5

of the August, 1964 Proposed Revision of Commercial Standard CS 221-59.

The abrasion requirement in this proposed standard for FRPE fixtures

is that the coating shall not wear through to the backing material

after 10,000 wear cycles in the Gardner Heavy Duty Wear Tester, modified as described in the commercial standard. This test, with minor

modifications, was the one recommended as a performance test for

abrasion resistance. Results of tests using this method are given

in Sec . 2.10d(2) of this report.

Other tests that have been used for abrasion resistance testing of

sheet or plate materials were reviewed but no tests were made. A

list of these tests follows:

1. Test for Laminated Thermosetting Decorative Sheets, ASTM D 1300-53T,

sections 16-23 (Taber Abraser, modified)

2. Test for Mar Resistance of Plastics, ASTM D673-44 (falling sand test).

3. Test for Abrasion Resistance of Coatings of Paint, Varnish, Lacquer,

and Related Products by the Falling Sand Method, ASTM D 968-51.

4. Test for Abrasion Resistance of Coatings of Paint, Varnish, Lacquer,

and Related Products with the Air Blast Abrasion Tester, ASTM

D 658-44 (abrasive jet test) .

It was obvious that none of these tests closely simulated the action

of cleaning a fixture with scouring powder.

(2) Test Data

Table 2.10-2 compares the results obtained when sanitary ware materials were tested in accordance with (a) Sec . 6.5 of the August, 1964 Proposed Revision of Commercial Standard CS 221-59 and (b) the method

specified in Sec . 2.10b of this report. The agreement in the results

between the two test procedures is good. This is to be expected, since

the only differences between the two tests is in the abrasive slurry.

55
The data indicates that the "standard abrasive slurry" specified

in Sec . 2.10b(2) gives approximately the same abrasive action as does the AJAX scouring powder specified in Sec . 6.5 of the August,

1964 proposed revision of CS 221-59.

Coating thickness contours across the surfaces of a FRPE and a porcelain enameled steel specimen after 10,000 wear cycles (20,000

strokes) with "standard abrasive" are shown in Figure 2.10-1. Results with a porcelain enameled cast iron specimen, although not

shown, were similar to those for porcelain enameled steel. The

loss in thickness for porcelain enameled surfaces after the 10,000

cycle treatment was estimated as 0.0002 inch, although accurate

measurements could not be made owing to the unevenness of the

surfaces

.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

The reasons for recommending the abrasion test specified in Sec . 2.10b are as follows:

1. Of the available tests, the recommended test method simulates

most closely the abrasive wear that occurs in service through the common practice of cleaning sanitary fixtures with abrasive scouring

powders

.

2. The basic equipment necessary to make the test is available

commercially and the necessary modifications can be made in any

well-equipped laboratory. A similar test using this equipment is

already in use for FRPE fixtures; thus laboratories are familiar

with the equipment and its use,

3. The differences in abrasion resistance between the various

materials currently used for sanitary ware as evaluated by the

recommended procedure appear to be of the same order of magnitude

as indicated both by qualitative hand rubbing tests and field observations .

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The recommended performance requirement of no more than 0.010 in.

loss in thickness in 10,000 cycles is admittedly arbitrary since it

has not been possible to establish a correlation between the number

of cycles in the wear tester and the abrasive wear observed in

service. To establish a statistically sound correlation of this

type would require an expensive and time-consuming survey of both

porcelain enameled and FRPE fixtures. Since both time and budget

were limited, such a survey could not be made during the contract

year. Therefore, in the absence of any better criteria, the

recommendation of no wear-through and no more than 0.010 in.

thickness loss in 10,000 cycles was made on the basis of the

following reasoning:

56 -
1. It seems to be the consensus of the FRPE sanitary ware industry

that gel coat thickness should be greater than 0.010 in. both from

the manufacturing and end-use standpoints. Presumably this is a sound consensus based on industry experience accumulated over the

past five years. It should be pointed out that a polyester gel-coat

applied at a thickness of greater than 0.010 in. would meet the performance requirements recommended in Sec . 2.10(c).

2. The recommended limits would prevent the introduction of new

materials having an abrasion resistance appreciably lower than the

current gel coats. This appears desirable since until such time as

it can be demonstrated that household scouring powders will not be

used on plastic fixtures, a high performance level seems essential.

3. The recommended requirement of no wear-through to the base

material after 10,000 cycles is believed to be a sound recommendation

mostly because exposure of the base material would be highly undesirabl

from the standpoint of sanitation and overall appearance.

4. The selection of 10,000 cycles for the test duration is based on

the requirements specified in the proposed revision of CS 221. A

shorter testing period would not seem advisable at this time because

of the uncertainty in the correlation that exists between wear rates

and service results.
Table

2.10-2 -

Results

of

Abrasion

Tests

with

Gardner

Heavy

Duty

Wear

Tester > 0) G >

1-4 •H G 43 3 co cO G

rH cO G 0. CO G 3 G

42 Q g <J >

•H

CO

CO TJ G 4-1 (U rO G co G C G CO -H

tl O G

03 G rH G G G O cu CO O. 0< 03C

cO

4-1 CO o

0C o G O

•H CO r CO

CO co O CU £> O rH r—1 H o

CO o G >- P <u o

CO G G G G 4H H H < 3

4-1 o O 0)&

CO co i-H

4-1 G i—i 0 •H G in G

co <* •H G G

P4

M

ONoo• om

<u>

•H G 43

CO G G

>• G <U & G G & CU G 42 Q G <3 H

CO G T3

>4 G co G < CU co G o O -H < G rH G

CU O G w PH G G Oi •H

co to o

CO O G CO

CO o *> co

cu rH O G H o rH rHO

4-4 G G >, O G G O

rH G

CO G 4-4 G o < rH G G a

co CO i—4

<u G

0G o •H in G

•HGH

C*

ONooo

on

NO

<1>Ia

1*4

rO\ 42 |

CM O CO

CM 00

rH vO ON

rH NO in

rH -G" I—t m no f42) 42| o r-* o ON I NO co i no n-

<u|

9\ 2 m

m

NO

Ol

rHGGG

CO T3 T3 G G

rH rH G G B B G G-^ C C Ol G g do G G G

•H •H *H G G

rH rH G G G CO a O G G G CJ o O

04 04 G G

43 43 G G

>N B

42 oG G 4H GG G3 B G G G G G 3 3

CO CJ G o G o s

CO G CO O G G G

43 iH 50 rH 3 G O g G

CO G O •H OG G

CO CO G G G S G

CJ

CO G G •H

'» G G B G

CO •H G G CJ G G G

CL, O

43 CO G

CJ •H G G3 CO G G

rH * G g G

•H S G G > i—l C G G G S

•H O G G 43 • G •H G G G #v G G rH T3 G B G G 3 O G G

43 G G O

CJ 0 O G G CL. •H 4h G T3 3 G C G G 43 •H Cfl O G g

4h CO G G !>N G3 o > 42 G

co 43 CO T3 3 G CO G

CU o •H G G rH rH G T3 CL, G G &, 3 G s 3 G O co

co G co • G £ G co G G G B G • G G

•G > T3 B B O •H G G •H G to CO G O

C4 G 3 G G

CO G G CL, 42 T3 G CO G G 0 G 43 G G G G G CO G

43 43 G G rH H H B G t*4

G| rO\ IN

o|

433G

43GG

426og

4-1

4-1 3OOG

d. co

T3| Gggs

'al

58

-through

to

fiberglass

backing

occurred

on

one

specimen

of

the

three.
Q+

ino+o

in01 QI Xoo

LlJ CLcn

CL

LU

I-2

LUOO

CL

Ll. LUO£

COQ

59

FIG.

2.10-1

PROFILES

OF

ORIGINAL

AND

ABRADED

SURFACES

OF

PORCELAIN

ENAMELED

STEEL

AND

FRPE

SPECIMENS.
2.11 Cleanability and Soilability (M203A)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate both the aesthetic soilability

and cleanability of sanitary plumbing fixtures. Soilability is defined

as the degree to which a surface accumulates and retains the kinds of

soiling materials associated with sanitary plumbing fixtures. Cleanability

refers to the ease of removal of these same soiling agents. Retention

and removal of bacteria are not included in the scope. The discussion

of this test is related specifically to bathtubs and shower receptors

although it has some applicability to lavatories, sinks, and water closets.

b. Selection of Test Method

A specific test method is not recommended in this report.

An acceptable test procedure for soilability would be comprised of two

major elements: (1) a reproducible soiling agent that suitably simulates

actual soiling materials in the bathtub with respect to chemical composition, color, adherence properties, hardening and drying properties, etc.,

and (2) a suitable method for evaluating the accumulated soiling material

in terms of some physical property such as weight, volume, reflectance,

etc

An acceptable test procedure for cleanability would be comprised of three

major elements: (1) a soiling agent that suitably simulates actual soiling

materials in a bathtub (see above), (2) a scrubbing procedure that suitably

simulates techniques and materials used under actual service conditions,

and (3) a suitable method for evaluating the aesthetic cleanliness of the

surface in terms of some physical property such as reflectance or retention

of some tracer material, the presence of which can be detected in quantitative fashion.

Laboratory investigation indicated that the soiling agents developed for

other published test procedures did not suitably simulate the soiling

materials in a bathtub. Hence, the results obtained in soilability and

cleanability tests using these soiling agents were not believed to be

representative of actual service conditions.

This report describes a number of existing methods, laboratory investigation

of some of these methods, and development work on new standard soiling

agents and measurement techniques. It also summarizes the additional

laboratory work needed to develop a suitable standard soiling agent,

scrubbing procedures, and procedures for evaluation of accumulation of

soil and cleanliness of the surfaces of sanitary plumbing fixtures.

60 -
c

Discussion of Existing Test Methods

(1) Soilability

Most of the research work on soilability has been done with fabrics

and textiles. Obviously, human soil is the material being removed

in the use of bathtubs, shower receptors, and lavatories. This is

probably similar to the kind of soil found in soiled shirts and

pillowcases. Dorothea Marra and Lloyd I. Osipow (Detergent Age,

October, 1964, page 52), on the basis of previous analyses of the

material from such soiled fabrics, proposed a soil with the following composition:

Since further research needs to be done on a soiling medium for

testing sanitary olumbing fixtures, this formulation would be a good starting point.

(2) Cleanability

A number of different test methods have been used to evaluate

the cleanability of surfaces. These are described briefly together with a discussion of their relevance to performance tests

for sanitary plumbing fixtures.

(a) Cleanability test for glass fiber reinforced polyester

bathtubs, in Proposed Revision of Commercial Standard CS221-59,

August 1964. The soiling agent used in this test is a "standard

dirt" formulated of specified percentages of carbon black, magnetic iron oxide, calcium s te ar ate, motor oil, a wetting agent,

and water.

In Sec. 4.4.1 of the Proposed Commercial Standard, a test

method involving the use of the "standard dirt" for detection

of voids in the surface is described.

Sec. 6.5 describes the use of the test method as a criterion

or measurec of cleanability after a 10,000 cycle abrasion treatment of the surface.

In testing for cleanability as in Sec. 4.4.1, surfaces to

be evaluated are first conditioned by hand scrubbing with wet

sponge and scouring powder. About 5 grams of "standard dirt"

per 16 sq. in. of surface is then rubbed into the surface with

a dampened chamois, using heavy thumb pressure. The dirt is

allowed to dry for at least one hour and then washed with a clean, dampened chamois and liquid detergent before visual

inspection of the surface for dirt retention.

Carbon (Darco S-51)

Coconut oil

Coconut oil fatty acids

Mineral oil, heavy

Bentone 34

25.27o (by weight)

32.4

16.2

16.3

10.0

61
In evaluating abraded surfaces, as described in Sec. 6.5,

10 grams of the "standard dirt" is applied to the abraded speci- mens and rubbed into the surfaces with a dampened chamois, using

heavy thumb pressure. After the dirt has dried for at least one hour, the specimens are washed with a liquid household detergent

cleanser for about 50 cycles or until no more dirt appears to be

removed. Evaluation of the dirt remaining after this cleaning

treatment is accomplished by comparing the white-light reflectance

before the dirt is applied with that after the dirt is removed by

the specified cleaning treatment. Since this test is already in use for sanitary ware materials, data were obtained in the present

investigation following the procedures in the Proposed Commercial

Standard and also using a modified procedure. The results are given in Sec. 2. lid.

The "standard dirt" in the Proposed Commercial Standard is

not recommended in this report principally because of its ease

of removal. The findings on this characteristic will be discussed

further in Sec. 2. lid.

(b) Pencil Test. In the field measurements described in Appendix

A, marks made with a 3B drawing pencil were used as a "standard

soiling agent" on fixtures of various materials. Cleanability was categorized by ease of removal of these marks using a dry cloth, a damp cloth, a damp cloth with soap, or a damp cloth with household

cleanser. While this simple test provides a four-step rating or classification of cleanability, the pencil marks cannot be said to

simulate actual soiling agents in a bathtub in service.

(c) Washability Tests for Paint

1. A washability test for painted surfaces is prescribed in

Sec. F-2 e, Washability in Federal Specification TT-E-508,

Amendment-4, July 31, 1953. A soiling medium of raw umber,

petrolatum, and mineral spirits is applied to the panel with

a doctor bladfe- The coating is dried for 1/2 hour at 105-110°C

and then cooled. The panel is then tested in a windshield

wiper type of washability apparatus with wet sponge and abrasive

soap for 35 cycles (70 strokes). The "apparent daylight re- flectance" and 60° specular gloss are determined before and

after this treatment.

In considering the suitability of this test for sanitary

plumbing fixtures, it should be noted that the soiling medium

specified is unlike that encountered in sanitary plumbing fixtures. The use of a liquid detergent for cleaning, rather

than an abrasive soap, should be explored since the abrasive

soap might cause a change in the surface during the test.

2. The effectiveness of cleaning agents for painted surfaces

was investigated by Wesley E. Shelberg, James L. Mackin, and

Ross K. Fuller (Ind. Eng. Chem. j46, No. 12, 2572, Dec. 1954).

62
The specimens were soiled with "synthetic dirt", formulated to resemble urban and shipboard dirts. The formulation for urban dirt was based on previous chemical and

physical analyses of street sweepings from six large

eastern U. S. cities, that passed a 200-mesh sieve. The

following formulation was used to represent urban dirt:

Humus 38.07, (by weight)

Portland cement 16.3

Silica Powder 16.3

Diesel oil 0.9

Used automobile lubricating oil 1.3

Carbon 1.6

Iron oxide, magnetic, Fe^O^ 0.3

Sodium chloride 5.4

Clay, average grade 16.3

Stearic acid 1.8

Oleic acid 1.8

This formulation for a soiling agent probably merits investigation since it includes some of the materials likely

to be found in soils on sanitary plumbing fixtures. However, some of the elements of human soiling materials,

such as body oils and skin particles, are not present.

(d) Tests for Bacterial Cleanability . Gerald M. Ridenour and

E. H. Armbruster (Am. J. Pub. Health _43, No. 2, 138, Feb. 1943)

studied the "Bacterial Cleanability of Various types of Eating

Surfaces". Glass, china, stainless steel, and aluminum plates

were seeded with bacteria tagged with radioactive phosphorus,

p32. The dishes were washed under various conditions in a commercial dishwasher and radioactive counts performed on the

dishes. The above test is not considered applicable to sanitary plumbing fixtures since it is concerned with bacterial

cleanability whereas the present study is concerned with evaluating

aesthetic cleanability.

(e) Washability of Dinnerware

1 . The National Sanitation Foundation at the School of

Public Health, University of Michigan, has developed a Use and Wear Machine for simulating use and wear on materials and finishes for chinaware, as mentioned in

Western Plumbing Official for May-June, 1964. One

method for measuring the effectiveness of cleaning procedures is the "salt-shaker" test, described by E. H.

Armbruster and G. M. Ridenour (The Sanitarian, _23, No. 2,

103, Sept-Oct 1960). A mixture of 85% talc and 15% Safranine-0

dye is dusted on the surface and rinsed with water. Residual

red dye is an indication of remaining fatty oil or grease,

protein, and starch.

This is a simple method but not quantitative and applies more to food soil than to the soils likely to be deposited

on sanitary plumbing fixtures in bathrooms.

63
2. Louis E. Wells, Jr., in a Progress Report, pages

189-191 of the Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting

of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association,

Washington, D. C., Dec. 3-5, 1956 (Library of Congress

Classification No. HO 9651 .1C43) described a method for

evaluating liquid detergents using soiled dinner plates

and a weighted brush, operated by hand.

This might be a good method for preliminary testing

but a machine operated brush would give a more uniform

and reproducible cleaning action.

(f) Cleanliness of Floors. The cleanliness of floors has

been measured by Robert J. Weatherby (Journal of Environmental Health 2

_6 , No. 4, 239, Jan-Feb 1964). A predetermined

area of the surface is wiped in a controlled manner with a standard area of a standard fabric and the amount of dirt

picked up measured by light transmission, using a portable

densitometer. In order to test the procedure in the laboratory,

a standard soil was applied to glass plates and test wipes made

on these plates. The formulation of the standard soil is as follows:

Lamp black 0.5 g

Bentonite clay 10.0 g

Nonionic wetting agent, ethylene oxide - octyl phenol condensate 2.0 drops

Ethyl alcohol 2.0 ml

Water 100.0 ml

This method might be used to evaluate the amount of dirt

remaining on sanitary plumbing fixtures and thus to evaluate

soilability and cleanability but the amount of residual dirt

is probably much less than that found on floors. The soiling

medium probably does not resemble bathroom soil.

d. Laboratory Studies of Soilability and Cleanability

Laboratory studies of cleanability of bathtubs were made in the present

investigation on specimens abraded by the Gardner Heavy Duty Wear Tester

using two different abrasive slurries. One slurry was the mixture of

507o commercial Ajax cleanser and 50% water by weight specified in the

August 1964 Proposed Revision of CS 221-59. The other slurry was prepared at the National Bureau of Standards using non-proprietary materials

as described in Sec. 2.10 on Abrasion Resistance (M203) in this report.

The soiling medium used on the abraded specimens was the "standard dirt"

of the following composition, specified in the August 1964 Proposed

Revision of CS 221-59.

64 -
Carbon black, pigment grade 20% by weight

Iron oxide, magnetic, FegO^ 20

Calcium stearate 10

Motor oil, 30W viscosity 5 Nonionic wetting agent, ethylene oxide - octyl phenol condensate 1 Water 44

The liquid detergent used on the specimens abraded with the Ajax

slurry was the commercial detergent, "Mr. Clean", as specified in

the August 1964 Proposed Revision of CS 221-59. The liquid detergent

used on the specimens abraded with the non-proprietary NBS slurry was

a liquid detergent of the following composition, prepared at the

National Bureau of Standards.

Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate 8.0%, by weight

Biodegradable nonionic nonyl phenol - ethylene oxide detergent 7.0

Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, also

known by the trade name "Butyl Cellosolve" 1.5

Sodium xylenesulfonate 8.0

Distilled water 75.5

The results of the cleanability tests are summarized in Table 2.11-1.

The results show that the modified test procedure, using non-proprietary

abrasive slurry and liquid detergent, yielded greater loss in reflectance

for the FRPE specimens than did the procedure described in the Proposed

Revision of Commercial Standard CS 221-59. This was probably due

principally to differences in the detergents, since the data in Sec. 2.10

of this report on Abrasion Resistance, shows that the abrasion produced

by the two slurries was about equal for the FRPE specimens.

3 Table 2.11-1 Cleanability of Abraded Sanitary Ware Specimens

Material

FRPEC FRPEd,S

Percent Loss in White Light Reflectance, Rdc Specimens abraded by Gardner

Heavy Duty Wear Tester

with AJAX with NBS

slurrye abrasive slurry^

0.2 2.7'

3.1

Specimens abraded as in

ASTM C 448-61

with AJAX slurrye 0.4

Porcelain enameled

steel 0.2 0.1

cast iron 0 0.9

0.5

0.4

a. Each value is the average of values for 3 specimens.

b. After soiling with "Standard Dirt" and cleaning with liquid detergent.

c. Flat specimens supplied by the manufacturer.

d. Specimens cut from bathtub.

e. MR. CLEAN was used for the cleanability test.

f. NBS non-proprietary detergent used for cleanability test.

g. One of the specimens wore through the gel coat.

h. After cleaning with abrasive slurry, Rd increased 4.44.

i. After cleaning with abrasive slurry, Rd decreased 4.24.

65
The losses In white light reflectance, shown in Table 2.11-1 for the

porcelain-enameled specimens, were largely independent of the abrasive

slurries and detergents used.

Some of the abraded specimens were coated with "standard dirt", the excess wiped off with paper wiping tissue and the specimens examined

with a linear traverse microscope. An FRPE specimen abraded by the

Gardner Wear Tester showed numerous long scratches in the direction

of the wear pattern, with no pits. Porcelain enameled cast iron and

steel specimens, abraded in like manner, showed very few pits on the

cast iron and about 76 pits per linear inch on the steel specimen.

Specimens abraded as by ASTM C 448-61 method showed many pits. The

entire surface of the FRPE specimen was pitted with little or no space between pits. The porcelain enameled cast iron specimen had

357 pits per linear inch, while the steel specimen had 378 per linear

inch. From these observations and the foregoing data in Table 2.11-1,

it appears that deep scratches may affect cleanability much more than

do pits.

Limited laboratory studies were made on soiling media. The studies made

on cleanability showed that it was not necessary to use scouring powder

to remove the "standard dirt" specified in the Proposed Revision of

Commercial Standard CS 221-59, unless the surface was badly worn. This

was true even when the standard dirt was allowed to dry for 24 hours

before removal

Common experience with bathtubs indicates that "bathtub ring" adheres

rather tenaciously to enameled surfaces if allowed to dry overnight.

Many brands of toilet soap will also stick tightly to enameled sur- faces if allowed to dry. The field survey of installations of FRPE

fixtures revealed that most housewives used scouring powder for cleaning their bathtubs. Comparison of these observations with the laboratory experience indicated that the standard dirt specified in the

Proposed Revision of the Commercial Standard was more easily removed

than actual bathtub soil.

In an attempt to develop a soiling medium more like that encountered

in bathtubs, "synthetic bathtub ring" was produced on a number of flat

specimens of sanitary ware in the stainless steel tank used for the

Water Resistance Test, Sec. 6.1 of the August 1964 Proposed Revision

of Commercial Standard CS 221-59.

A soiling medium was first formulated from the following ingredients:

Mineral oil 10 g

Anthracene 10 g

Carbon black 10 g

Iron oxide, magnetic, Fe.-0, .... 10 g. Titanium dioxide, 100% rutile. . . 10 g Sodium Bentonite 30 g

66
The stainless steel tank was filled with distilled water and solutions

of calcium and magnesium chlorides and sodium bicarbonate added to

produce hardness equivalent to 300 ppm as CaCO . The water was then

heated to 120- 130 *F and a 17. neutral soap powder containing no additives and a 0.1% soiling medium was added. The mixture was stirred

and allowed to stand in contact with the specimens for about 30 minutes.

The tank was drained and the specimens allowed to dry overnight.

Another experiment was tried, using a superfatted soap in place of

the soap powder. However, in both cases, the "synthetic bathtub ring"

was easily removed by dry wiping, as shown visually and by examination

under ultraviolet light, which fluoresces the anthracene. This did

not appear to be a promising approach, because of the ease with which

the soil could be removed.

e. Recommendations for Future Development

(1) Soiling Agents

An essential starting point for the development of test procedures for both soilability and cleanability is a reproducible

soiling agent that suitably simulates actual soiling materials

in sanitary plumbing fixtures. Actually, typical soiling agents

may differ for bathtubs, lavatories, sinks, water closets, etc.

Based on the laboratory experience obtained during this investigation, it is considered necessary to explore actual bathtub

soiling materials involving hard water, bath soap, and human

subjects. Analysis should be made of bathtub soil to determine

the nature and proportions of various constituents as a basis

for synthesizing a representative standard soiling medium.

Consultation with the manufacturers of toilet soap and detergents is desirable as a means for identifying the principal

ingredients in soaps and to reduce the amount of research and

analysis required. It is considered possible to develop

a standard soiling agent that will suitably simulate the

chemical composition, color, adhesion properties, hardening

and drying properties, etc., of actual soiling agents, and

which can serve as a basis for performance tests on soilability and cleanability.

(2) Evaluation of Accumulation

It is probable that, with some initial experimentation in whole

bathtubs, the soiling process can be adequately studied on flat

samples cut from bathtubs or shower stalls, using a small-scale

apparatus. In this event, the accumulation of soil could probably be determined by weight, with or without removal from the

surface

67
(3) Soil Removal by Scrubbing

It is probable that the essential measure of cleanability is

the amount of energy or work required to remove the soiling

agent and to produce an appearance of aesthetic cleanliness.

This involves the cleaning device (brush, sponge, cloth, etc.),

the cleaning agent (detergent or scouring powder), the pressure

used in scrubbing, the force required to move the scrubbing

element across the surface of the specimen, and the number of

strokes over the surface. Existing methods do not attempt to

evaluate cleanability in these terms. These parameters of the

scrubbing process all vary widely in actual practice.

It would be highly desirable to standardize the elements of the

scrubbing process if meaningful comparisons are to be made for

different materials. If the soiling process can be effectively

produced on flat samples in a small-scale apparatus, it would

be possible to use the Gardner Heavy Duty Wear Tester, equipped with suitable brushes or sponges, under a standard pressure,

and a standard non-proprietary detergent or scouring powder, to

determine the amount of scrubbing effort required to clean a surface or to compare the cleanability of various surfaces. It

might be desirable to use a liquid detergent as the cleaning

agent rather than a scouring powder, to avoid possible problems

of particle imbedment in the scrubbing element, and to magnify

any differences that might exist in the number of strokes or work required to attain a given level of cleanliness.

(4) Evaluation of Aesthetic Cleanness

It is recommended that white light reflectance be used as a measure of aesthetic cleanness of white bathtub surfaces be- cause the apparatus is commercially available, it is sufficiently sensitive to simulate visual resolution, and a fairly

good correlation between the white light reflectance and visual

response already exists.

Some additional research work would be needed to develop suitable modifications of the procedure for colored plumbing fixtures. This might take the form of a different coloring agent

in the standard soiling medium. Correlation between reflectance measurements on colored surfaces with various degrees

of soiling and visual responses would also be needed.

Soilability and cleanability tests should be carried out on both new specimens and abraded specimens.

68 -
2.12 Surface Impact Resistance (Bathtub) (M204)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not the finished

surface of a bathtub will withstand certain impact loads on critical

areas without suffering mechanical damage. The impact load imposed by

the recommended test is a blow on a rounded edge of the rim by an aluminum

tube mounted on the end of a pendulum.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

The apparatus required shall be as shown and described in Fig. 2.12-1.

Essentially it is a pendulum type impact device made so that the tup

(striking part) strikes the inside convex corner of the front rim of

the bathtub at an angle of 45® from the horizontal.

(2) Preparation of Test Specimen

The bathtub shall be placed on the floor and leveled. Framing and/or

shims shall be used when required to prevent rocking or shifting of the

specimen when tested. In addition sufficient weights shall be distributed in the bottom of the bathtub to provide approximately 250 lb of

total weight including the weight of the bathtub.

The test area shall be inspected prior to the test using the procedure

outlined in Section 2.8. Only those areas without defects shall be

considered for test. Each test point shall be at least 2-in. from any

defective or damaged area.

(3) Test Procedure

The test apparatus shall be positioned so that the center of the tup

will strike the test surface at an angle of 45® with the horizontal.

This procedure is illustrated schematically in Fig. 2.12-1.

The area selected for test shall be along the inside convex corner

of the front rim. A total of 10 points shall be tested.

The pendulum shall be dropped against the test surface in 1-in. increments of height-of-drop until cracking, chipping or other damage in

the surface is observed, or a 30-in. height-of-drop is achieved. Inspection for damage to the surface shall be made using the procedure

outlined in Section 2.8. The tup shall be rotated slightly after each

point is tested so that a new area of the tup shall strike the test

point. The height-of-drop of the pendulum when the damage occurs shall

be noted. A description of the damage shall be recorded.

69
(4) Test Report

The test report shall include the following information:

1. Specimen identification.

2. Total weight of bathtub and added weights.

3. Location of the 10 test points indicating the distance of each

from the drain end of the tub.

4. The height-of-drop for cracking, chipping or other damage at

each point.

c. Recommended Performance Requirements

The average height-of-drop at cracking, chipping or other damage for the

10 test points shall be not less than 7.0 in. The minimum value for any

one point shall be 5.0-in.

d. Test Results It Rissussidft

(1) Test Development

Several test methods were tried prior to the development and selection

of the recommended method. The first method tried (Table 2.12-1) involved the use of a 1/2 lb steel ball 1-1/2 inches in diameter as the

striking object. This method was essentially as describe in CS 221-59

(Proposed Revision August 1964) except that a plastic cylinder fitted

with bubble type plumb devices was used as a guide tube. The steel

ball was allowed to fall free from various heights on both flat and

curved surfaces of the specimens. The result* of these tests indicated

that the convex surfaces of the tubs were most susceptible to damage.

It was also noted that the precise pooint of impact was critical. The

steel ball test was abandoned because of difficulty in controlling the

point of impact on the convex surfaces, and also the high rigidity of

the steel ball was not characteristic of objects likely to be dropped

on bathtubs after installation. A second series of tests was tried

with a pendulum apparatus similar to the recommended apparatus except

that the tup was a glass bottle. Variations in weights and dimensions

of bottles of the same nominal size plus the danger from glass breakage

led to the use of an aluminum cylinder as the striking object.

(2) Rationale for Test Selection

The primary reason for the selection of this method of test was that

the height-of-drop and the point of impact can be easily controlled

and reproduced. The selection of aluminum as the material for the

tup was prompted by the similarity of its modulus of elasticity to

that of glass.

70 -
The selection of the inside of the front rim as the test area was chosen because the test area was easily accessible with the apparatus

developed for this test.

(3) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The results of tests on a number of procelain enameled steel tubs are presented in Table 2.12-2. The reported results are confined

to porcelain enamel steel tubs only although porcelain enameled

cast iron and FRPE tubs were also tested. The results of tests on cast iron units are not included in Table 2.12-2 as no failures

occurred at the maximum height-of-drop . The same was true for the

FRPE tubs with one exception. Specimen PB-2 at a point of double

curvature failed at an average height-of-drop of 18.25 in. for 8

test points. Nine test points located at areas of single curvature

withstood the maximum height-of-drop without damage.

The recommened performance requirements were chosen from the results

of tests performed on the inside of the front rim of the porcelain

enamel units. The results tabulated for other test areas in Table

2.12-2 are included to show that a definite test area must be specified since differences in impact resistances among different areas of

the same specimen are significant.

The results of the telephone survey (Appendix b) indicate that approximately 20% of the in-service steel tubs will have impact-caused surface

damage. However, 3/4 of these damaged tubs were probably damaged during,

or prior to, installation.

71 -
TABLE NO. 2.12-1

RESULTS OF DROP IMPACT TESTS ON BATHTUBS USING

1/2-LB. STEEL BALL, 1-1/2 INCHES DIAMETER -

Location of

Test Area

Specimen

No.

Height

of Drop,

Inches

No . of

Damaged

Areas

No . of

Tests

Bottom or Ledge

(Horizontal Flat) SA-3 36 i a

3

SC-3 36 0 3

CIC-3 36 0 4

PB-2 36 i b

3

Inside Rim

(Convex Radius) SA-3 12 6 C

8

SC-3 6 i d

3

CIC-3 6 3

e

3

PB-2 24 i f

3

a. Small chip

b. Small gouge

c. Chips ranging from 1/16 to 1-1/2 inch maximum dimension

d. Chip, 7/8-inch maximum dimension

e. Faint mar

f. Fine scratches

72
TABLE NO. 2.12-2

SURFACE IMPACT RESISTANCE TEST RESULTS

(Apparatus used as shown in Fig. 2.12-1)

Location of Test

Area

Specimen

No.

Avg. Ht. of Drop

to failure

Inches

Number of

Drops

Standard

Deviation

Inside Front Rim SE-4 13.77 13 3.37

SA-4 8.22 9 1.64

SC-2 * 7.63 8 1.51

SC-2 7.33 9 1.00

SC-4 7.00 3 1.00

Outside Front Rim SE-4 10.33 9 1.73

SA-4 7.77 13 1.16

SA-2 7.73 11 1.27

SC-2 6.56 9 .88

SC-4 5.92 13 1.06

Inside Back Rim SE-4 17.66 9 7.97

SE-4 ** 16.22 9 5.30

SC-4 12.00 7 2.52

SC-2 * 10.88 8 1.46

SC-2 10.67 9 1.42

SA-4 7.63 8 1.19

Inside Head End SA-4 8.33 3 1.53

*2nd Set ** 2" X 4" timber under ledge
74

FIG

2JH

SURFACE

IMPACT

RESISTANCE

TEST

APPARATUS
2.13 Dimensional Stability (M205)

This characteristic was defined by the ad hoc committee as the ability

of a plumbing fixture to withstand the conditions of environmental

exposure in service, and the conditions of normal handling and storage

prior to installation without excessive distortion. There is no existing test method applicable to the determination of this property

for sanitary plumbing fixtures and no test method is recommended.

Extensive experimentation would be required to devise accelerated tests

to evaluate permanent distortion in service in relation to time of use. Some data on permanent distortion after exposure to concentrated load

separately and in combination with a water load are presented in this

report. Some data on permanent deflection during the hot water re- sistence test are also presented.

- 75 -
2.14 Bond Maintenance (Mechanical) (M206)

Commercial Standard CS 221-59 specifies that FRPE specimens exposed

to the ASTM B 117 salt spray test for 4000 hrs shall not exhibit any

"apparent" blistering, delamination or other surface defects. No work

was done on a test for this property in the present investigation.

The tests recommended in Secs. 2.2, 2.4, 2.18 and 2.20 covering Concentrated Static Load, Concentrated Dynamic Load, Hot Water Resistance,

and Radiant Heater Resistance, respectively, are believed to expose

the fixture to some of the more severe service conditions that are lilely to produce delamination or loss of bond. These tests should

indicate the ability of the fixture material to maintain the bond

between the structural back-up and the surface finish under service

conditions

76 -
2.15 Surface Slip Resistance (M207)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the surface slip resistance

of bathtubs and shower receptors. This property obviously is related

to safety in the use of these fixtures.

b. Selection of a Test Method

No test method can be recommended at this time, because none of the

existing test methods appear to be suitable, and it was not possible

to develop a suitable method within the resources available in the

present investigation. Two major elements would be pertinent to a suitable method:

(1) The sliding element of the test apparatus should effectively

simulate the surface properties and resilience of some part

of the human anatomy likely to be involved in slipping in a bathtub or a shower receptor. These properties would have

to be determined through further study.

(2) The method of initiating slippage, i.e., dynamically or statically induced, would have to be selected from further

information on falls in service (or under simulated service

conditions) so as to effectively simulate the mechanisms of

slippage in bathtubs and shower receptors.

Finally, a correlation between slip resistance values determined in

tests and actual slippage by human subjects in a service or simulated

service environment, using the same materials, would be highly desirable .

c. Discussion of Existing Test Methods

A review of test methods and apparatus for slipperiness of walkways

was included in a report by Task Group T-41, "Causes and Measurement

of Walkway Slipperiness," Report No. 43 to the Federal Construction

Council, BRAB Division of Engineering and Industrial Research. This was later issued as Pub.. 899, NAS-NRC, Washington, D. C., 1961.

In horizontal track methods, the sliding coefficient of friction at

constant velocity is the ratio of the force required to drag the

specimen to the weight of the sliding body, neglecting intermolecular

forces between the surfaces. In inclined track methods, the coefficient of friction is determined by the tangent of the angle of incline

of the plane surface to the horizontal. The angle is adjusted until

constant velocity is attained. The Sigler slip tester, a pendulum

77
impact machine, developed at the National Bureau of Standards for

testing slipperiness of walkway surfaces, was based on the premise

that, in the process of walking, slipping is most likely to occur when the rear edge of the heel contacts the walkway surface. The

value obtained from use of the machine, the energy loss in a measured distance of movement across the surface, is called the "antislip" coefficient.

The simplest method, a horizontal track method for floor surfaces,

used by the Research Department of the Hospital Bureau, Inc., employs

a 15-lb spring scale and an 8 x 10-in. canvas bag containing 10 lb

of lead shot. The bag is placed on two layers of clean cheesecloth

with the scale attached. If less than a 3- lb drag will pull the bag across the floor, the surface is considered too slippery. If a drag

of 5- lb or more is required, the floor is considered safe. However,

it was reported that the results depend on operation and technique.

Possibly a modification would be suitable for testing the slipperiness of bathtubs and shower receptors.

Another horizontal track method is the Egan Slip Tester, manufactured

by the Thwing- Albert Instrument Company, Philadelphia, Pa. Friction

is measured between two specimens, one secured to a moving platform

and the other attached to a weighted sled connected to a spring dynamometer or electric load cell. This would not be suitable for measuring the slipperiness of sanitary ware, because only one surface of

the sanitary ware is involved in slipping in a bathtub or shower

receptor

Friction of floors has been studied by means of a household floor

scrubbing and polishing unit, the power supply of which is connected

to an ammeter. Increased current indicates greater friction and

vice-versa. However, the brush is not similar in surface properties

to the human foot or other part of the anatomy which might slip in

a bathtub or shower receptor.

Another type of horizontal track method, measuring static friction

instead of kinetic friction, is represented by the Hunter machine,

the James Slip Tester, and the Dura Slip Resistance Tester, all

similar in principle. The Hunter machine consists of a slotted

weight, placed between two vertical guide bars of the frame, and a thrust arm pivoted at one end near the center of gravity of the

weight and at the other end through the center of a shoe. The sliding

specimen, a footwear material, is attached to the underside of the

shoe and rests on the track, a flooring material. Initially the

shoe is placed with the thrust arm close enough to the vertical so that the specimen will not slip on the track. By means of a screw

- 78 -
and lug, the shoe can be drawn forward by small Increments, increasing

the horizontal component of the shoe until the specimen slips on the

track and the weight drops. The position of the lug at the instant

of slippage is an indication of the frictional force. This method

seems deficient because the relationship between frictional properties

of footwear materials and the sole of the human foot is unknown, and

the method of initiating slippage seems unlike that involved in falls

in bathtubs and shower receptors

The Sigler Slip Tester is essentially a compound pendulum which sweeps

a shoe material over the walkway surface to be tested. A mechanical

shoe, forming the lower end of the pendulum, is so arranged that a test piece of rubber, leather, or other heel material, 1 1/2 in. square, can be attached to the underside of the shoe at an angle of 10, 20, or

30 degrees to a horizontal plane. A helical spring is used to press

the edge of the heel against the walkway surface. The pendulum, re- leased from a predetermined fixed height, is allowed to sweep over the

floor specimen or surface to be tested. A pointer attached to the

framework at the pendulum's center of rotation records the heights

to which the pendulum swings beyond the floor specimen after contact.

From the data, an anti-slip coefficient between the two materials is

determined. Deficiencies of this method are similar to, but possibly

less serious than, those of the Hunter method.

The British Portable Skid-Resistance Tester is an improved modification

of the Sigler Slip Tester, designed for measurements on walkways and

roadways.* It is also the basis of a proposed ASTM method for measuring

surface frictional properties. The slider assembly consists of an aluminum backing plate to which is bonded a 1/4 x 1 x 3- in. rubber strip.

The rubber compound is synthetic rubber as specified in ASTM E249-64T

and must not be more than two years old.

d. Test Results and Discussion

Three bathtubs were evaluated for surface slip resistance, using the

British Portable Skid-Resistance Tester*, one of the available existing

test machines, The procedure adopted for

these trial tests was as follows:

Clean the fixture with synthetic detergent and water and

thoroughly dry interior surfaces, taking care to remove mold release wax from new FRPE surfaces. Level and adjust

the test machine for 5- in. contact area ( + 1/4 in.). Take

four readings. Record the first reading in parentheses and

disregard. Move to another location, readjust the machine,

and take readings as before. Average the second, third, and

fourth readings at the two locations for measuring dry slip

Apparatus described by C. G. Giles, Barbara E. Sabey, and K. H. F.

Cardew, Road Research Paper No. 66, Dept, of Scientific and Industrial Research, London, England, 1964.

79
r«*i«tAnc*. Stopper the drain of the fixture end add enough

water to make a pool in the lower portion. Perform measurements as before but slosh water onto the test area immediately

before making each observation. Average the corresponding six

readings for measuring wet slip resistance.

Measurements as shown in Table 2.15-1 were made on one each of porcelain-enameled steel, porcel a in- enameled cast iron, and FRPE bathtubs,

using the British Portable Skid-Resistance Tester. There was a noticeable difference between wet and dry slip resistance, the wet surfaces

being much more slippery. There was no significant difference in wet

slip resistance between any of the bathtubs tested. There were some differences in dry slip resistance, porcelain-enameled cast iron and

steel tubs being somewhat less slippery than FRPE tubs when dry.

However, further study should be made, taking special care to remove

any mold release wax from 7RFI tubs.

Table 2.15-1. Measurement of Slip Resistance of Bathtubs

with the British Portable Skid-Resistance

Taster

Material Slip Resistance, Average of Six Readings

Dry Wet

FRPE 35 13

Porcelain- enameled steel 45 10

Porcelain-enameled cast iron 51 13

e. Recommendations for Future Development

Further work on a suitable test method should include attention to

the nature of the sliding element, the method of initiating slippage,

and correlation between service experience and test results, as referred

to in Par . 2 . 15 b

Other parameters that should be evaluated, if possible, are

(1) Resilience of fixture material, and of force between sliding

element and fixture surface. If any substantial local deformation occurs in the material beneath the feet of a bather^

the resulting "depression" might reduce the tendency to slip

due to a shift in body position. This effect, if it is appreciable, might be affected by unit force between the surfaces

in contact, area of contact, and resilience or flexibility of

the fixture material.

80 -
(2) Amount, temperature, and composition of liquid over test surface. It is conceivable that slip resistance may be different

for hot and cold wetted surfaces, and may be different when

soap is used than when only clean water is used. Opinions

have been volunteered by some persons that wet slip resistance

may be least when only a film of water remains in a bathtub.

Performance limits should be based on a correlation between test

results and data from a service or simulated service environment,

so that the limits set can be looked upon as reasonable in the

interests of safety in use.

The above suggestions are made principally because opinions have

been volunteered (See Appendix A) that some materials feel less

slippery when wet than others, and because these variables were not

studied in the present investigation.

81 -
2.16 Scratch Resistance (M208)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to provide a method for evaluating the re- sistance of sanitary plumbing fixture materials to the type of scratches

that detract from the esthetic appearance of the fixtures. Scratches

that cannot be seen with the unaided eye, either before or after accumulating soil, are not considered to be objectionable.

b. Definitions

(1) Scratch

For the purpose of this test a scratch is defined as a permanent,

elongated groove or a linear series of intermittent discontinuities

in a surface caused by the mechanical movement of an object in contact with the surface. A scratch is characterized by great length

with respect to both width and depth, and is further characterized

by displacement of material, without restriction on the method or manner of displacement. The displacement can be caused by any of

the following:

(a) Plastic deformation (the plastic flow and piling up of material

on either side of the groove).

(b) Cutting or tearing (the breaking of molecular bonds).

(c) Micro-melting (liquid flow resulting from frictional heat

generated by a large force on a small localized area).

(d) Crushing and/or plowing (the dislodging of material from the

surface, such that it either sloughs off spontaneously or accumulates as loosely adhering particles that can be easily brushed off).

(2) Visual Scratch Damage

Visual scratch damage is defined as the marring or disfigurement of

a surface by scratching to such an extent that either the scratch

itself or foreign material retained in the scratch is readily

visible to persons with reasonably good visual acuity.

- 82 -
c. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus and Materials

The basic instrument used for this test is the Porcelain Enamel

Institute Gouge Test Apparatus,* modified for scratching. The

essential features of the apparatus are shown schematically in

Figure 2.16-1. The reversible motor drives a screw shaft which

slides the carriage across the top of the elevating table at a fixed velocity of 4 in. per min. A specimen placed on the car- riage is contacted from above by a scratching tool mounted on the

underside of the counterweighted lever beam. The beam rests on a knife-edge at its fulcrum and the working end of the beam has a suspended weight pan for varying the load on the scratching tool.

The scratching tool is a right circular conical diamond with a vertex angle of 90° and a three mil radius point.** The diamond

tool is inclined 3° off the vertical axis in the direction opposite to the movement of the carriage.

Any other instrument capable of making a straight scratch under a constant, controllable load may be used. However, the diamond

scratching tool shall be as specified above.

The apparatus required for evaluation of scratches is a special

viewing box which provides uniform viewing distance and angle,

and uniform specimen illumination. A schematic diagram of the

box is shown in Figure 2.16-2.

One of the following soiling agents shall be used:

(a) The "standard dirt" specified in the August 1964 proposed re- vision of Commercial Standard CS221-59, Standard for Gel-Coated

Glass Fiber Reinforced Polyester Resin Bathtub Units. The formulation of this material is: 20 parts iron black (iron oxide, black),

20 parts carbon black (pigment grade), 10 parts calcium stearate,

5 parts 30W motor oil, 1 part wetting agent (Triton X-100 , Rohm

and Haas or equivalent), and 44 parts tap water.

(b) A white paste made by mixing 5 grams of titanium dioxide

(pigment grade) with 10 cc mineral oil (clear and extra heavy).

* Bulletin T-l, Test for Resistance of Porcelain Enamels to Gouging,

Porcelain Enamel Institute, Inc., Washington, D. C., 1942. ** Diamond points of this geometry are available from the Tabor Instrument

Corporation, North Tonawanda, New York, Catalog No. 139-55.

83
(2) Specimens

Specimens shall consist of flat, 4 in. by 4 in. pieces of the

material cut from the fixture.

(3) Procedure

(a) Application of Scratches

Specimens shall be preconditioned in the laboratory atmosphere for

at least two hours before test and then tested in air at a relative

humidity of between 45 and 65% and at a temperature of between 68°

78°F. When using the instrument shown in Figure 2.16-1, first

balance the beam in the horizontal position by adjusting weights in

the pan. Next, place a trial specimen on the carriage and raise

the elevating table until the specimen makes contact with the point

of the diamond scratching tool and then place additional weights in the

pan so as to give a small load on the diamond. The load, in grams, on

the diamond is calculated from the weight in the pan and the lever

ratio. When the carriage is started, the diamond shall traverse about

2.5 inches across the face of the specimen. After making the scratch,

lower the elevating table and return the carriage to the original position.

Repeat the above procedure with increasing loads on the diamond until

the approximate load is found that causes a visible scratch. This

load shall be called the "estimated critical load". Next, select

a series of loads such that five are greater than the estimated

critical load, by increments of 5 percent, and five are less than

the estimated critical load, by decrements of 5 percent.

After the estimated critical load has been determined, prepare a fresh specimen for testing by marking eleven reference points,

spaced 5/16 inch apart, along an edge of the specimen. Place this

specimen on the carriage and position it so that the diamond scratching tool starts its movement at the first reference point. With one

of the pre-selected loads in the pan, make a scratch (or pass) across the specimen. Repeat this procedure for each of the other

pre-selected loads; however, the order of applying the loads shall

be randomized- so as to preclude a regular pattern which might tend

to bias an observer, who later rates the specimen.

(b) Application of Soiling Agent to Scratches

In order to allow for elastic recovery and for any other delayed

effect of scratching, soiling shall not begin until at least 18

hours have elapsed after scratching.

84
Apply a generous quantity of the standard dirt to the specimen and

rub it on by hand with a soft cotton cloth. Rub in random directions

at first, but finally in a direction approximately normal to the

scratches. Continue the rubbing until it appears that no additional

dirt is being retained in scratches. The excess dirt is then wiped

off the specimen surface with wadded paper towels. All wiping is

done in a direction normal to the scratches. Several towels are used until no more dirt shows on a towel. One to two minutes of

vigorous rubbing with wadded towels is quite sufficient.

The above procedure is for white fixtures. In the case of black

fixtures the white soiling agent shall be used. The procedure is

the same except that the excess soil shall be wiped off until no more is visible on the unscratched surfaces.

When fixtures of other colors are to be evaluated, the operator shall

select the soiling agent that shows the greatest contrast with the

fixture color.

(c) Visual Examination of Specimens

The scratched and soiled specimen is placed in the bottom of the

viewing box and positioned under a holding frame so that the eleven

reference marks on the specimen coincide with eleven numbered

reference positions on the frame. An observer (other than the

operator) looks down through the viewing port and searches for

evidence of scratches. He records the number corresponding to

each reference position on which he finds a scratch.

The operator determines from his records the loads on the diamond at

which observable scratches occurred. The visual scratch damage rating

assigned to the fixture shall be the smallest load on the diamond, in

grams, that caused a visible scratch on the specimen.

In the case of a fixture with a surface pattern that is directionally

oriented, the rating assigned to the fixture shall be the average

rating obtained from two specimens, one scratched in the pattern

direction and one scratched in a direction forming the maximum

possible angle with the pattern direction.

(4) Information to be Reported

The test report shall contain the following information:

1. The color of the fixture.

2. Identification of the soiling agent that was used to detect

scratches

3. The visual scratch damage rating of the fixture.

85 -
c. Recommended Performance Requirement

The visual scratch damage rating shall be not less than 35 grams.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

Scratch tests have been in existence for many years. Perhaps the

oldest is the Mohs scale for determining the relative hardnesses of

minerals. Like the Mohs test, many of the later scratch tests are

also intended to measure hardness and are often designated "scratchhardness" tests. Generally, scratch resistance is correlated with

hardness, but not always. All of the known scratch resistance or scratch-hardness tests depend on the material being scratched by a hard object under controlled conditions. The hard object (herein

designated "scratching tool") may be pointed, such as a diamondtipped or hardened steel phonograph needle, or it may be sharpedged, such as a knife edge or a diamond cube edge. In some cases

the specimen is rated by adjusting the load on the scratching tool

until the first visible scratch appears. In other cases the scratch

is made under a constant load and the rating is determined by measuring the width or depth of the scratch.

Each of the known scratch tests was evaluated, but none was found

to be entirely suitable for rating the performance capabilities of

all classes of sanitary plumbing fixtures. A common objection to

most of these tests is that they were designed for a limited class

of materials and are not readily adaptable to a group of materials

with widely different scratch resistances.

(2) Test Development

The first attempt at developing a scratch test that would be suitable

for all fixture materials was based on determining the smallest load

that would produce a scratch on the specimen surface. The starting

point of the scratch was determined with the aid of a microscope.

Although this particular test appeared to rate materials in the

proper order of scratch-hardness, a valid objection to the test as

it applies to sanitary plumbing fixtures was that a scratch which

cannot readily be seen is not aesthetically objectionable.

A reappraisal of the original purpose of a scratch test led to the

conclusion that a better definition of the property that was desired

to be measured might be stated thus: "the resistance of a fixture

to the type of scratching in which either the scratch itself or soil

86 -
retained in the scratch becomes unsightly". Consequently, the

above-mentioned threshold scratch test was rejected and the "Visual

Scratch Damage Test" described in Section 2.16c was developed.

(a) Test Data

Data obtained during development of the Visual Scratch Damage Test

is given in Table 2.16-1. All of the enamel, vitreous china, and

gel coat specimens tested were white.

(b) Discussion of Test Data

Variation in visual acuity among individuals naturally leads to some scatter in ratings. However, the data in Table 2.16-1 shows that

the variations are not serious when materials of widely differing

properties are rated. Furthermore, it is believed that scatter in

results can be significantly reduced when more experience is gained

in conducting the test. Table 2.16-1 includes some preliminary results; i.e., data accumulated before the test procedure had been

firmly set.

The scratches on plastic and the vitreous materials have different

appearances. The scratch on a plastic specimen is usually a continuous, nearly uniform groove. On the other hand, a light scratch

on porcelain enamel or vitreous china may be observable in this

test only as a series of discontinuities caused by the scratching

tool breaking through sub-surface bubbles. This led to variations

among observers, particularly in borderline cases where there were

only two or three damaged areas observable along the line traversed

by the diamond point.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

There is no other known test that rates materials according to their

resistances to being visibly scratched and to retaining visible soil

in the scratches. It is believed that the recommended test simulates

a condition that occurs frequently in service; i.e., a fixture is

scratched by a sharp or pointed object such as a grain of sand, a tool, the edge of a soap dish, etc. Subsequently, the scratch accu- mulates foreign matter and becomes unsightly.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

Inasmuch as all currently manufactured sanitary plumbing fixtures

have apparently received public acceptance with respect to their

scratch resistance, it seemed reasonable to set the performance

-87 -
level at a value slightly below the minimum value found for materials

used in contemporary fixtures.

The recommended performance level would disqualify any future fixture

material with a scratch resistance substantially lower than the

minimum value found for the presently used materials. In addition,

the mare presence of a scratch resistance requirement should tend to

encourage improvement in this property of fixtures, and this might

well result in the future upgrading of the minimum required performance level.

- 88 "
Table 2.16-1 Visual Scratch Damage Ratings

Minimum Load on Diamond Tool to

Cause Visible Scratch (After Soiling)

Average of Standard

Material 10 Observers Deviation Range

grams grams

Enamel on Steel

Mfr. A

Mfr . B

985 152 855 - 1230

Spec. 1 787 24 740 - 798

Spec. -2 795 102 618 - 930

Enamel on Cast Iron

Mfr. A

Mfr. B

776 32 760 - 836

Spec. 1 750 62 665 - 855

Spec. 2 620 44 551 - 703

Vitreous China

Mfr. A

Mfr. B 703 0 703

Spec. 1 590 40 570 - 665

Spec. 2 567 29 523 - 626

Gel Coat on FRPE

Mfr. A

Spec. 1 41 3.3 37 - 48

Spec. 2

Mfr. B

47 2.0 38 - 48

Experimental 1 57 0 57

Experimental 2 65 4.0 57 - 67

Experimental 3 74 5.9 57 - 76

Plate Glass

Black Background 808 0 808

White Background 817 20 808 - 855

Stainless Steel, Type 304

(280-mesh abrasive finish)

Scratched parallel

to grain

Scratched perpendicular

285 0 285

to grain 19 0 19

- 89 -
COUNTERWEIGHTED BEAM

“L z

DIAMOND

SCRATCHING

TOOL 7

KNIFE EDGE

MOTOR

2

CARRIAGE

SPECIMEN

nuno WEIGHTS

ELEVATING TABLE

—i

i -* i

i

i i— i

FIG. 2.16-1. SCRATCH TEST APPARATUS

FIG. 2.16-2. SPECIMEN VIEWING BOX

- 50 -
2.17 Drainability (M2 09)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the ability of a plumbing fixture

to drain quickly and completely. The test is limited to bathtubs.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

The essential apparatus for this test is shown in Figure 2.17-1,

consisting of supporting structures, slope gage, graduated glass

cylinder, and receiving vessel. Requirements are as follows:

.(a) Fixture support

The supporting structure for the fixture shall be stable under the

load imposed by a bathtub, and shall be equipped with facilities

for careful adjustment of level such as leveling screws or thin

shims

(b) Outlet fitting

The fitting shall be a standard drain outlet fitting of diameter

appropriate to the drain opening in the bathtub.

(c) Slope gage and base

The slope gage shall be an instrument having a calibrated accuracy

to within ±0°5' and finest scale graduations of 0°10' or less.

Base of gage shall be at least one third of length of bathtub, or the instrument shall be placed on a stiff metal straight edge of

this length.

(d) Vessels

The 1,000-ml graduated glass cylinder shall have finest scale

graduations of 10 ml or less, a height-to-diameter ratio of at

least 5.0, and a calibrated accuracy to within ±5 ml at any depth.

The receiving vessel shall be cylindrical, shall have a volume not

exceeding twice the tangent depth volume for the bathtub,—/ and

shall have a height-to-diameter ratio of at least 2, based on the

depth to which the tangent depth volume fills the vessel. The

a/ See Figure 2.17-1 for illustration of tangent depth volume.

-91
receiving vessel shall either be transparent or shall be fitted with

a transparent sight tube of at least 1/2 In. diameter to facilitate

precise determination of water surface elevation.

(e) Timing device

The timing device shall have the finest Indicating scale graduations

not exceeding 1.0 sec. and a calibrated accuracy to within ±1.0%

when measuring a 60-sec. period.

(2) Procedure

The bathtub to be tested shall be placed on the supporting structure

and the drain outlet fitting installed without overflow fittings but

with drain plug so that no leakage occurs when the plug is in place

and water is introduced Into the bathtub. The top rim of the bathtub shall be adjusted so that it Is level from front-to-back at the

drain end of the fixture , and so that the longitudinal dimension of

the front rim slopes away from the drain to the extent of 0*30' (±0*5')

as determined by averaging three measurements taken at the left,

center, and right positions along the length of the front rim. After

establishing the specified rim slope, the nominally horizontal outlet

tube of the drain fitting shall be adjusted to a slope of at least

0*30 ' in the direction of discharge.

The entire inside surfaces of the bathtub, graduated cylinder, and

receiving vessel shall be thoroughly cleaned with water and soap or synthetic detergent, rinsed, scrubbed out with alcohol, and air

dried. Insert drain plug and, using graduated cylinder, fill fixture with clean tap water (70®F, ±10®F) to tangent depth as determined and marked with the aid of a straight edge at least 24 in.

long. Carefully record volume of water required, and calculate

98% of tangent depth volume.

Again, using the graduated cylinder and 70°F (±10°F) water, determine and mark the receiving vessel depth corresponding to 98% of

tangent depth volume for the bathtub being tested. In making this

determination, the receiving vessel shall be placed on a stable,

level surface beneath the bathtub drain outlet. Both lateral and

angular positions shall be marked so the position can be duplicated

in successive measurements.

Remove drain plug from test bathtub previously filled to tangent

depth and wait for cessation of continuous dripping, at which time

replace plug and discard water discharged.

-92
Refill bathtub with tangent depth volume (70°F, ±10°F), empty re- ceiving vessel and replace in marked position, remove drain plug,

and measure time duration of discharge required to bring water level

in receiving vessel up to the mark corresponding to 987<> of the tangent depth volume.

Replace drain plug immediately after cessation of continuous dripping,

and collect water clinging to inside surface of bathtub bottom with

a flexible, non-absorbent squeegee. By use of the graduated cylinder,

determine volume of water collected.

Repeat the two last-mentioned steps, obtaining measurements in triplicate for drainage time and retained water. Compute average values

from the measurements in triplicate.

In using the graduated cylinder, wet inside surface immediately before

using, shake out and discard excess water. If repeated uses of cylinder are necessary to determine marking level on receiving vessel or

to fill bathtub to tangent depth, shake inside surface water into

receiving vessel or bathtub, as appropriate, after each such use. Immediately before each use of the receiving vessel, first wet inside surface and then, holding upside down, shake vigorously, discarding excess water clinging to inside surface.

(3) Information to be Reported

The test report shall include the following information:

1. Tangent depth volume.

2. Time for discharge of 98% of tangent depth volume.

3. Volume of water retained on wetted surface after cessation

of dripping.

c. Recommended Performance Requirement

Performance requirements for drainability are:

(1) A bathtub shall drain within a reasonable length of time. The

maximum allowable time for discharge of 98% of tangent depth volume

shall be 60 sec. (average of 3 measurements) , as determined in ac- cordance with the procedure in Sec. 2. 17b (2).

(2) A bathtub shall drain completely, except for the small quantity of

water normally adhering to the wetted surface after use. The maximum

allowable quantity of water retained on the wetted fixture surface

below the tangent depth plane shall not exceed 100 ml (average of 3

measurements), as determined in accordance with the procedure in

Sec. 2 . 17b(2)

-9 3-
d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

A review of standards for plumbing fixtures did not yield any

reference to a test for drainability.

(2) Test Development

In developing a test, measurements were first made to determine the

nature of the discharge curve near the end of the period of drainage

for a bathtub (the last 3 gal.)* In addition, the effect of bottom

slope' on the amount of water retained after cessation of dripping

was investigated. These data are shown in Figures 2.17-2 and 2.17-3.

From these data it was concluded that a bottom of near zero slope, a slope away from the drain, or a wavy or warped bottom could be detected by measuring the water retained after cessation of dripping.

In further development work, five bathtubs were tested using the

procedure prescribed under Sec. b(2), and the data shown in Table

2.17-1. While in these tests, specimen EC-1 retained somewhat less

water after dripping than shown in Figure 2.17-2; this was apparently

because it was not thoroughly cleaned before the test represented in

the figure. The data of Table 2.17-1 show reasonably good repeatability and agreement between results by different observers.

The test on specimen PB-3 yielded a value of retained surface water

slightly in excess of the 100 ml allowable. This was not surprising

in view of the appearance of the test specimen which had previously

been subjected to a 100-hr boil test. Apparently some permanent

warping of the bottom had occurred, and the surface was roughened

with many blisters. These conditions probably contributed to the

retention of excessive water.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

Since the important properties to be evaluated by this test are duration of drainage near the end of the discharge period and retention of water on the bottom after cessation of continuous dripping,

it was considered sufficient to base the tests on the quantity of

water required to barely cover the bottom surface, referred to as

the tangent depth volume. By measuring the quantity of water re- tained after dripping, the "pooling" that might result from improper

design or manufacturing errors can be detected. As a practical indication of the duration of time for the discharge of the tangent depth

- 94 -
volume, the time for discharge of 98% of the tangent depth volume

was used. While this percentage value was somewhat arbitrary, it was about the maximum value at which good repeatability could be

obtained in the measurement of the time values and yet gave a meaningful comparative indication of duration of discharge for

the amount of water required to cover the bottom of a bathtub.

The requirement that the tests be made with a rim slope of 0°30'

opposite to the drain end of a bathtub is based on field measurements of rim slope of installed fixtures. In these measurements

the maximum deviation of rim slope from the horizontal approximated

0°30', although most fixtures were set very nearly horizontal. A

rim slope opposite to the drain end of the fixture was selected for

test purposes since this condition imposes a more critical requirement than a slope toward the drain.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The limit of 60 sec. for discharge of 987* of the tangent depth

volume has been selected as tolerable in terms of bathtub usage and

cleaning, and as reasonable in terms of actual performance of several

bathtubs on which measurements were made.

-9 5
Table 2.17-1 Results of Drainability Tests

Tangent Time to

Specimen Material Depth Discharge

98% tdv^/

Volume Retained

and Identification Volume on Bottom Surface

ml sec ml

Enameled Steel

43.7^ 35£/ (SC-l) 3,300

42.9“'

41. 8^/

45.4^

28-

30^/

30s-/

Enameled Cast Iron

(CIA-1) 8,600 20.2 18

19.2 15

19.7 15

FRPE (PC-4)-/ 10,710 14.3 44

15.5 38

15.4 41

FRPE (PB-3)-/ 12,000 19.9 109

19.3 107

22.0 94

FRPE (PB-2) 12,000 23.9 67

25.0 84

25.1 72

£/ Tangent depth volume, as Indicated in Figure 2.17-1.

b/ Observer A.

£/ Observer B.

d_/ Test made after completion of 100-hr. boil test.

96 -
I "

I ^ OUTLET FITTING

BATHTUB

MOUNTED ON SUPPORTING STRUCTURE AS REQUIRED

MEASURE

IOOO ml GRADUATED GLASS

CYLINDER

H

3

>5.0

RECEIVING VESSEL

PLACED ON LEVEL, STABLE SUPPORT

-tl > 2.0

D

FIG. 2. 17-1- APPARATUS FOR DRAINABILITY TEST

97
SPECIMEN

x

UJ

U_

Z Q_

<

£

O

-J

u.s

-J

c\j u

e>

UJ

a:

£

o

UJo

o

<

UJX

2 2 3 3

x x

3

X

o <J

<

c\j £

0I X |UJ‘ 3WfnOA 9NINIVW3d

98

FIG.2.

17-2

-DISCHARGE

PATTERN

FOR

BATHTUB
SPECIMEN

SC

-I

II,

840ml

ADDED

TO

WETTED

TUB Ho0

TEMPERATURE

76°F o

COQZOo

LU

(/) uTh

99 FIG.

2.17-3-

BOTTOM

SLOPE

EFFECT

IN

BATHTUB

DRAINAGE

TEST,

REGIME 2
2.18 Hot Water Resistance (T302)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the ability of a plumbing fixture

to withstand exposure of the interior surface to hot water without blistering, cracking, checking, or loss of bond between surface coating and base

material. Development work on the test has been carried out only on bathtubs. However, with further development work the test could probably

be adapted to other fixtures.

b. Reconmended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

The apparatus required comprises a heat source, an immersion heating

element, a water-circulating pump, a temperature control, and a dial

gage graduated to 0.001 in. for measuring displacements. One such

system is shown in Figures 2.18-1 and 2.18-2. The system shall be

capable of maintaining a water temperature of 120°F (±5°F) at any

point in the tub.

(2) Supporting Structure

A supporting structure a3 specified in Sec. 2.2 shall be provided

that is stable under the weight of a bathtub filled to the overflow

outlet with water, and that will allow clearance under the bottom

of the bathtub for deflection measurements with a dial gage. The

bathtub shall be secured to the supporting structure as specified

in Sec. 2.2. In addition, a drain fitting assembly shall be installed complete with overflow fitting and stopper. A flat surface

shall be provided on the under-surface of the central point at the

sump determined as specified in Sec. 2.2, Par. b(3), so that center

deflections of the sump can be measured normal to bottom.

(3) Test Procedure

Clean the inside surfaces of the bathtub with water and mild soap

or synthetic detergent, rinse with water, dry, and then inspect for

surface defects using the procedure described in Sec. 2.8. Fill

the fixture to the overflow outlet with water at cold-water supply

temperature, drain and within 10 minutes after emptying determine

the dial gage reading representing the elevation of the center of

the underside of the sump. This reading shall constitute the zero reference for subsequent deflections. Next, fill the bathtub to

the overflow outlet with clean tap water, set temperature control

to 120°F, turn on heat source and start temperature recorder and

-1 00 -
hot water circulating pump. After water temperature stabilizes,

adjust thermostat so that temperature of the water at recorder

sensor (point B in Figure 2.18-1) as measured with a calibrated

thermometer is maintained at 120®F within a range of ±2°F. Temperature measured with the thermometer approximately 1 inch from

the fixture surface at eight points (two points near the bottom at

approximately the third-points of the longitudinal center line,

also two points each near front and rear walls and one point near

each end wall at approximately halfway depth) shall not vary from

120°F by more than ±5°F.

NOTE: Non-uniform temperature distribution may be corrected by

adjusting circulating pump discharge rate or position of free ends

of suction and/or discharge lines.

The test shall be stopped at intervals of 100 hours, the tub

drained, and the fixture inspected for the appearance of damage

in accordance with the procedure described in Sec. 2.8. Also,

30 minutes after draining determine the center deflection of the

sump. After an aggregate exposure of 400 hours stop the test,

inspect the fixture for the final time and make the final dial

gage reading.

NOTE: The test may be terminated after any test interval if inspection shows that the fixture has failed the requirements specified in Par. 2.18c.

(3) Information to be Reported

The test report shall include the following information:

1. Specimen identification, including overall dimensions.

2. Description of test frame and method of fastening tub to frame.

3. Results of visual inspections at beginning of test and at each

successive inspection interval.

4. Deflection of center of sump, at each 100-hour interval.

c. Recommended Performance Requirements

The bathtub shall withstand exposure of the interior surface to water

at a test temperature of 120°F for 400 hours without blistering, cracking,

loss of bond between surface coating and base material, or other damage

as detected by the surface inspection test of Sec. 2.8. In addition,

residual deflection after 400 hours of exposure when measured 30 minutes

after emptying bathtub shall not exceed 0.125 inches.

101
d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

Hot-water exposure tests have been prescribed for several sanitary

plumbing fixture materials. Among these are the 100-hour boil

test for small specimens of FRPE materials described in the August

1964 proposed revision of CS221-59, and the total immersion test of

a complete fixture in boiling water described for vitreous-glazed

earthenware in CS111-43. Hot-water exposure of small specimens by

total immersion is involved in the tests for thermal shock and

water absorption for vitreous china describe in CS 20-63

FS WW-P-541b-54. However, none of these tests subject the fixture

to the type of exposure encountered in service; i.e., partially

filling the fixture with hot water.

(2) Test Development

Three FRPE bathtubs were tested first as described in Sec. 2.18b,

with the test temperature maintained at 200-212 °F. The tests were

terminated after an aggregate of 100 hours of exposure. The data

are shown in Table 2.18-1. Blistering occurred in all three tests

at exposure times of 25 hours or less. Cracking was observed in

two of the three tests at 50 and 75 hours. Subsequently boil tests

for 100 hours as prescribed in the August 1964 proposed revision of

CS221-59 were made using specimens, 4 inches square, prepared by

cutting from the undamaged areas of the tested fixtures; i.e., from

above the water line. The results of these tests are shown in Table

2.18-2. Blistering, but not cracking, was observed with these

specimens. The relatively early blistering observed on the plywoodbacked specimens (PB fixture) indicates that the thermal insulation

provided by base materials may reduce the resistance of gel coats

to blistering. This increased thermal insulation could easily re- sult in a higher temperature in the coating as well as at the

coating-substrate interface.

Deflections of the bathtub sumps due to prolonged exposure to water

at or near the boiling point are summarized in Table 2.18-1. In

all three tests appreciable deflection recovery occurred upon emptying the bathtub, and recovery continued for some time afterwards.

However, some residual deflection existed after periods of up to

72 hours. In one test, the lower rear wall of the sump assumed a noticeable permanent rearward set. This particular area was not

supported by a reinforcement backing.

In preliminary development work, a porcelain enameled steel bathtub

was tested at a temperature approaching the boiling point for 53

-102
hours, including 50 hours of exposure essentially as described in

Sec. 2.18b, and the balance from the hot water phase of 25 cycles

of the thermal shock test described in Sec. 2.21. No noticeable

effects were observed aside from a very slight dulling of the

finish.

Two additional tests using whole FRPE bathtubs were made, one ex- posed to 160°F (±5°F) water and one to 120°F (±5°F) . The results

of the 160° test are shown in Table 2.18-1. As in the tests at

the higher temperature, deflection recovery in the 160° test con- tinued for at least 90 hours after emptying the tub. Blistering,

however, did not appear until the 74-hour inspection.

In the 120° test (Specimen PC-2), inspections were made at the

beginning, and at 74, 146, 241, 355, 500, 600, 796 and 1000 hours

of exposure to 120°F (±5°F) water. Blisters were not observed until the 500-hour inspection. At that time, the defects comprised

less than half a dozen slightly raised areas of circular (up to

1/8 in. diameter) or needle shape (up to 3/4 in. long). As in the

earlier tests at higher temperatures, the blisters were less

prominent after the bathtub had cooled. The 600-hour inspection

showed little if any further change in the surface condition. However at 796 hours, fibre and blister prominence had increased, and

a number of new raised areas were observed. Still further deteriora

tion was noted at 1000 hrs. As before, some degree of recession was noted after cooling. Residual sump deflections taken immediately

after draining the tub at the various inspection intervals ranged

up to approximately 0.11 inch, with some characteristic deflection

recovery after remaining empty for a period of hours at room tempera

ture.

In short-time, hot-water load tests on FRPE bathtubs from 150 lb

of water at approximately 115°F on which was superimposed a 150 lb

concentrated load at the center of the sump bottom, maximum deflections of the sumps did not exceed approximately 0.05 in. These

data are presented in Sec. 2.13.

These trials showed that the particular FRPE bathtubs furnished

for test were incapable of withstanding exposure to hot water for

long periods at temperatures of 160°F or greater without exhibiting surface defects. However, bathtubs in service are probably

only rarely exposed to such temperatures and then probably for

very short intervals of time.

103
Two series of 100-hour boiling water tests were performed on 4" x 4"

flat specimens provided by manufacturers or specially prepared in

the laboratory. The first series of tests was described in NBS

Report 8656, pages 16-17. Equipment was used conforming to that

specified under Par. 6.1.1 of the August, 1964 Proposed Revision

of CS 221-59. The results of the first series of tests are summa^

rized as follows:

Material

a/ Porcelain enameled cast iron, SDlOS^

Appearance After Boiling

Dull and etched

Q I Porcelain enameled steel, CID—

FRPE:

b/ Sanitary ware gel coat—'

Experimental^ anitary ware

gel coat

b

/ Conventional boat gel coat—7 Sanitary ware gel coat

Slightly dulled; slight

yellowing

Same as before treatment

Same as before treatment

Badly checked and peeling

Numerous blisters; discolored

to a dirty yellow

a./ Specimen from bathtub manufacturer

b/ Laboratory specimen

In the above tests, the specimens were not preconditioned except

by cleaning with 1% trisodium phosphate solution.

In the second series of tests on 4" x 4" flat specimens, the speci- mens were preconditioned with Bon Ami for 20 full strokes in a lapping machine, and gloss measurements made after careful cleaning and

drying, and before boiling. The results were as follows:

Material Appearance After Boiling 45® Specular Gloss

a/ Vitreous chinar- Slightly dulled

Before

Boiling

56.1

After

Boiling

21.6

Porcelain enameled

cast iron:

Dull and etched surface 70.9 2.3

Dull, etched, some 70.4 20.8

Porcelain enameled

steel, SD llO^7

yellowing

Dull and etched surface 63.6 19.4

FRPE, sanitary ware

gel coat:

AlO^7

, PA S3—

Same as before boiling 14.9 22.1

Numerous blisters over entire surface 8.8 5.6

a/ Specimen from manufacturer of sanitary plumbing fixtures

b/ Acid resistant, class AA, dry process specimen obtained from manufacturer

c/ Laboratory specimen 104
Tests at low temperatures require long testing times. However,

there was at least an indication from the data that low- temperature

performance might be predicted from high- temperature data. The

possible existence of an exponential relationship between water

temperature and time- to- failure was indicated from the results

of tests on three bathtubs of the same make, one specimen at each

of the three temperatures. If this correlation could be satisfactorily established, a test temperature greater than 120° could

be selected so that test duration could be reduced. However, there

is not sufficient data at this time to recommend the higher test

temperature.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

An exposure test of the entire bathtub (inside surface below over- flow outlet level) is recommended for two reasons:

1. From a statistical basis the detection of susceptability to

deterioration on exposure to hot water is more certain with

the use of a whole fixture than if only a few small specimens

cut from the fixture were tested.

2. Any possible effects of unequal stress distributions and other

characteristics that might be associated with curved surfaces

in whole fixtures cannot be detected in hot water tests of

small flat specimens.

It is recognized that the recommended test involves a prolonged

exposure, whereas in service the exposure is typically intermittent.

Thus, the recommended test does not incorporate thermal shock, nor does it allow for any possible effects caused by alternate wetting

and drying. Some consideration was given to the desirability of

combining both thermal shock and hot water resistance into a single

test. A discussion of this possibility appears in Sec. 2.21.

However, this will require further development work.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The requirement of the appearance of no defects in a bathtub sur- face after a 400-hour exposure to water at 120°F is believed to be

a reasonable requirement. A bathtub is meant for bathing and if

blisters and cracks or other defects that seriously affect its

usability appear after only short periods of service the fixture

is not performing the function for which it was intended. If an average frequency of four baths per week and an average bathing

time of 15 minutes is assumed, then the 400-hour requirement represents approximately 8 years of service. However, since most baths are probably taken at water temperatures appreciably less than

120°F, and since time-to-failure appears from the test results to

be lengthened by lowering the temperature, 400 hours of exposure

at 120°F could represent a normal service exposure of much longer

than 8 years.

- 105 -
The types of defects that first appeared in the tests were not of

a type that would have made the tubs immediately unusable in service,

although their presence would have been undesirable.

The observed tendency of the blisters to recede on cooling does

not suggest that their appearance is of no significance. When a blister occurs the original bond of the coating to the substrate

is destroyed, and for this reason the coating may be subject to

spalling at these blister points during later service. In fact,

it is even possible that the small spalls observed on some of the

older tubs in the field inspection of FRPE fixtures could have

originated from this cause.

The selection of 0.125 in. as a limit on center deflection of the

sump 30 minutes after draining the hot water from the bathtub is

based on the following considerations:

1. A center deflection of 0.125 in. that uniformly diminishes

with distance from the center should not present a drainability

problem in bathtubs with bottom slopes comparable to those of

current production. The deflection limit recommended may include an inherent safety factor, since the intermittent loading occurring during use would tend to cause less sump deflection in some materials than the continuous 120°F hot-water

loading, and also because many polymeric materials (such as FRPE) will continue to recover for much longer periods than

the 30 minutes specified in Par. 2.18c.

2. Field information on bathtubs did not show a significant incidence of drainability problems; hence, it may be inferred that

sump-bottom deflection from hot-water exposure has not been a problem with the current materials. The FRPE bathtubs tested

passed the recommended deflection requirement. Because of

their particular properties, porcelain enameled metal bathtubs

are not subject to permanent deflection from exposure to hot

water. However, the recommended deflection limit is proposed

as both necessary and desirable so as to prevent possible

future use of materials that may have permanent deflections

sufficiently high to adversely affect their drainability.

106
Table 2.

18-1

Results

of

Hot

Water

Exposure

Tests

of

FRPE

Bathtubs

at

205 F

and

160 F

Page

fa -

0) o

fa fa d d E N

cO -

fa

33 o

fa d 33 •H da

vO d H d

-»>* fa CO d

4-1 l d

fa 00 CO

ifa 1 P3 • Cfa Xo • fa o a d a o.

CO C/3

CO fa fa o d 4-1 co fa

fa CO 3 U fa X o d .—i bO r-4 4-1 I X fa d d i X XI '

I Pfa d • 33 o co d d 2 -h fa

xo

faaa<

fa3

1-1 fa d co fa l-i co a) & el o

CM co

•fa C fa

a) CO E <-> •HO fa d fa

Cu fa co d

a> 33M

D. fa a co

c0 fa

(1) fa

co co fa

cO bO fa C

fa 0) 33 E co fa d H fa

CO9 C *H •3 60 « u

fa 33 d c 0 «

cO 33 fa

fa 2

>> fa C C X u c

fa

—i fa dfa • ofa e w« 33

<0 03 fa (U u fa

a)fa c

CO fa d m » X

fa o d co fa fa

CD O e

c0 fa

fa c0 33 C

•fa c 33

fa 3

fa do c0) fa fa bO O

fa fa • fa co co a;

fa 3 >•

ai fa o u 33

co co fa

fa fa o

r—4 3 U co C d

fa O 3 O fa fa

CO d T) 33 o E o m tn d m

•H O >• • o fa in

fa fa: fa c 1 1 1 ^-1 <—

1 1 o O •' ' D *H 1 1 1 • • CO 1 1 • d . E o d

faPQ

w o

cw fa d a fa a E o 3 to X d

fa C/3 33 CM O vO i—i 1-0 f”H 00 d d • 00 CO CNl 1 4-1 <J\ r-

i£> fa 4-1 r—

O fa m 1 d O CNJ CM d o t—

•H • Q • • • d •H o o

co Xdd 4-1 33 <D 3 U O • cd fa 4-1 3 CO in u

fa O co o mm CO o d o CN m

Cfa a r—

3 X CD • d w U d z crt fa

cO d d •H 33 C

CO (1) fa fa 3 3

ai fa

fa > d — co o fa

r—1 »H

co a> o rt d B

fa o o

fa co G. • co d co co -

fa d co bO d fa 33 d d a. d

fa bO O E d

fa fa

fa CO d d H ^ ^

co co pti fa fa d d

fa fa

co co bO

fa fa d X X rfao

fa fa o O CO O d

bo d

fa

CO

fad

Is X 3 - co •s a

-'Sa o fa fa cO3 a3 SO d fa E fa o o

co CQ

fa • X bOd m fa

fao

fa o

CO o d d

co o x

fa fa

cO

co

x

fa 3 d dEo

bOe

faxu

COfa u a3 a bo E d 3 fa

co bOd

4-1 CO O fa X co O XxfabOdd

fa fa 33 d . •H CO X

rH d 44 X fa d d o d r-4 44 fa • Xl o fa d fa CJ •fa fa X d o X E o fa d d fa d 33 d o 3 CO X cO E fa •fa fa d d d CO fa d d d cO 33 fa fa O bO fa Cu

fa d fa •H O 33 cO o d 33 o a. < CO o o "O fa < CL S X d 3 cO o

<r> CMOo - 107
3 X t Vi & 3 3 3 - O • £ 3 O O fa fa 3X30 50 fa fa 3 i-4 fa fa

03 3 03 X fa fa 3

P~> X 3 X 3 O <t 3 • X M o S "fa O 3

fa 3 50 3 • X X 3 fa 3 3 X 3 3 o 3 3 fa Vi fa fa O 3 3

•fa fa 3 3 3 fa 3 Vi y—\ B fa 5 X Vi O X 3 fa 3 3 'fa CM 3

03 Vi 03 Vi O O fa 'fa fa 3 3 03 X fa fa 3 3 • fa 3 3 0 fa fa

fa a 3 N Vi o 3 fa *3 fa

4J o fa 'rH 3 fa 3 X 6 3 3 4-1 fa CO fa Vi 0- O 3 Vi O fa X 44 o 3 3 Vi 3

CJ O • 3 CM 'fa Cl O a > / XI 3 3 Vi CL &

50 3 3 44 3 Vi 3 H •* a fa Vi fa • Vi O fa 0) fa 0 o • 3 fa 50 3 3 fa 3 • Vi O 3 3 fa 3 O 3 0 3 3 3 O X o Vi 3 Vi fa X fa Vi S 3 fa X i—i •H 3 3 Po 3 fa 3 fa 3 Vi fa 3

4J fa fa 3 fa o o 3 O fa 3 3

03 •H 3 3 3 3 o o X £ 3 3 03 3 fa S S o H CJ • X 3 3 3 3 O H 3 3 3 X O O X fa fa 3 fa Vi a CJ 3 1 fa 3 3 0 3 fa /fa X • 3 6 /~s m 3 3 3 fa\ fas X X 3 Vi 3 3 /fa X o O 3 3 X X X 3 3 X fa O 3 X 3

CM 3 O 3 3 3 H H 3 X 3 Eh

4-1 3 •H H H H CJ X 3 >s X Eh

fa Vl Vi fa 03 03 C^J rH Q* rH 3 X 3 3 3 fa fa fa fa rH rH CL \ 3 Vi 3 fa fa

CO 4-1 03 O O O o o 3 X X 3 fa o o

CO 3 03 £3 a a CJ CJ 3 fa 3 a cj

i-3 fa 3 Vfa sfa •fa >o O i 3 fa S4 'fa 3 i—

fa fa 3 O 3

4J X fa B fa fa O x m O O O o o o O CL X fa o o

fa 4J fa CJ o CJ o CJ o CJ o CJ o X 3 3 Vi o 1 1 3 o fa Vi 3 3 3 rH

CQ 3 3 3 3 50 Z CL fa

fa s X Vi 3 2 W 3 3 S a <J- « Ml- X X X <t X CM •H • £ X 1 1 03 3 S X /—' 50 3 a o 3 O 3 S 3 X

fa O s fa o m X Vi 3 O O •H X O'! 3 H < <3 co <3 <i <3 CM <3 CM 44 Vi fa fa 3 <3 fa

4-1O

fa o B o 3 44 50 X fa 3 fa o • r-» rH X X X O X o X r>. CM X 3 fa fa fa c i CM CM CO X X X X <t X X X X X

EH Ofa a •H i i O O O o o O O o o o o o o 3 O S • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 fax a o

Vi 44 3 3 Q. 3 a e o 3 3 X

CL Vi CO X O'! r- X X rH as as O'! X X X 3 3 • X Ifa as o o o o fa -cf X fa 44 rH O O o fa rH rH i-4 fa rH rH 3 O rH • • • • • • • • • • V 3 •iH o 3 CJ pH

03 3o 3 a X Vi o 3 • 44 •H 44 3 w o V 0 o u o 3 a 3 a X

fa a rH33 3 3 3 fa V a eg 3

Vi fa fa 3 3 X rH X fa Vi Ph o 1 o 3 3 o CM

00

V 3 a rH a e • a 3

CM <J H

<D rH 3

£> O 3 fa H 3 fa B 3

fa O 1 CJ •(4 CJ 3 44 a a •r4 X fa33

XI

XX CTi

m

CM o m

in n. - 108 - oo
Table

2.18-1

Results

of

Hot

Water

Exposure

Tests

of

FRPE

Bathtubs

at

205°F

and

160°F

(Continued)

Page

ro (A I T3

<U cd X * x CO 8

cd X M 0 X

>> X 9 X OJ d pH •X X X X

•X rH 3 0 CO

4-1 < Ml X •X

T5 d rH

CO CU •H X X d • d > 3 0 •H cd X • X — o X X R

00 «x <u >N 0 X 3 rH CO d a) d X CU e 0 CU E o cd x X X cd t4

4-1 CO 44 •o

•rH

— •H >N X • X rH H 3 d • w rH X X CO •X 00

T5 X ">

cd d d CU <U rH >> X T3 • •X o X d d CU CU d rH

•H (U

x d T3 X •X o X > o X E H CO o o o CU CO •X -d- o

"O o X r\ d d *"•

d 4-1 B T3 o t4 fH d o <u d d X o lx o u d o d CU o a.

•H >-i X X d X 3

CU f—J 14-1 d CO d o o •rH •rH o • T3

cd

x d rH CO d CU

m CU X 'd X •x X •X CO x 4-1 CU CU CU cd 3 cd 4J CO cu . d X 00 cu 00 5 a cd d CO CU co X

cu cu •H X X •rH rH o 3 o x t—

CU X rH cu O X o X cd X E T) rH cu d X CO rH o

(0 <u •X CU •X 4H CO CO CO o X (U

4-1 X) r\ X rH X X X CM IX o O CO CO cd X CO o o o 1 d

0) CU

x X 3 <U CU CU 1 • 00 CU

«4-l o CU CU X <u 14H MH IX 1 X d d

(U d 4-1 X 3 d 4J • CU CU CU o •H •rH mh CO CO O cu CO d T3 T3 •a X oo E X •X H r-H o •H CU a d o O 3 r4 rH cu cd rH a o O o a cd X z CO Xi 0Q X PQ o 2 z <3 X a. o E u •*“> •H o > cn cm CM cn X X X d i i O rH rH 1 1 1 m 1 1 U X a *rH 1 1 o o o o 1 i 1 o 1 1 cu o E • • • • • rH CQ >x w o

CU Q. Q E3 cd X CO *d X X X

cu cu • 00 H LO rH o CnJ vO

m X X IX rH d cn co as ss r—

CN1 <t

m X d o rH •H o o o o rH rH rH CNJ

cu •H • • • • • • u pH o

l—I B d O n vt ON

oo

x

m o o o o

<U •d X o 3

•H 4H DO X o o

cu a

(X Xw

cu cu X X

cd 3 E X X

•H cu cd X X X o cd CU X 3 a

a. S a cu < Hd d o

•XX

cu cd E o

*X •H O MH

cu •X

Q. X

co d

<u *0M

CMI Q

pL|

m

CM om

m oo O o

CM

m

CM om

CM

I''. r-~ oX

COI o

Ph

109

101

--

--

Blisters

noticeably

less

prominent.

Three

new

blisters
CU

£50

PM. T3

<Udccoo

PmO

vO

X)c

cO PmuO

cmXwp

a) 44

CO

CO

CO

0)P

co

a)>

•rl 44O

a)aw

<uu ud

<uo

c0 <U

•r-> ,£

T3 44

CO

m 'O d U •rl o CU 44 CM • 4-1 •H * CO T3 O 60 44 44

JJ CU d d d d

cO PI o •H d o CU r-4 O o

co d CO CM a

43 *H d 1 d (U 3 o X3 Pi U CO P •H CU 43 •H cu CO B 44

4-1 ? 43 cO CO

CO P 4-4 CU 44 •P

PQ CU o P cO r-4 43 cO 43 W 44 cu CO PM o p • Pi d CU 3 CU P4 cO £ 44 Pm <u 43 • • 43 p4 CO P £ e p • • • • • d <3 O

4-1 CU •H 43 CM Pi • • Pi Pi • Pi Pi o •rl o X 4-1 6 43 Pi p 43 43 Pi 43 43 Pi CM CM *—

43 43 43 •rl • d

co CUm 1 <t CM CMm O o 43 •r4

4-1 4-1 • u CM r4 p—

CM CO i-4 ["- CM CM 05 d

CO CM CU X • 44 CO

CU CU p CU Pi )M Pi Pi Pi Pi P Pi Pi Pi Pi d 43 Pi H o d O O O O O O o O O O O •rl 44 <U X 4-1 60 4-4 4-1 4-1 4-1 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 1 cO 43

<U CU cO d 50 43 B P P •H >5 >. >5 tn Po Pn Po Pn Po Pn Po d d CM CU >5 4-1 4-> 4-1 4-1 4-) 4-1 4J 4-1 4-» 44 44 Pn 44 2 a 4J Q. s s e- £ £ cu £ d 4J <U cud p <u —i <u a> (X 4J 43

cm 44 d d T3

CO d d d d

a> a) a> a> a) cu <u a) 43 43 43 43

T} TO T3 T3 T3

cO

i*

(0d

cu

cu 43 a M-i £ *H

<U 44d

cu T3 d

<u

cu 43T5 c0 £ou

4Jo

4344o

<u > 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 c C3 44 Pi Pi rH cO cu CU o d CU CU 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 o

P33 44 PI 44 d d d d d d d d d d d M CO CU

CO cO cO PI 44 44 44 pi 44 pi 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Pi £ •H P •r4 O (U T3 P p P P p P p P P P P <3 d CO CM T3 CU CU CU 0) CU cu CU cu a) CU CU CU CO O

CO B i-H g 44 pi 44 44 pi 44 44 44 44 44 44 CO CM

44 <U o g 44 44 44 44’ 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 a T3 (X

(-4 44 o •H CO CO CO CO cO CO cO CO CO CO CO o CU O d •H 43

CO 44 44 T3 T3 TJ T3 TJ T3 T3 T3 -a T3 ^3 44 CO 44

(U CO CO CU CU CU CU CU cu CU <U cu <U CU CU cO •H cO p p P P P p P P p P P P (3 a P P d d d d d d d d d d d d 60 •rl PQ r—

CU CU CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO •H 44 1 44 44 cO CO cO cO cO cO cO cO CO cO cO cO CO TJ 00 CO CO (U CU 0) (U ai CU QJ <y CU OJ <U •H 44 P3

r—i 5 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Q O cO CM

<u

r-H 43c0H

(0 43 (J O <U 44 60 43 t-I ^ ,-4 B d O

CO

<U 44O2 - 110 -
Table

2.18-2

Results

of

100-hr.

Boil

Test

of

4"x

4"

FRPE

Specimens

Cut

from

Above

Waterline

of

Whole

Bathtubs

Previously

Subjected

to

100-hr.

Boil

Test.

•HHX

cu X

cdo

•rl XdM

cddo

•r-1 4-1 'rl Xdou

<uo

cd 44dd

c/3

A

A TO

CO CO • • (U rH d d C d co TO rH

0) cu •rl CO •rl CO cd cu cd

4-1 00

x oo i rH d d o 00 0

co d co C d cd 0) 00 <U TO cu d d X

iH "H •H >H •rl d X '•«* X CJ d 0 •H • (—4 i—

r-l r-l a r-l o • CO X CO o > d M X cu X CU •rl CO •H •iH A X cd • X! a) U CO 0 X d rH 0 r-l 3 /-s • co <U rH X x a X a d X •H 0/ X X • X o CM oo d rH •d c O CU CU a) x X d d 4/ d 3 0 -H o X 00 X 00 X CU X co CM a CU CM o •rl X r •rl Cd

r-l co d co d CO

N • CO *r4 r-l 3 X r-l d 1 rH CO co a

l-l -H d -d •rl •H d l—

gj a cj 0 CO d 3 l-l 3 rH r-l CO (U r-l X • 00 0 • a 0 d CU CU 00 X X • X X » X X cd X d cd X CO o <U 0 o d a 4J S X X cu d i—

o •H •rH o cd • X •rl Cd ‘rl o d tn cu a So d 0 CU r-l d 00 TO d CJ d CO o 44 rH d W 'rl d co •rl d •rl cd S> 3 a d a X (U o •rl cu d CU eg ai cd eg cu cd eg o •rl CU 0 a cd d a o a a rH a 3 <U £4 0. S d a s a x X CO <3 d •H <fl d CO 3 « co co a

CO CO CO d d d d n o o o r—

CU

co cd •rl •H •rl rH 00 d ’rl CO CO co cd d

X) X) (U X) CO CO o CO 0 cd • CU CU X (U <U X cu X d r—l co • X X X co “ d • d d o d d co • co • cd H X a X a 00 a 00 CO X x d CO d co i—1 r-l 0 d 0 d • 0 d • CO d 3 d 3 d co • X \ •rl cu •H •H a •rl •rl a d cu oo m X cu X <U cd CO X d d 0 d o CU 0

r". X X d CU 1 d •rl d d rH d d t—

X •H

CU CO (U co CU X 0) = <U 0 CU •H CU CU •rl (U CO O d S 'i-i 0 *1-1 0 d oo X o X 00 > X 00 > •rl CU cd O rH O r-l cd o X •H d •rl CU CU •rl CU CU f—

a x

c/3

x C/3 X cn in H rH 4-1 a Id X *3 a X X) X CO X

CU CU cu CU 00 00 00 A G • d d d CO 1 cd Jo >3 CO cd cd cd TO d cu 44 rl r-l d X X X <u OJ rH d X X X a u O rH d X JO 3 X X rH 0) co X co 00 00 in cu 0) cu cd > H <U

•rl •rl CM i—

(—1 rH o rH a X • i—

r—

X X X d o X d d CO CO X cd cd cd o 0 •rl • X • • cd 0) a) (U CO So X cd n co X CO X o o o X d d a • o d cu d cu CO •rl •iH •H cd CU •rl d CO m <U OO CU 00 cd X X o 0 x cd X d x u X d o o o CJ •rl r—4 CO X

co cd co cd cu d d d o X *rl •rl

•rl i—

•rl rH 0 rH cux 0 d oo

r-l d r-l 3 cd o o o CU a •H *H •rl X cu X CU X Z Z z o co 2 co 44 w- # . cu 0) CU cu co CO 00 00 00 00 d d d d d d

cu CU cd cd cd cd X X X X X X

CO CO cj o o CJ •H •rl T—

rH . cu 0) cu CU • X X co r—

rH rH rH d d X X X X X r—

1—

<U cd cd cd cd • i—

1—

X cu a) cu <u co

m cd cd CO u o o o d

CM 6 2 •rl •rl •rl •H •rl X

co co r-l X X X X X O o O o

>> So d d d d CM d d

jd eg <U o o o o X S S a Z z z z cd d X X o CU CU

•rl as X o X o CJ • • • • d

cd cd cd 00 00 00 00

CJ X X d d d d •» •rl •rl •rl •rl •rl CO 44 X X X X X X d

•rl o o CJ CJ CJ G <U X o o cd cd cd cd 0 d s X X X X •rl • CU >> G /-0 X rH rH o o o o CU 00 M a a d d d d a d

CO -rl d r> n rv r\ X

cu /-N /-\ /—

X G 0 rH CM CO rH CsJ CO '-r' Cd •H V-/ V 'w' X G CO CO CO CM

CU 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 a PQ M X PQ cj CJ Q

03 PM a a fM PM PM a

111
RECEPTACLE

PLAN

PLACEMENT AND DIMENSIONS OF HEATING ELEMENT IN TEST TUB

MATERIAL: Type L Copper Water Tube

LEGEND:

A. Steam Trap Safe for Use at Line Pressure --Opens to Discharge

Condensate into Test Tub

B. Thermostat and Recorder Sensor Location Approx* Mid-depth

and Mid-length, 2" to 4" from Wall

C. Riser, 3/4" Copper or Brass Pipe

D. Solenoid Operated Steam Valve, Nominal 3/4" Dia.

H. Pump Capable of Circulating 10 gpm through Suction and

Discharge Lines.

APPARATUS FOR HOT WATER

- 112 - FIG. 2.18-1 RESISTANCE TEST.
D- SOLENOID OPERATED STEAM VALVE, NOMINAL l" DIA.

E- 45 SEC. TIME DELAY RELAY, CONTACTS N.O.

F- 2 SEC. TIME DELAY RELAY, CONTACTS N.C.

G- BI-METALLIC THERMOREGULATOR - 3 WIRE CONTROL,

FOR USE IN WATER, RANGE -100° TO + 350°F.

FIG. 2.18-2 TEMPERATURE CONTROL WIRING DIAGRAM.

113
2.19 Cigarette Burn Resistance (T303)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the ease of removal of chars or stains caused by lighted cigarettes that are left in contact with a flat

surface of a sanitary fixture.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Test Procedure

Select any three contemporary but popular brands of cigarettes and

designate them brands A, B, and C, respectively. Remove three

cigarettes from a freshly opened package of brand A, light each one,

and immediately after lighting, place each burning cigarette on any

flat, horizontal surface of the fixture, with the burning end not

less than 1/4 inch from a fixture edge. If the fixture has no suitable flat, horizontal areas, the fixture may be tilted so that

a flat area will be horizontal, or, alternatively, flat specimens

may be cut from the fixture.

The burning ends of the cigarettes shall be separated during test

by a distance of at least six inches. After 2 minutes (± 2 seconds), remove each cigarette from the fixture and allow the tested area to

cool to room temperature. Repeat the same operations and procedures

with three cigarettes of brand B, placing each one on an area of the

fixture adjacent to the earlier test areas. Finally, repeat the same operations and procedures with cigarettes of brand C.

After all test areas have cooled to room temperature, assign a burn

rating to each test area on the basis of the rating method shown in

Table 2.19-1.

To evaluate burn ratings of 80 and lower, use a 1/4-inch wide strip

of 220 mesh abrasive paper (6/0) fastened to a rigid backing strip

to abrade away the coating at the test areas until a depth is reached

where no more than a faint trace of discoloration remains. Measure

thickness of coating removed with a depth gage that can be read to

0.2 mils (0.002 inch). Record these readings and, in addition, on any three of the test spots, continue to abrade the coating until

the substrate becomes visible. Measure these depths and designate

the average as the coating thickness. Compute for each spot the

percent of the coating thickness that must be removed to a point

where only a faint trace of the discoloration remains.

114
After burn resistance ratings have been assigned to each test area

in accordance with the rating method, add all of the nine ratings

and divide the sum by nine to obtain the burn resistance rating

of the fixture.

(2) Information to be Reported

The following information shall be listed in the test report:

1. The three brands of cigarettes that were selected for testing.

2. Total thickness of coating.

3. Depth of coating removed at each test spot and average of the

three depth measurements for each of three cigarette brands.

4. The assigned cigarette burn resistance rating for the fixture.

c. Recommended Performance Requirement

The burn resistance rating of the fixture shall be not less than 50 when

measured as prescribed in Par. 2.19(b).

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

A search of the literature disclosed only one test method for

cigarette bum resistance. This appeared as one part of ASTM

Designation: D 1300-53T entitled Tentative Specifications and

Methods of Test for Laminated Thermosetting Decorative Sheets.

This particular test uses a calibrated automobile cigarette lighter

with a controlled wattage input placed 0.313 ±0.003 in. from the

surface of the specimen. Heating of the surface is by radiation.

Failure is defined as evidence of blistering, permanent discoloration, or charring after 110 sec. of exposure for the standard

grade of material and 10 min. for the cigarette-proof grade.

(2) Test Development

Consideration of the aforementioned ASTM test procedure indicated

that (a) it might be unnecessarily complex and involved as a test

for sanitary ware, and (b) the small lighter source might not

simulate an actual burning cigarette since the heating of the test

surface is almost entirely by radiation, whereas, when a lighted

cigarette is placed on a surface, some of the heating is by

115 -
conduction. As a result of these considerations the development

of a new cigarette burn test was initiated which led to the

recommended test method described in Par. 2.19(b).

(a) Effect of time of contact

Figure 2.19-1 shows the results of a series of tests made on one

fiber glass resin specimen with a gel coat thickness of 22 mils.

It can be seen that char depth goes up rapidly with the time of

contact. Partly on the basis of these results, but mostly from

considerations of the average time of contact that might be ex- pected in service, a contact time of 2 minutes was proposed for the

standard condition.

(b) Effect of cigarette brand

Four cigarette brands were tested on the same specimen. The results are summarized in Table 2.19-2.

The difference in the char depth averages for the various brands

are not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence

level except for the "Kools" which gave significantly lower char

depths than "Winston" and "Lucky Strike". The burn test rating

of the specimen for all four brands, however, was 60.

(c) Burn ratings of porcelain enamels and vitreous china

Burn ratings of both porcelain on steel and cast iron and the. glaze on vitreous china were 100 when measured according to the

system outlined in the table. This rating might drop for abraded

surfaces since condensed tars would undoubtedly be more difficult

to remove from the roughened finishes.

(d) Effect of gel coat thickness

Although not studied systematically, there was some evidence that

char depth increases with gel coat thickness. A char depth of

4.6 mils was measured with "Winstons" for a 22 mil thick gel coat

as against a char depth of 1.9 mils for what was presumably the same gel coat with a thickness of 10.2 mils. The burn resistance

ratings of the two specimens would, according to Table 2.19-1, be

50 and 60, respectively.

(e) Comparison of char depths determined by two operators

Two different operators evaluated the burn resistance of a 4- by

4-in. fiber glass resin specimen with a 10 mil thick gel coat.

"Winston" cigarettes were used. The results follow:

116 -
Char Depth in Mils

Spot No. Operator No. 1 Operator No, 2

1 2.6 1.8

2 2.2 2.0

3 1.5 2.0

4 1.8 2.2

5 1.8 1.4

6 1.9 2.0

Avg. 1.97 1.90

S.D. .35 .25

There is no significant difference between the two averages at the

95 percent confidence level.

(f) Burn resistance ratings for specimens of Formica and

Lucite

A small specimen of laminated thermoplastic sheet (Formica-mottled

grey) was tested with "Winston" cigarettes. The coating thickness

was 10.7 mils while the backing sheet was .050 in. thick. No metal

foil was laminated into the structure. No charring was observed

at any of the three test areas. The condensed tars present at

each area were removable by dry rubbing; hence, the cigarette burn

resistance rating for this particular Formica specimen was 100.

The average char depth on a 3/8-in. thick specimen of clear Lucite

was measured as 2.1 mils. Since no coating was present, the burn

resistance rating was determined as specified in the footnote of

Table 2.19-1. The burn resistance rating was 60 for this particular

specimen.

(g) Bum resistance ratings of FRPE fixtures

The burn resistance ratings were obtained on two FRPE bathtubs.

No difficulties were encountered in performing the tests. Both

units gave a burn resistance rating of 70.
(3) Rationale for Test Selection

Admittedly, the proposed test tends to be somewhat qualitative,

especially with respect to the end point, which depends both on

the judgment and visual acuity of the observer. However, since

nine burned areas are evaluated, and since char depths obtained

over a relatively wide range of percentage loss in thickness

yield the same bum resistance rating, high scatter in results

among the observers would not be expected. One desirable feature

of the test is that it exactly simulates the performance characteristic that is being evaluated.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

Lighted cigarettes are occasionally placed on the flat ledges of

bathtubs while the person using the bathroom is performing some

such natural function as shaving or washing of hands. The field

survey made near the beginning of the project showed that burns

from this practice were not uncommon on bathtubs with organic

finishes. At the same time, however, it was found that once a burn had occurred, a polyester gel coat could be restored to almost

its original appearance without the need for an expensive or com- plex repair operation or of the removal of an excessive amount of

coating material. Other future organic finishes might not have

this property. Therefore, it would seem desirable to require

that the cigarette burn resistance be approximately as great as the currently produced polyester gel coats.

118
Table 2.19-1 Criterion for Rating Cigarette Burn Resistance

Cigarette

Bum

Rating

100 Stain removable by dry rubbing with a soft cotton cloth.

90 Stain removable by wet rubbing with a soft cotton cloth.

80 Stain removable by any scouring treatment that does not measurably

decrease the coating thickness.

70 Stain eliminated by removal of not more than 10% of coating thicknes

60 tt ii it ii it ii ii ti 201 ii it ti

50 n it ii ii ii ii ii ii 301 ti ii it

40 n ii n it ii ii ii it 407. it it ii

30 ti ii ii it ii ii ti n

507. ii ii it

20 it it ii ii it it ii ii 607. ii it ii

10 it it ii ii ii ii ii it 70% ii ii it

0 Stain not eliminated by removal of 707. of thickness m

a_/ For molded fixtures with no coating, burn ratings of 70 and lower

shall be based on measured char depths only. If, for these fixtures,

the stain is eliminated by removal of not more than 2 mils of material

from the surface, the bum resistance shall be 70; by not more than

4 mils, 60; by not more than 6 mils, 50; by not more than 8 mils, 40;

by not more than 10 mils, 30; by not more than 12 mils, 20; and by

not more than 14 mils, 10. If the stain is not eliminated by removal

or 14 mils from the surface, the burn rating shall be zero.
Table 2.19-2 Summary of Cigarette Burn Tests on Two Fiber Glass

Specimens with Polyester Gel Coats

Spec.

No.

Coating

Thickness

Cigarette

Brand

Test

Operator

No. of

Tests

Avg Char.

Depth

Std

Dev.

Cigarette

Burn

Rating —

mils mils

b/

PA-1" 10.2 Winston 1 6 1.97 0.35 60

PA-1 10.2 Winston 2 6 1.90 0.25 60

PA-1 10.2 Camel 1 6 1.72 0.22 60

PA-2£/ 10.0 Winston 2 6 1.90 0.10 60

PA-2 10.0 Lucky Strike 2 6 1.90 0.10 60

PA-2 10.0 Kool 2 6 1.63 0.31 60

a/ See Table

b / Thickness

c/ Thickness

2.19-1 for procedure used to assign rating,

of fiber glass-resin backing, 0,14 in.

of fiber glass-resin backing, 0.11 in.

120 -
60e

<) eg

© 00 v£> ^ CM zI wHaSM

CJOzt—

:=> PQ33He<

ssoo

Ejh o 0

to pqc

•rtCO<1) P31coto

(0 iHoV40) rQI oo

tO£Ou

cOoo

r-H CD o

QJ u

CO

a) pHo

PkI CM

CM

cO£o<4-1

CO ,£4-> aaQ

cO ,£

cj

iHI ON

suw-Hiaaa avHD 60

•H

Ih

121
2.20 Radiant Heater Resistance (T303A)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the resistance of a sanitary plumbing

fixture to permanent damage caused by a radiant heater placed near the

fixture

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

Radiant Heater. The radiant heater to be used for the test shall

consist of a Sears Roebuck Model 135.71600, or equivalent. This is a 650 watt, 120 volt heater that is available from most Sears, Roebuck

and Company stores. The heating element operates in an air atmosphere. A 10- in. bright-metal parabolic mirror placed behind the

heating element collimates the radiant flux. The front safety grill

of the heater shall be removed prior to testing. Also, the heater

shall be operated at the same voltage to + 2 volts for all tests

described herein. In addition, the reflector shall be cleaned of

accumulated dust and dirt prior to each use.

Black-Panel Radiometer . A black-panel radiometer is required. This

shall be constructed as specified in Fig. 2.20-1 (Part A). A nulltype poteniometer (or a millivoltmeter) readable to 0.1 mv is required

to measure the response of the radiometer thermocouple.

Fig. 2.20-1 specifies that a flat black paint shall be applied at a thickness of 0.002 in. to the sensing area of the radiometer probe.

This paint film may blister if the temperature of the probe is

raised too rapidly during the first heat-up. Therefore, the paint

film shall be cured prior to test by moving the probe very slowly

toward the radiant heater until a probe temperature of 250°F is

indicated. The probe shall then be maintained at this temperature

for 15 minutes to complete the curing, after which the paint surface

shall be inspected for the presence of blisters. If blisters are

present, the probe shall be repainted, and the paint film cured with

a slower heating cycle. In no case shall the probe be used for the

testing described herein unless the paint film is completely free

of blisters.

The paint used as the probe coating shall be 3M Brand BlAck Velvet

Coating (101-C10 Black), or equivalent. This is available in

6-oz spray cans from the Reflective Products Division, 3M Company,

122
St. Paul, Minnesota. The required 0.002-in. thickness is achieved

with this paint by spraying as two coats but without permitting com- plete drying between the two applications. Film thickness can be

determined by micrometer measurements before and after application.

(2) Test Procedure

A. Calibration of Radiant Heater Response with Black-Panel Radiometer : Mount the heater and radiometer on a flat, horizontal surface using an

arrangement such as that suggested in Fig. 2.20-1 (Part B) . Then,

with the temperature in the test room at 75±3°F, place the probe at

a distance of 27-in. from the face of the heater. Position the probe

with the painted surface facing the heater and, also, with the center

of the probe at the same height as the center of the reflector, and,

in addition, center the probe with respect to the horizontal axis of

the heater.

After positioning the heater, turn on the heating element and, after

5 minutes, measure the millivolt response from the probe thermocouple.

Then, without turning off the heater, move the probe 1/2 inch in a horizontal direction and after 2 minutes, again measure the millivolt

response. Repeat this operation moving the probe 1/2 in. in a lateral direction after each measurement until a position is reached

that is approximately coincident with the outer rim of the reflector

on the heater. The maximum reading obtained during this lateral

scan shall then be taken as the millivolt response of the radiometer

at the 27-inch distance.

Next, repeat the procedures outlined in the preceding paragraph with

the probe placed 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, 9, and 6 inches from the heater

face, being certain in each case that the probe face is parallel to

the front edge of the reflector on the heater. After completing these

measurements, convert the maximum millivolt readings obtained at each

distance to temperature in °F using the standard conversion tables

for Chromel-Alumel thermocouples given in ASTM Procedure: E230-63.

In effect, these maximum temperatures at each distance represent a flux density calibration for the radiant heater.

123 -
Note: These maximum temperatures are referred to later as equivalent

black-panel radiometer temperatures

B. Testing of Fixture : Place the fixture to be tested in its normal

use position permitting it to rest freely on a horizontal heat-resistant

surface. No closures shall be used at the fixture ends.

Next, select a vertical area near, the center of the fixture that might

be exposed in service to the flux from a portable radiant heater. For

a bathtub with a front apron, the selected test area shall be near the

center of the apron while for other fixtures, such as a shower stall,

the test area shall be any outer vertical surface. Note: On fixtures

other than bathtubs, only a part of the collimated flux may strike the

test area. The temperature of the testing room shall be 75±5°F. The fixture

shall be stored in the room for at least four hours prior to testing

to permit it to reach temperature equilibrium. As soon as this equilibrium has been established, position the reflector of the heater so that the front edge of the reflector is parallel to the test area and

at a distance of 27 inches from the fixture when measured from the

outer rim of the reflector to the area to be tested. Also, adjust

the height of the heater so that the collimated flux strikes approximately midway between the top and bottom of the test area. After completing this positioning, turn on heater and expose the test area for 15± 1/4 minute to the radiant flux. Note: The timing shall

start when the heater is turned on rather than when it reaches its

operating temperature. If no damage to the fixture is observed when

examined within 2 minutes after turning off the heater, move the

heater 3 inches closer to the test area (24-in. distance) and repeat

all operations specified above.

Note: For the purposes of this test, damage shall consist of any

cracking, blistering, and discoloration of the test surface as well

as any distortion or buckling of the fixture.

by

Next, continue the testing^moving the heater 3 inches closer to the

test area after each 15-minute exposure period until a distance is

reached where the 15-minute treatment causes some observable damage

to the fixture. The radiant heater resistance rating of the fixture

shall then be the equivalent black-panel radiometer temperature for

this distance. Note: If no damage occurs at the 6-inch distance,

the radiant heater resistance rating shall be reported as greater

than the equivalent radiometer temperature at 6 inches. Likewise,

if damage is observed at the 27-inch distance, the resistance rating

shall be reported as less than the equivalent radiometer temperature

at 27 inches.

124 -
(3) Information to be Reported

The following information shall be included in the test report:

1. Type of radiant heater, including manufacturer's name and model

number.

2. Type and thickness of paint used on black-panel radiometer probe.

3. Type of instrument used for measuring millivolt response of probe

thermocouple.

4. Temperature of room in which measurements were made.

5. Distance between heater and fixture at which first damage was observed

6. Type of damage, if any, that resulted from the radiant-heater

treatment

7. Radiant -heater resistance rating of fixture in °F.

c. Recommended Performance Level

The radiant-heater resistance rating of the fixture shall be not less than

215 °F when measured by the methods and procedures specified in Section

2.20(b). This rating is the equivalent black-panel radiometer temperature

for the heater distance at which first damage to the fixture is observed.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

A search of the test literature failed to reveal any earlier tests

for the resistance of a fixture material to damage from radiant

heaters

(2) Test Development

The first tests were made with 4x4 in. specimens of FRPE mounted, face

forward, in a small backing enclosure of 1/4-in. plywood. A small

wire thermocouple was cemented into a hole drilled from the back of

the specimen to the gel-coat interface. The hot junction was positioned

so as to be touching the gel coat. Indicated temperatures were re- corded as the specimens were moved inward toward two types of radiant

heaters. Results obtained with two FRPE specimens for this type of

testing are shown in Fig. 2.20-2. The only permanent damage observed

in these tests was a discoloration (yellowing) of the specimen after

exposure at 6 in. to the 650-watt heater.

125
Because of difficulties involved in standardizing the treatment described

above, and also because thermal stresses encountered in a fixture would

not be duplicated in a 4x4-in. specimen, further work on this method

was terminated. Instead, emphasis was placed on the exposure of actual

fixtures to the radiant flux from a commercial heater. However, since

no two heaters could be depended upon to give the same radiant flux

per unit area at the same distance from the heater, it was necessary

to devise a simple method of calibration. The method that was devised

is described in Sec. 2.20(b). Although a more sophisticated calibration approach might have been used that would involve, among other

things, expensive calibrated radiometers with infrared windows, such an apprpach was not believed justified for the radiant heater test.

Results of measurements made with three different probes are given in

Table 2.20-1. It will be noted that the three probes are in reasonably

good agreement. The maximum difference between probes was 13 °F. This

occurred at the closest distance of approach to the heater.

Table 2.20-2 lists the results of radiant heater tests made on four

FRPE bathtubs. Position No. 1 is the test area specified for bathtubs

in Sec. 2.20(b)2. Of the three tubs that could be tested in this area

(PB-2, PB-4 and PD-1) , only two met the recommended performance level

of a radiant heater resistance rating of not less than 215°F. The

third (PB-2) showed a blister at 18 inches (203°F rating). This

blister almost completely receded on cooling. Nevertheless, the bond

between coating and substrate had been ruptured by the treatment and

this could easily lead to later deterioration.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

Numerous alternative approaches might be used to evaluate the radiant

heater resistance of a fixture. One might be to place a specimen cut

from the fixture into an oven and determine the temperature at which

deterioration was first observed. Such a method would not be simulative, however, since when a fixture is exposed to the flux from a radiant heater, heating is from one side only. Also, the temperature

reached by a given material during radiant heating is strongly dependent

on its infrared absorptance and emittance while in an oven all specimens

will reach the same temperature irrespective of the thermal radiation

properties of the surface layer.

The particular test recommended is believed to closely simulate the

conditions that exist when a portable radiant heater is placed on the

floor of a bathroom in such position that it faces a bathtub. Exposure for 15 minutes seems a reasonable time although longer times

might have been specified. Built-in panel heaters (either gas or electric) might operate almost continuously in a bathroom during cold

126
weather. Heaters of this type, however, are normally positioned further

from the fixture and hence the flux per unit area falling on the fixture

would not reach the high values encountered with the portable heaters.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The recommended performance level requiring that the fixture have a radiant -heater resistance rating of 215°F represents the condition

that exists when a typical portable heater with a power of 650 watts

is placed approximately 15 inches from an exposed area of the fixture.

This distance appears to be a reasonable one since, if the heater was placed closer than about 15 inches to one of the current FRPE fixtures,

the occupant could be forewarned of impending damage to the fixture by

a rather strong odor of styrene.

Long-time effects from radiant heat at lower flux densities than that

represented by a 650-watt heater at 15 inches were not investigated

because of time limitations. However, it seems unlikely that any

damage from this type of treatment would be of especially serious

nature

The 15-minute time period specified in Sec. 2.20b(2)B is admittedly

arbitrary. It was selected as being reasonably representative of the

time that a portable heater might be left on in a bathroom.

127
Table 2.20-1 Results with Three Black-Panel Radiometer Probes

Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 2.20b(l).

Maximum

Distance & j

Probe

from HeaterNo. 1 in. °F

27 156

24 169

21 195

18 208

15 221

12 230

9 243

6 278

a / Sears Model 135.71600,

Radiometer Probe Temperature

Probe Probe

No. 2

°F

No. 3

°F

Average

°F

156 160 157

173 173 172

186 186 189

203 199 203

212 214 216

225 230 228

238 247 243

265 278 274

650-watt heater.

128 -
Table 2.20-2 Results of Radiant Heater Tests on FRPE Bathtubs

Tub

No.

Pos. of

Test/ Damage

a / b / Area- Distance— Description of Damag e in.

Rad. Heater

Resistance

Rating

•F PB-2 1 18 One blister, 2 1/2" diam.

2 12 Slight discoloration

3 12 Slight discoloration

203

228

228

PB-4

c/

PC-1”

123

23

12 Slight discoloration 228

15 Blister, 2 1/4" diam. 216

18 Blister, 2 1/2" max. dimension 203

6 Slight discoloration 274

6 Slight discoloration 274

PD-1 12

3

12 Slight discoloration

6 Slight discoloration

6 Slight discoloration

228

274

274

a/ No. 1 - on apron midway between ends of tub.

No. 2 - on apron near drain end.

No. 3 - on apron at end opposite drain.

b/ Measured from front rim of reflector on heater to tub apron.

c/ Test made on fixture that had been cut in half for other testing.

- 129-
*•!!. ric '-tv. ps 1 t*; 'i

r

. r, r probo v d o\:r 'esr* - ^rr^ r " r y

.

• ~ { ’ q» ( >'*' r*^/] » j t.f^ #

130
do— ivoo 139 do 3amvaddW3i

-131

DISTANCE

FROM

FRONT

OF

HEATER

-IN
2.21 Resistance to Thermal Shock (T304)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of a thermal shock performance test for a sanitary plumbing

fixture is to evaluate the ability of the fixture to withstand (1) intermittent exposure of the finished surface to hot water, and (2) alternate

exposure to hot and cold water, without exhibiting surface damage.

Some degree of thermal shock resistance is desirable in all sanitary

plumbing fixtures. The need is probably least for water closets and

urinals, since typical service exposure for these fixtures involves

only cold water at temperatures not far below normal room temperatures.

The limited amount of work reported here was carried out only on a bathtub.

b. Selection of a Test Method

An apparatus was assembled for exposing a bathtub to repetitive cycles

of thermal shock. This apparatus was tried out on one specimen of an enameled steel tub. This apparatus would probably be suitable for use

in thermal shock tests with some further development and refinement,

as described in Par. 2.21 e . No test method is recommended at this

time, because (1) the existing published test methods reviewed impose

conditions of exposure unrepresentative of service, (2) no correlation

appears to have been established in the existing tests between numberof- cycles- to- failure and temperature, and (3) the limitations of the

present investigation did not permit complete development of an adequate test.

A recommended test method should be relatively simple, and should effectively simulate the conditions imposed in service. Correlation

between the effects produced in the test and the effects from service

exposure would be needed.

c. Performance Requirement

Performance requirements cannot be stated precisely, because more

work is required on test development and more data are required on

performance. However, it can be stated that a plumbing fixture should

be capable of a reasonable period of service exposure, without ex- hibiting surface damage that can be detected by the inspection procedure described in Sec. 2.8.

132
d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

A few tests involving thermal shock have been developed by other

groups for use with vitreous china and vitreous-glazed earthen- ware plumbing fixtures. The degree of correlation between the

results obtained from these test procedures and from actual service exposure is unknown.

Among the tests referred to in existing plumbing fixture standards

are the following:

1. Autoclave Test for Crazing of Vitreous Glazed Earthenware,

Par. 11, CS111-43.

Flat pieces broken from a fixture (approx. 16 in. sq.) are subjected to 75-psi steam pressure in an autoclave for one

hour, after which the pressure is released and the speci- mens are allowed to cool to room temperature in the autoclave. The specimens are then examined for cracking or crazing after applying a dye solution to the finished surface.

After the specimens are subjected to four cycles of this

treatment, they are required to show no cracking or crazing.

2. Thermal Shock Test for Vitreous Glazed Earthenware, Par. 12,

CS111-43.

A complete fixture is filled with boiling water which is maintained at the boiling point until the material is heated

throughout, followed by rapid emptying and immediate refilling

with ice water at a temperature of 38 *F. The ice water is

maintained at 38 *F by addition of ice until the fixture

material is thoroughly cooled, after which the fixture is quickly

emptied and the cycle repeated. The fixture is required to withstand at least 25 cycles of this treatment without injury.

3. Crazing Test for Vitreous China, Par. 6.4 of CS20-63 and Par.

10.11.4 of FS WW-P-541b-54.

A test specimen 4 to 5 in. square is suspended in a solution

of anhydrous calcium chloride and water (equal portions by

weight) and boiled for 1 1/2 hours. Then the specimen is

removed and immediately plunged into an ice water bath and

allowed to cool. Following this, the specimen is soaked for

12 hours in a concentrated solution of methylene-blue dye,

and finally examined for craze lines. No crazing is allowed.

133
(2) Test Development

Apparatus was constructed and tried out which subjected the

inside surface of a bathtub to thermal shock with a differential in water temperature approximating 160*F. Fig. 2.21-1

is a schematic representation of the apparatus. The bathtub

was filled with hot or cold water to the overflow outlet in

about 3 minutes, and emptied in about 4 minutes. A boiling

water reservoir with steam heating was provided, as well as an ice water reservoir using ice cubes for cooling. A circulating pump and a pipe network with necessary valves provided

the means for introducing and removing water from the fixture.

A multi-channel temperature recorder provided a continuous

record of the temperature of the water at the entrance to the

tub, in the central area of the tub, and of the outside surface

of the lower portion of the fixture at four points.

Based on trials with a porcelain- enameled steel bathtub,

approximately 20 minutes per cycle was required to permit the

outside surfaces of the sump to attain a maximum or minimum

temperature, respectively, in the alternating hot and cold

exposures. Cycle frequency was selected on the basis of these

temperature measurements. Approximately 40 lb of ice were

required per cycle.

Table 2.21-1 summarizes some aspects of the operation of the

apparatus shown in Fig. 2.21-1 in an 18 cycle trial test of a porcelain-enameled steel tub. A 6-channel temperature recorder

was employed. Observations made on the porcelain- enameled

steel bathtub after a 50-hour continuous boil test and 25 cycles

of the thermal shock test described here showed no surface effects

other than a very slight dulling of the finish.

(3) Discussion of Performance Level

Since the test development was incomplete, no performance level can be set at this time. However, it can be stated that a level should be set based on a correlation between number-of- testcycles- to- failure, test temperature, and use conditions.

134 -
e. Recommended Future Test Development

It is recommended that further work be carried out with apparatus

patterned after that shown in Fig. 2.21-1 with some modifications

and refinements, such as automatic flow control valves, mechanical

chilling equipment, corrosion resistant reservoirs and circulating

equipment, and an improved temperature control system. The criterion

and method used for selecting cycle frequency should be considered

further. It might be desirable to base this selection on the mini- mum and maximum temperatures attained within the fixture material

rather than on outside surface temperatures.

Tests should be made on a statistically significant number of

specimens of several materials to establish correlation between

number-of- cycles- to- failure and temperature differential and/or

water temperature. Finally, it would be necessary to determine

what constitutes a reasonable set of use conditions as they relate

to frequency of use and temperature differential or water temperature, so that this set of conditions could be considered in recom- mending test procedures. The performance level could then be set

from test results on materials with known service performance.

Further development work should be planned with a view to the

possible recommendation of an alternate hot-and-cold-water exposure

test that could be used to combine the prolonged hot water exposure

test recommended in Sec. 2.18 and the thermal shock test discussed

above

Table 2.21-1 Characteristics of Thermal Shock Testr^in Trial Run

on Porcelain-Enameled Steel Tub

Cycle time approx. 20 min.

Cold-to-hot peaks approx. 10 min.

Hot- to- co Id approx. 10 min.

Incoming water temperature

differential approx. 175 *F Water temperature differential in tub

(1 in. above bottom of tub, approx* 158 °F

centrally located)

Outside skin temperature approx. 150®-155°F,

differential depending on location

1 / See Fig. 2.21-1

135
00

Ci

136

Figure

2.21-1.

Schematic

of

Thermal

Shock

Test

Apparatus

for

Complete

Bathtub
2.22 Resistance to Household Chemicals (C501)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the resistance of bathroom plumbing

fixtures to chemicals with which they are likely to come into contact during

normal use.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Equipment

The test for resistance to household chemicals shall be made using test

equipment prepared in accordance with Fig. 2.22-1.

(2) Chemicals

The resistance to attack by 20 different chemicals shall be evaluated 0 The chemicals that shall be used together with their required purity,

concentration, and method of preparation are listed in Table 2.22-1.

Note ; Such items as soap, mineral oil and pine oil are considered as chemicals for the purpose of this test.

(3) Test Procedure

Cut five flat 4-in. square specimens from the fixture to be tested

and number these specimens from one through five. Clean each specimen

with mild soap and water, rinse thoroughly with water, and dry.

Next, position specimen No. 1 into the testing assembly as illustrated

in Fig. 2.22-l(F). Tighten screws with a firm pressure to prevent

leaking. Then, with the cell in a horizontal position, add 0.5 ml

of chemical No. 1 to cell No. 1, 0.5 ml of No. 2 to cell No. 2, 0.5 ml

of No. 3 to cell No. 3, 0.5 ml of No. 4 to cell No. 4. Use a hypodermic syringe to introduce the chemical into the cell through the

needle holes in the Teflon cover sheet (Fig. 2.22-1, part C) . Insert

Teflon plugs into each of the four holes in the top plate (Fig. 2.22-1,

part A)

After 2 hours ±5 minutes at 75 ±5°F, dismantle equipment, remove specimens, and rinse with water. Immediately after drying, inspect test areas for evidence of attack and assign a chemical resistance rating

to each test area in accordance with the rating system specified in

Table 2.22-2..

137
Next, repeat the same test procedure with specimen No 0 2 and chemicals

No, 5, 6, 7, and 8. After assigning resistance ratings, follow the

same procedure with specimens Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and thus obtain a resistance rating. for all 20 chemicals listed in Table 2.22-1. The

household chemicals resistance rating for the fixture shall then be

the arithmetric average of these 20 individual ratings.

(4) Information to be Reported

The following information shall be included in the test report:

1. Temperature at which tests were made.

2. Household chemicals resistance rating for each of the 20

chemicals and also the effects observed on each test area.

3. The household chemicals resistance rating for the fixture.

c. Recommended Performance Requirement

The household chemicals resistance rating for the fixture shall be not less

than 75. In addition, the individual resistance rating to chemical No. 10

(soap) shall be not less than 100, nor shall the ratings be less than 50

for chemicals No. 6 (isopropyl alcohol), No. 12 (phenol). No. 13 (hydrogen

peroxide), No. 17 (ammonium hydroxide), No. 19 (sodium hydroxide), or No. 20

(sodium nitrate).

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

Few tests exist for evaluating the resistance of sanitary ware materials

to common household chemicals. The commercial standards for porcelain enameled

bathtubs (CS-77-63; cast iron and CS- 144-47; pressed steel) include a requirement for resistance to citric acid, a chemical that is not found too often in

bathrooms. ASTM Procedure: D1300-53T entitled Tentative Specifications and

Methods of Test for Laminated Thermosetting Decorative Sheets contains a section on "stain resistance" in which at least one household chemical

(vinegar) is included. In this test each of eight reagents is applied to

the specimen in an unspecified amount and a cover glass is placed over the

reagent. The test is made for 16 hours at 24°C. The grading is based

mostly on the presence or absence of stains.

138 -
(2) Test Development

Preliminary tests in which watch glasses were used to cover reagents

indicated that this method was unsuitable because of uncontrolled

evaporation rates. Volatile organic solvents such as acetone, benzene,

ethyl acetate, and alcohol disappeared from under the watch glass

sometimes in a matter of minutes. A tight seal was essential for

reproducible results and this led to the design and use of the equipment shown in Fig. 2.22-1. Trials with the equipment showed that

evaporation could be held to low levels even when such a volatile

solvent as acetone was used as the test reagent.

The test procedure that was devised through use of this equipment

is described in Section 2.22b(3) c Test results when this procedure

was used for three current fixture materials are listed in Table

2*22-3 The household chemicals resistance rating of the FRPE

fixture material was 86 and that of both porcelain enameled materials

(cast iron and steel) was 100.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

A test for resistance for household chemicals should incorporate all

those reagents with which a bathroom fixture might come into contact

during service. In selecting these reagents, staining mediums were

not considered since a staining test is incorporated elsewhere in

this report (Section 2.23).

Considerable thought went into the selection of the chemicals; the

20 chemicals selected together with the reason for their selection

is included in Table 2.22-1.

The test time of two hours is arbitrary. Either a longer or shorter

time might have been used. However, two hours is believed to be

realistic since only on very rare occasions would household chemicals

(with the possible exception of wet soap) be in contact with a fixture

for a longer period.

The method of grading the test areas assigns a resistance rating based

on the severity of the attack. A material that shows no effect from

a given chemical should obviously have a higher rating than one that

shows an effect. Likewise, a material that shows only a very slight

effect (fiber pattern in coating or a softening as evidenced by penetration of the Teflon ring) should be rated higher than one in which

139
the attack is so severe that the substrate is exposed after treatment.

The rating system specified in Table 2.22-2 incorporates this concept

of differences in the degree of attack.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The household chemicals resistance rating of the FRPE specimens tested

was 86. The field survey that was made at the beginning of the investigation indicated that the present gel coat materials have a sufficient

resistance to household chemicals since there was no evidence of chemical

attack on any of the fixtures nor were any complaints offered by home

owners about the lack of chemical resistance.

Future sanitary ware materials may not have as good a resistance as current

FRPE fixtures. Therefore , the recommended performance requirement

of 75 is needed to insure that newly introduced materials will not be

seriously deficient with respect to their resistance to common household chemicals.

Consideration of the 20 chemicals listed in Table 2,22-1 will suggest that some of these chemicals are much more frequently encountered than others

and therefore more important to the test. This is the reason for

recommending specific levels for specific chemicals. It would be un- thinkable, for example, to permit the use of a fixture material that

had poor resistance to attack by wet soap. The recommended performance

level requiring a resistance rating of 100 for wet soap is intended

to prevent such a situation from developing.
Table

2.22-1

Chemicals

to

be

Used

in

Household

Chemicals

Test

and

Reasons

for

their

Selection

coxd> co 0 <u 0 d D •H 9 5-i O CO •H CD d X X X o CO O 3

•H •H CD X X tH CO X o o d •H 9 D p- a •H X CO rH X 0 <J C

4 d CO d •H

CO a) rH o d X > CO •H o

5-1 co (U a) rH X O X, X O •H > > o a) cd MH i—t o o CO d X o X o X Xi cd •H o CO •iH d p- cd cd 00 a CD cd co 03 o a d I—

i—

X X X X co i—

co CO CO •H o o C <D

cd •H cd cd u d X cd <u cd •H cd o d X

pi d d a> d CD o T—

rH o a) CO 0 0 o rH I—

o •rH D X o x cd cd X o cd X o MH cd o D co CO CD d tH a

00 s-' '—' 5-1 CO 00 CO r*S •H 3 0 d •H cd d 3 X CO 0 cd •H cd •H o cd •H •H X CH X X) X X X d CO CO D X d d CO 3 d d d O d M 5—

X X M M M H 5H , X

CD X 9 o lx

CO CO cd X X d CD d cd d CD X £ d o O d CD a cd

4-1d oo 0) •H d 9 X CO •rH CO •H X X s rH d 3 CD CO tH O d X a cd d o cd " a CD CO X •H CO CD CO d X • 9 CO s rH X cd CD CO CO d CO 00 o <D CD d X X X

CD CD d d i—1 ps CD CD CD CO X •H rH CD CJ o d d X 3 u > X a, cd cd cd cd o o ex d CD CD 5

co CD 0 X o rH 00 rH rH

CD 1 1 CD co o d U o X > X X X X •rH o

•H 1 CD X (D X d d X X X r-H CD co 3 •H •H tH

cd •H CO •iH X 3 O cd cd 0 > cd 3 o cd O o X X

•H X X X S X CO d d m X a

CD d d d d d d d d o Q (H W w M w H 5H M o

Csl EC ao d S-5 o

•r—

o m X •H X X X 'w' X X X X X CD X cd X X X X X X X X X X X X d cd 00 00 00 9 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 X d X d d d rH d d d d d d d d cd cd CD CD <D o CD CD CD CD CD X CD

CD a X X X > X X X X X o X

CJ CD X X X X X X X X o X d X CO CO CO > CO CO CO CO CO IX CO o pH X

cj iH 1—1 r—

H rH tH rH rH D tH rH rH i—l &-S rH rH rH rH tH CD rH 3 3 3 m 3 3 2 3 3 CO 3

PH Ph pH Os Ph pH Ph Ph PH >—

Ph X X X X

0) > d d d d d cd 1 cd 1 cd | x| d X X CD CD CD CD CD • • 3 • cdX o •HX

bO

cd 00cd 00

cd PH

00

cd 00

cd 1 i 1 

Ph o 3 CD CD CD CO CD CD o o O o CO

pH pP Pi Pi d Pi Ph o o o cj X

CD d•HX tH cd O o X X rH X X

CD rH d X o X r-H cd CD CD rH a CJ p.

P- o •H X o cd rH cd

•rH •H d cd X X CO d tH o 0 CD X o X •H d d (D X <D o CD rH 0 0 rH

•H X oo cj r-H X 3 1—1 •H X CJ d CD (D cd cd p- CD i—i •H 0 d

Ph

w d d d o iH cd O •H o CD t-H rH o X O X tH X N >s X a X (D 0) a o

CD d X X X o X d d cd d o D X X cd CO (U •H •H o cd < M w w cj M Ph 2 Ph C/3 X

rHc

a 9 •H o r

Cs| cn <t

m X r-. oo OS O r

0 » i

t

CD Xo XD X > X X X X X D X X X O

CD CD CD D D X D D D a X X X X X cd X X X

cd cd cd cd cd Df cd cd cd 00 £ S S S S d d •H

rH d rH rH tH •H rH tH rH d 0 •H 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 9 cd o • O O o rH O o O o rH O o o o o o o D

T— O r- r— t— > r— T— T— X > O 9 d d d d tn d d d IX D

•H P’s -H •H •H X •H •H •H D d X X cd 00 oo 00 00 00 00 00 X

rT-S o 00 00 CN so in in in in in in in d

•H X X dD ^ X X X X X X C 00 d edi d d c d d d o X

CD . CD D D D D D rH (D 00 a oo 00 00 00 00 00 MH X

cd 0 d cd cd cd cd cd D D

CD o 3 D D D dl D D H d Pi o aj Pi Pi P4 Pi Pi d *\ •H DX

dl d cd D 9 D d D X X o o

CD D d cd d cd MH d X D •H d D D i—

tH

•H cd X X o d rH d- 3 X X cd o <4H •H D cd 9 CO o a d X rH X X > D d X rH o d 3 o cd •H X D D

id d 3 X Pn CO X X 3 rH d

a, «h co X X d X cr rH X D o •H cd 9 •H D rH 0 N d <d X o 0 d X d 9 ctJ D d D 3 o D X X CO D

rH oo o 0 0 •H d 0 0 d O CO CO X o O -H 3 3 c 3 3 cd cd i—

d X r-t •H •H o • •rH •H X r\ pi- ?s

CD d cd d d H d d oo CO ed CO O X >s X o 0 p o o D O •H D

Ph PC o co CO co co CO i—

X co d cd cd X o

•H tH MH d d O 4-4 O D X 0 0 D Pn 00 P- 3 g X •H •H CN cn in sD 00 Os o g o r— 3 d r— t

r— i

X .

r— CN o > 9 cr o

CJ

M o D co

"cdl xl 'o| dl

141
Table 2.22-2 System for Assigning Ratings in Household Chemicals Test

Appearance of Tested Are.

a/ Rating to be Assigned

No visible effect 100

Fiber pattern in coating or indentation

mark in coating from penetration of Teflon

ring 75

Etching, dulling, pitting or discoloration 50

Flaking, blistering or peeling of coating 25

Exposure of substrate material 0

a/ — If more than one effect is present after a treatment, the effect

giving the lowest rating shall be the one used for assigning a rating to the test area. Also, all effects listed for one rating

need not be present on the same test area. Thus, if a specimen

showed a slight dulling of the surface with no evidence of pitting,

etching or staining, the assigned rating would be 50. Likewise,

if all three effects (etching, pitting, dulling and staining) were

present, the rating would be 50.

142
Table 2.22-3 Results of Household Chemicals Test for

Three Sanitary Ware Materials

Assigned Chemical Resistance Rating

Chemical

No. Type of Chemical FRPE^7 Porcelain Enameled

Cast Iron

Porcelain Enameled

Steel

1 Acetone 75^£/ 100 100

2 Benzene 5(4/ 100 100

3 Ethyl acetate 5Q£/d/ 100 100

4 Ethyl alcohol 50—/ 100 100

5 Carbon tetrachloride 100 100 100

6 Isopropyl alcohol 100 100 100

7 Petroleum naphtha 100 100 100

8 Mineral oil 100 100 100

9 Pine oil 100 100 100

10 Soap 100 100 100

1

Lanolin 100 100 100

12 Phenol 5(£7 100 100

13 Hydrogen peroxide 100 100 100

14 Oxalic acid 100 100 100

15 Sodium bisulphate 100 100 100

16 Sodium carbonate 100 J 100 100

17 Ammonium hydroxide 5C£7 100 100

18 Sod. dodec. sulfonate 100 100 100

19 Sodium hydroxide 100 100 100

20 Sodium nitrate 100 100 100

Household Chemicals 04

Resistance Rating OO 1 uu 1 00 —7 PA Series —7 Indentation mark in coating from penetration of Teflon ring, —

c/ Fiber pattern in coating. —7 Dulling of coating,

e/“ Slight stain.

143 -
0-1

4 - Jr ST66U 4

3

" SCR6WS 15

LON® WITH

NUTS TO FIT.

Mote : T£FLOW

COVER SHEET

NOT iHO'A/M.

2 . 22-1

- 14A- -
2.23 Stain Resistance (C502)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the ease of removal of stains from

both "new" and "abraded" surfaces of such sanitary fixtures as bathtubs,

shower stalls, and lavatories.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Equipment and Staining Agents

The following equipment is required for performing the stain test as herein described:

1. Brass cover blocks prepared in accordance with Fig. 2.23-1.

2. One-inch diameter watch glasses.

3. Rubber "0" rings, 7/8 in. O.D. by 11/16 in. I.D.

In addition the following staining solutions are required:

Stain No. 1 . Five percent solution (by weight) of reagent grade

potassium permanganate in distilled water.

Stain No. 2 . One percent solution (by weight) of iodine in ethyl

alcohol

Stain No. 3 . Mercurochrome in ammonia; prepare by mixing one volume of a two-percent aqueous solution of Mercurochrome

(merbromin) with two volumes of concentrated ammonium hydroxide.

Note: The Mercurochrome solution may be that commonly sold in

pharmacies as a general antiseptic.

Stain No. 4 . Iron staining medium; two ingredients are required:

(1) Chemical grade iron-metal filings, degreased, 20 mesh and

finer. Allied Chemical Company, Code 1810, or equivalent, and (2)

A one percent solution (by weight) of sodium chloride in water.

These two ingredients are combined immediately prior to use as specified in Par. 2.23b(2).

(2) Test Procedure

Select at random eight 1 1/2 in. diameter areas of the fixture that are substantially flat and horizontal. If the fixture has no such

145
areas, the fixture may be tilted, or alternatively, flat specimens

may be cut from the fixture. Abrade four of the selected test areas with 400 C silicon carbide abrasive paper (Carborundum Company A955R,

or equivalent). Use strips of the paper that are approximately 1/2

in. wide and 1 in. long. Place one end of the paper under the index

finger and with a firm pressure (force of approximately 10 lb) abrade

the area to be tested for a total of 10 strokes (five forward and

five backward) in one direction, and then with the index finger over

the opposite end of the strip, abrade for 10 strokes in a direction

at right angles to the first direction. The area where the two

abrasion treatments intersect (roughly 1/2 in. square) is the area

to be used for evaluating the stain resistance of an abraded surface.

Prior to application of the staining solutions wash all test areas (abraded and unabraded) with soap and water, rinse thoroughly, and

dry. Place approximately 0.5 ml of Stain No. 1 solution on unabraded

area No. 1, cover with a 1-in. diameter watch glass, and finally

cover with the brass cover block (Fig. 2.23-1) to prevent excessive

evaporation. After two hours at 75±5°F, remove the brass block and

watch glass, and also remove excess staining solution by blotting.

(Note: If the test area is dry on removal of watch glass, the test

is void and shall be repeated). Allow the test area to stand after

blotting until it is visually dry and then grade for ease of removal

of residual stain in accordance with the rating system specified in

Table 2.23-1. Next, repeat all operations specified in the preceding

paragraph for Stains No. 2 and No. 3. Note: For Stain No. 3 cover

inside surfaces of brass cover block with a layer of stop-cock grease

to prevent corrosion of the brass by the ammonia vapor.

For Stain No. 4 (iron stain), spread 0.1 gram of the iron filings

uniformly over a 3/4-in. diameter area of the test surface and sur- round the iron with a 7/8-in. diameter "0" ring that has been cleaned

with scouring powder prior to use. Wet the iron with 0.1 ml of the

one-percent sodium chloride solution and cover with a brass block

(Fig. 2.23-1). Apply an excess of stop-cock grease to the brass

block "0" ring to insure a tight seal. After 20 hours at 75±5°F, remove the brass block and 7/8 in. diameter "0" ring, and allow residual solution to dry without blotting. If test area is dry on removal of the brass block, improper sealing has occurred and the

test shall be repeated. Grading of the iron stain shall be done

within one to four hours after removal of the brass block. Prior

to grading, remove excess iron from test area by brushing. Assign

stain rating as specified in Table 2.23-1. Evaluate the stain

ratings of the abraded areas by the same test procedures and the same rating system used for the unabraded surfaces.

For the abraded-area tests, the watch glass (or the "0" ring for

the iron stain) shall be so positioned that the outer edge of the

watch glass (or "0" ring) falls on the center of the abraded area.

146 -
The combined stain rating shall be the sum of the ratings for the

eight individual stains (four stains on the unabraded and four on

the abraded areas) divided by eight. This combined rating need not

be reported to more than two significant figures.

(3) Information to be Reported

The test report shall contain the following information:

1. Assigned rating for each stain on the unabraded areas.

2. Assigned rating for each stain on the abraded areas.

3. Combined stain rating for the fixture.

c. Recommended Performance Requirement

The combined stain resistance rating shall be not less than 50 when determined as specified in Sec. 2.2 3(b).

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1)

Discussion of Existing Tests

procedures

Two test/ have been used for evaluating stain resistance. The first,

which is for the "Formica" type of material, is included in ASTM

Designation: D1300-53T. It specifies that the material shall be

unaffected by tea, beet juice, vinegar, bluing, dye, ink (washable),

iodine (170 ), and Mercurochrome (2%) except for superficial staining

which can be easily removed by a light application of a mild

abrasive. The test is highly qualitative and vague in its wording.

In addition, it gives the test operator considerable leeway in

selecting the particular proprietary products that he chooses to use

Commercial Standard CS-221-59 (Revised) contains a stain test specifically designed for FRPE sanitary fixtures. Although this test has some desirable features, it was not believed suitable for a performance test since (1) it uses proprietary materials for stains,

(2) the abrasive pretreatment is not sufficiently severe to have any

measurable effect on porcelain enamel or vitreous china finishes,

(3) the material with the poorest stain resistance is assigned the

highest stain rating, and (4) iron stains, which are quite common on sanitary fixtures, are not included as one of the staining media.

147
(2) Test Development and Rationale for Test Selection

The premises used for devising a staining test that would be free of

most of the aforementioned objections were as follows:

1. Since it would be impractical to test a fixture material with

every conceivable stain with which it might come into contact, it

seemed necessary to select several representative types of stain

for the standard test method.

2. Because proprietary products could change in composition at

any time depending on the needs of the manufacturer to maintain his

market, and also because these products could at some future time

disappear completely from the market, the specified staining agents

should be well-specified chemicals rather than proprietary products

of uncertain composition.

3. With the possible exception of iron and copper discolorations,

stains on fixtures are usually not the result of long-time contact

but rather are caused by accidental spills or other short-time ex- posure to the staining agent.

4. Because the surfaces of all fixtures become roughened to varying

extents during normal use, the stain resistance after a roughening

treatment is of considerable interest to the user. However, it is

only logical that the same roughening treatment be applied to all

materials. Also, it seems logical that the selected treatment should

be sufficiently severe to cause at least some roughening of the most

abrasion-resistant finish.

5. The stain rating should be related to the ease with which a stain

can be removed through use of common household cleaning agents.

6. The stain test should be so designed as to provide numerical

ratings for stain resistance so that (a) performance levels can be more easily assigned, and (b) manufacturers can more readily ascertain when they have improved the overall stain resistance of their

product.

(a) Selection of Staining Agents

One of the major problems encountered in the development of a stain

test was the selection of the staining agents. The following stains were investigated:

1. Iron stain . Trials with solutions prepared from soluble

iron salts all gave negative results. In no case was an adherent

148 -
stain formed on any of the materials. However, when metallic iron was permitted to rust while resting on the fixture surface stains were

produced that closely resembled those that are sometimes observed on installed fixtures. The problem then became one of generating a con- trolled corrosion so that reproducible stains could be obtained. After

much experimental work the conditions specified in Par. 2.23b(2) were

selected. A chemical grade of iron filings was used together with a 1% solution of sodium chloride. The relative amounts of each was

found to be important and the amounts specified in the recommended

test method must be carefully adhered to in order to generate a re- producible stain.

2. Copper stain . Copper stains are oftentimes observed on fixtures in rural or suburban areas where (a) copper piping is used for

the water supply, and (b) the water supply is either neutral or slightly acid. Tenacious blue stains appear on the fixtures under

these conditions, especially if there is a small leak from the hotwater faucet.

Considerable difficulty was encountered in the laboratory in reproducing these copper stains. After many trials a procedure was devised

whereby copper turnings were wet with ammonium hydroxide and left on

the test surface for 20 hours in a closed container. This treatment

created tenacious blue stains on porcelain enamel and vitreous china

that closely resembled those observed on fixtures; however, on FRPE

specimens the copper stain was found to penetrate deeply into the

gel coat. Additional tests showed that the ammonia was the cause

of this penetration; hence, this particular test could not be con- sidered realistic for gel coats since any significant amount of

ammonium hydroxide would never be encountered in a water supply.

Sufficient work was done with the copper stain test to show that the

stain rating for enamel and vitreous china was the same for copper

stains as for iron stains. Therefore, it was decided to include

only the iron stain in the recommended test since the iron stain

would give the required indication of the resistance of a material

to the metal-ion type of discoloration.

3. Hair dye . The most severe staining medium in the CS-221

stain test for FRPE was the black hair dye. Since this is a proprietary product, efforts were made to simulate its action through

use of some easily prepared chemical solution. The hair dye was

found to contain ammonium hydroxide and it was believed that the

presence of this ammonium hydroxide was responsible for the severity

of the stain on FRPE fixtures. Stain No. 3 (Mercurochrome in NH^OH)

yielded the same stain ratings on FRPE specimens as did the Miss

Clairol hair dye. Hence, it was included in the test as one of the

standard staining media.

149
4. Iodine . Iodine is a stain that might well come into contact

with fixtures. Therefore, it seems logical to include this stain as one of the staining agents. Also, the iodine can be considered

representative of many types of staining media that contain alcohol.

5. Potassium permanganate . This chemical is used occasionally

in bathrooms for therapeutic purposes. A second reason for its

selection is that it should be representative of the most aggressive

types of water-soluble stains that might be encountered during the

normal service life of a fixture.

6. Lipstick and black crayons . Stains of this general type

could be removed easily from all candidate materials even after 20

hours of contact. Hence, a simulated stain of this general type was not included as one of the selected staining agents.

7. Water-soluble ink and liquid shoe polish . These stains were also removed easily. Any material that received a high rating

with respect to KMnO^ (Stain No. 1) should also be highly resistant

to ink and shoe polish.

8. Rubber stains . It has been observed that some types of

rubber when in contact with a plastic surface may stain the finish

due to migration into the plastic of such compounding ingredients

as antioxidants and sulphur that are present in the rubber.

Consideration of this problem indicated that it would be difficult,

if not impossible, to simulate this type of staining by a simple

laboratory test. Two ASTM tentative test methods exist for evaluation of the resistance of plastics to rubber staining: (1) ASTM

Designation: D1712-60T, Resistance of Plastics to Sulphide Staining,

and (2) ASTM Designation: D2151-63T, Staining of Polyvinyl Chloride

Compositions by Rubber Compounding Ingredients. Since both of these

tests are quite complex and since rubber stains are not reported to

be a serious problem in FRPE fixtures, no requirements with respect

to rubber staining were included in the recommended staining test

procedure. However, if rubber staining should become a serious

problem on future fixtures it would be possible at that time to incorporate the two ASTM tests into the performance requirements.

(b) Test Results

Table 2.23-2 lists the results obtained when the staining test

specified in CS-221 (Revised) was made on five fixture materials.

When the same staining agents were used and the testing conducted

as specified in Sec. 2.23(1) of this report, the racings were those

listed in Table 2.23-3.

150 -
Table 2.23-4 gives the results obtained with four fixture materials

using the staining agents and test procedures specified in Sec. 2.23(b).

In all cases, the combined stain ratings were lower for the abraded

specimens than for those that were not abraded. This was not the

case, however, for some of the individual stains. For example, porcelain enameled steel, porcelain enameled cast iron, and vitreous

china received a rating of 60 against iron stains in both the abraded

and unabraded condition. A more severe abrasion treatment would

probably have lowered the iron-stain rating of the abraded specimens;

however, a more severe treatment was not indicated in view of the

mild abrasion effects that are normally observed on finishes of this

type after a number of years of service. It should also be pointed

out that the specified abrasion treatment with the 400 C silicon

carbide paper roughens the surface of these materials to an extent

that is comparable to the 10,000 cycle abrasion treatment in the

scrub tester as specified in Sec. 2.10 of this report.

(3) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The field inspection of FRPE fixtures made in July 1964 (Appendix A)

indicated that staining was not a serious problem with the FRPE

material; hence, it seems reasonable to recommend that the performance

requirement for stain resistance be placed at a level that will permit

the use of materials with a stain resistance comparable to the current

types of polyester gel coats. The requirement of 50 or higher ac- complishes this purpose.

151
Table 2.23-1 Grading Procedure for Assigning Stain Ratings

Numerical Rating System

Numerical Treatment Treatment Required for

Rating Identification Stain Removal

100 A Dry rub (20 strokes)

90 B Wet rub with water (20 strokes)

80 C Mild soap£/ and water rub (20 strokes)

70 D Ethyl alcohol rub (20 strokes)

60 E Abrasive^ and water rub (10 strokes)

50 F Abrasive^/ and ethyl alcohol rub (10 strokes)

40 G Abrasive^/ and water rub (20 strokes)

30 H Abrasive^/ and ethyl alcohol rub (20 strokes)

20 I Slight staining after treatment H

10 J Moderate staining after treatment H

0 K Severe staining after treatment H

a I Ivory soap or equivalent.

b/ Finely ground quartz mixed with 10% by weight of trisodium phosphate powder that

has been screened through a U.S. Standard No. 100 mesh sieve. The finely ground

quartz shall conform to the following size fractions to within ±5%.

Size Fraction % by Weight

On U.S. Std. No. 60 mesh sieve 0 Thru 60, on 100 mesh 0.2

Thru 100, on 200 mesh 11.4

Thru 200, on 325 mesh 19.8

Thru 325 mesh 68,6

100.0

Note: Material meeting the above size requirements is available from the

Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.

(B) Requirements for Grading Specimens

(1) Use a fresh, unused pad of soft, lint-free cheesecloth for each rubbing

treatment specified in Table 2.23-l(A). Each pad shall be approximately 1-in.

square and shall consist of not less than five layers of the cloth.

(2) For each rubbing treatment, place the pad under the index finger and with a firm pressure (approximately 10 lb total force), rub for the specified number

of strokes. One stroke shall consist of either one forward or one backward

movement of the pad over the stained area.

(3) In all wet rubbing treatments, excess fluid shall be removed from the pad

prior to use.

(4) Each treatment specified shall be applied to the stained area in sequence

until there is no further visual evidence of discoloration, or until Treatment

H has been completed. The numerical rating shall correspond with the final

treatment that removed the discoloration, or if some discoloration remains

after Treatment H, it shall correspond with the intensity of the residual

staining.

(5) Stains retained in small scratches that may accidentally be present on

the unabraded specimens shall not be considered in assigning stain ratings.

152
Table

2.23-2

Stain

Ratings

of

Five

Sanitary

Ware

Specimens

when

Tested

in

Accordance

with

Commercial

Standard

CS-221

(Revised) s e

60 -H

•rH CO 01 4J

<0 CO <

CQ u M Q O

CO

U

r-l -H

41>•

WuX m <1-

in in o • -n u > x x

41 co P3 flco

cm on

cn X X

cr o

•H Ph rJ I CO

p< X

CM CM

CM CM

-o|

0)&

in Ho

<uo. co

4-> 4-1 CO CO O O 0 o 1 I I—I «—

a) ai o o o

41 . a. o

co z I oo

<c

PL,

ini <PL| o cn o

CNI CM CM

Pi T3 a) c 3 4-1 •H

cO cd X 60 i-l CO rH rH rH •H CO cd r-4 rH S H 4-1 rH rH rH £ /—

rC C

Pi .0 &0 o O •H •H 3 rH 4J

Pi CO s X 0 * rH

rH rH rH 4J 0

•H CO » r-l • rH rH rH 0 0 C

CO X •H 4) o cd r-l o • 4J o rH •H CO in cd e o < CQ rH rH rH to a) .a c c 4J 3 *H o cd rH rH rH Pi rQ CQ a O rO *H

co T3 )H C a O cd CM

rH rH rH cd X VH 4J O 0)1 X o

rH rH u rH X <0 a Jh

4-1 rC 01 a) o u CO 4-) rH •H 0) 4-1 rH rH rH o (V 01 0)

a) X CO rC o

rH rH rH 0) 4-J <u •3 • £ a) 4-1 o 3 G 0) a) T3 0) 4-1 B c G CO 4J

rH rH rH cd a) •H cd 4J Q a) u CO E *4 f—

rH rH a) tH 4J 4-J o X cd B 4-1 •H S l-i B

rC & < a AJ

cd O 01 rH rH rH 4-1 rH Pi o o 3 CQ rC a) co rH rH rH 4-J co CO u

•H Q) CD <D & (D Pi 4-1 rC O. 4H 13 o cd rH rH rH 01 13 > 3 CO o -ui cd C H rH »H E •H .3 *H

01 cd

Pi rH g

CO crt a) rH i—

rH 3 a) g

i-l «H

cd o O

4-1 in C *H

rH rH rH CO o cd — iJ 4-1 1—

o cd CO CM

rH rH tH CO a) o Pi a) *4 2 O rH cu rH rH rH in o >

CD 60 a CO CO 3 #* \ \ 1-1 -H X m 3 | 13 1 "d| CO X 3 X X cd m Pi • 3 3 3 .a cd o o

Pi Pi u & CO S o o u 60

CO CO CO 3 in o

•H X CM 4-» •H i-l H C & E B o 13 in a) < < < rH V X B

rH > 4J

Pi s C o O 3 cd o o o IH e 01 Q) CQ CQ CQ 01 >

CD Pi o 4-1 3 E U 3 CD •H c •H Pi § o 3 cd <

Pi O 4-1 3 M cd CO 3

rH cd O 4-J *H CD a) CM 4-J PQ

CO rC a) C CO

cd u 4-1 P0 • #> Pi oI CO •H O cn ai * • 1 CO 4-1 w 4-J w CO • >n

•H \ cd • n o <d

CL, > Ph a>

CO

M CO &0 d • n 3 C co •H o •H CO •H crt o 4-1 0) £

rH ON ON cd >4 rH 01 | 1 P3 CL 44 Pi Q < i M O Q O > co cd 1 e<ao

CQX4-1 1-C&

CO

a)o

ino

COp

Pia

co o

CM

ino3

oiec0

01

Pi

(0

Pia

in x

13

(0ino

l-l 4-1 CO

CD 13in

o| X

a)603

cO X

13| 153

e/

Stain

penetrated

pinholes

in

glaze.
Table

2.23-3

Stain

Ratings

of

Specimens

to

CS-221

Stains

when

Tested

in

Accordance

with

the

Method

Specified

in

Sec.

2.23(b)

m c

atd X •H H 1 cd 4-1 o 4-1 Cd CJ CO (2

in ON CO NO CO NO rH nO ON 00 ON ON ON ON ON ON do O > o O o o o o o o

cd cd O no o o o o o o

i—

M H rH pH rH rH rH pH

CP

U

0) *o o o o o o o o o

cd CM CM o o o o o o

r—

•H rH rH rH rH rH rH

PQ

<dl X

CO O

at • •H d > 4-1 O o o o o o o o

•H <U CO o o r-» ON ON ON ON

4-1 Pd

A rH rH

cd •H

P4 X d

4-1 cd • 0)

4-1 4-1 1—4 o o o o o o o o

CO d o r"« ON i''. on oo ON I'-' 0) •H

rH

cd o > 3

X) <u o o o o o o o o

•H o NO o ON O ON o ON > pH d rH rH rH r-H •H PQ M

T3dM 0)Ox X

CO CO •H o o o o o o o o • rH ON NO ON ON ON ON ON ON

o' o

•H ex

<ud

•H o o o o o o o o

T3

m o o o o o o O rH rH rH rH rH pH W

cu e O <U 'd T3 'O d

cd 6 CU (U cu (U

4-t 4-1 •3 •d T3 u cd CU cd <U cd cu cd cu cd 3 CU d u d V4 d x d X

CO

M o X o x O X o X H z < Z c 2; < z <5

CO d X o X

cu /H

M

o. 4-1

M cd CM

>- cd d rH

EH o 4-1 •H (U CU o CO X CU 6 • 1 cd u 4-1 •H o iH a CO 4-1 cu w <U 1 • 1 a, CX o w 4-1 w 4-1 CO 2 NH •H d

C*-i cu > (X CUS

4-1 cd CO CO CO CO (U • <u <U <U cu X o •H •H •pH •H H

<u • u Q u < X

(X o < cu H <u o <u Q <U \ CO Z cu CO o CO > CO CO CO cd|

154
Table 2.

23-4

Stain

Ratings

of

Sanitary

Ware

Specimens

to

the

Four

Recommended

Stains

when

Tested

by

the

Method

Specified

in

Sec.

2.23(b)

oc • d 0 X •H •H 00

m B 03 U vO <1- o u d u CO pcj

CO 1 O r-> co

m co o m 00 r—

00 vO t-^ 00 i^. nMj-. OZ do d u

•H H d

4-1 CO

coob co td d o •H •

4-1 o d z 55 P4 1 d 1 d •H • •H d d 4-1 d u CO a COt—

CM dd • dl O d Z d > •H

•H d dJ

d) •H O d d w M u

CO• 0zd O •Hd s

+j CO o o

00 v£> o o

CM CM o om o o

oom o o

VO vO o o

ON VO o o o o o o

00 VO o o

vO VO

oil

ON «d- o o o o rH rH o o

00 VO o o

vO vO o o

ON vO o o o o o o

00 vO 4)Nd

rH

00d

4-J •H d d O d d> d> d3 d) CO d S d d d d d

<4-1 4-1 d5 d3 d) d) t—

d d d d d d d d) d o d d d u d u d u d d X CO u o X o x o x o X d H z <3 Z <3 Z <3 Z <3 •Ha

dJ d d d

O- 4-1 o 4-» >n d M co d H o M d u o d o d d i—

4-1 • 1 o 4-) d d o d d O w rH CO d *H d d d pj d w d 4J XI w 4-1 d a o u *H CJ CO a

co Pn CM > Ph d

•H

CO CO CO CO d • d d d d 4-4 o •H •H •H *t4 CO d • U Q d <3 M U

CL o <3 d M d CJ d Q d

co 55 CM CO O CO > CO CO CO dl

155
156
2.24 Color Stability (C503)

a. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the resistance of sanitary fixture

materials to changes in color caused by exposure to solar radiation.

b. Recommended Test Method

(1) Apparatus

A 6000-watt, water-cooled xenon- arc apparatus with a 37 3/4 inch diameter specimen rack shall be used. This apparatus shall be that specified in ASTM Designation: E-240-64T entitled Tentative Recommended

Practice for Operating Light and Water Exposure Apparatus (WaterCooled Xenon- Arc Type) for Artificial Weathering Tests.

(2) Procedure

Cut four 4x4 inch flat specimens from the fixture to be tested.

Wash with soap and water, rinse thoroughly, and dry. Designate

these specimens Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Place specimens No. 1, 2, and 3 in the xenon- arc apparatus that has

been adjusted to give a black panel temperature of 125 ®F + 3^, and

operate the apparatus with no water spray for a total of 200 hours.

Humidity need not be controlled.

At the end of the 200-hour exposure time, remove the three specimens,

clean them by the same procedures specified above, and then place them

adjacent to specimen No. 4 (untested specimen) in a well-lighted room

but not in direct sunlight.

Finally, examine the specimens visually for a color difference between

the tested specimens and the untested specimen.

(3) Information to be Reported

The following information shall be included in the test report:

1. Type and model of xenon- arc apparatus.

2. Age of both the xenon burner and the glass filters at the time of

testing. Also, the wattage used during testing.

3. Operating black panel temperature.

4. An estimate of the degree of color difference between the tested

specimens and the untested specimen.

157
c. Recommended Performance Requirement

The tested specimens shall show no noticeable color change when compared to

the untested specimen. Note: A noticeable color change shall be interpreted

as a color difference between a tested and untested specimen that is immediately apparent when the specimens are compared visually by an untrained ob- server. If a disagreement should occur as to whether or not this requirement is fulfilled, the color differences between tested specimens and the

untested specimen shall be evaluated. The color measurements shall be made

in accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1635. For the fixture to be acceptable

with respect to color stability, the arithmetic average of the three color

differences shall not exceed 5.0 NBS units.

d. Test Results and Discussion

(1) Discussion of Existing Methods

Numerous arc tests exist for evaluating the resistance of materials

to the photodegradative effects of natural sunlight. Examples are ASTM Designations: E 188-61T, E 42-57, D 822-60, and E 240-64T. In

general, these tests attempt to simulate rainfall as well as sunlight,

since they all include a water-spray cycle as part of the test condition.

The August 1964 proposed revision of Commercial Standard CS 221-59 for

FRPE fixtures contains a requirement for "color fastness". A xenonarc is specified. The test time is 200 hours. The performance

requirement (Par. 6.3.2) states that the "tested specimens shall

show no appreciable change in color when compared to the 'control'

specimen". No explanation is given as to the interpretation to be

placed on the term "appreciable change in color".

(2) Test Development

Triplicate specimens of four fixture materials were tested under both

carbon-arc and xenon-arc exposure. The measured changes in color from

these respective treatments are given in Tables 2.24-1 and 2.24-2.

In all cases the measured color changes were small.

(3) Rationale for Test Selection

The recommended test procedure is a modification of that specified in

the August 1964 proposed revision of Commercial Standard CS 221-59 for

FRPE fixture materials. Both the equipment and the exposure times are

the same as in the test specified in the proposed revision of CS 221.

The main difference in the two tests is that the test recommended

herein defines more specifically the degree of color change that is

permissible

The following reasoning influenced the selection of the recommended xenon-arc test method:

158 -
1. Sanitary fixtures in normal installations are exposed to only

very short periods of sunlight. This would occur when the fixture was installed near a window. If one assumes an average ex- posure time of 1/4 hour per week, which seems reasonable, this

would amount to only 13 hours per year or 200 hours in approximately 16 years. Thus, 200 hours seems a reasonable testing time.

2. The xenon-arc has been shown to have a spectral energy distribution, when properly filtered, that more closely simulates sunlight

at the earth's surface than does the distribution from any other

available light source. Hence, the filtered xenon-arc is preferable to the carbon-arc.

3. A xenon-arc test is already specified in the August 1964 proposed

revision of CS 221-59. There does not appear to be any good reason to change to a completely new test for color stability

except to be more specific about the color change that will be

permissible after the 200-hour treatment.

(4) Rationale for Recommended Performance Level

The largest average color change reported in Table 2.24-2 is 0.90

NBS units. This is not a noticeable change, since 1.0 NBS unit is

generally considered to be an excellent color match. This means

that the presently manufactured white fixture materials have acceptable color stability with respect to solar radiation. Colored fixtures, however, might not have this same stability. Also, future

candidate materials might be lacking in this respect. Therefore,

it seems desirable to include a color stability requirement. The

requirement of no noticeable color change after the 200-hour treatment appears reasonable. A change of as much as 5.0 NBS unit, while

readily detectable, would not detract from the serviceability of the

fixture, nor does it seem likely that it would be objectionable to

most homeowner s

159 -
Table 2.24-1 Change in Color of White Sanitary Ware Specimens

After Exposure to Two Carbon-Arc Treatments

Fixture Material

Pore. Enamel on Steel

(SB Series)

FRPE

(PA Series)

Pore. Enamel on Cast Iron

(CID Series)

Vitreous China

(VCB Series)

a / Dry Exposure - 808 Hrs.—

Spec

No.

Color , c/ Change—

NBS Units

25 1.36

26 1.00

34 0.51

0.96

27 1.36

28 1.54

33 1.87

1.59

29 1.37

30 1.45

36 1.60

1 .47

31 1.23

32 1.62

35 1.60

1.48

Wet Exposure - 814 Hrs.—

Spec

No.

Color . C / Change—

NBS Units

13 0.70

19 0.61

20 0.78

0.70

14 1.75

15 2.80

16 2.03

2.19

17 0.99

18 1.29

21 1.08

1.12

22 1.77

23 1 .89

24 1.72

1.79

a/ Carbon arc operated in accordance with ASTM Procedures D-822-60

and E-42-57.

b/ Same as dry exposure except for a water spray striking specimens

for 9 min. out of each hour of operation.

c/ See NBS Circ. 429 (1942).

160 -
Table 2. 24-2 Change in Color of White Sanitary Ware

Specimens After 200 Hours Exposure in

Xenon Arc Apparatus^'

>ec. No. Specimen Type Change in Color Average Color Change

NBS Unit NBS Units^

1 Pore. Enamel 0.46

2 on Steel .26

3 (SB Series) .30 0.34

4 . FRPE 0.69

5 (PA Series) 1.14

6 .60 0.81

7 Pore. Enamel 0.25

8 on Cast Iron .62

9 (CID Series) .50 0.46

10 Vitreous China 0.96

11 (VCB Series) .74

12 .99 0.90

aj 6000 watt, water-cooled xenon arc with a 37-3/4 in. diam.

specimen rack. Apparatus operated dry. Black panel

temperature was 125°F.

b/ See Hunter, R. S. NBS Circ . 429 (1942).

161
2.25 Surface Texture Aging (C504)

The purpose of this test is to evaluate the ability of a sanitary

plumbing fixture to maintain its original appearance and other

important surface properties without deterioration from natural

changes through passage of time under normal ambient conditions,

as contrasted to changes from external influences associated with

use.

The principal difficulty in developing a suitable aging test is the

correlation between effects observed in an accelerated laboratory

test and the anticipated changes over a long period of time under

normal conditions. If it is anticipated that normal temperature,

humidity, daylight, sunlight, etc. cause aging, it is impossible,

without extensive experimentation, to compress the time scale by

a known factor using selected increases in the severity of these

environmental factors.

A test for color fastness of FRPE sanitary ware is described in

Par. 6.3.1 of the August, 1964 Proposed Revision of CS 221-59, involving exposure for 200 hrs. to ultraviolet radiation. A similar

test for evaluating color stability, using apparatus specified in

ASTM E 240-64T, is recommended in Sec. 2.24 of this report. However, it is not the purpose of either of these tests to evaluate

surface texture aging effects.

Weatherometer tests, such as described in ASTM D 1499-59T, generally

combine ultraviolet radiation and water spray. Other accelerated

tests for plastics, such as ASTM D 576, employ cycles involving

different degrees of humidity and heat. Still other accelerated

tests involve exposure to elevated temperatures in an oven. None of the existing tests referred to approximate the conditions

of service exposure for sanitary plumbing fixtures sufficiently

well to warrant their recommendation as performance tests for sur- face texture aging without correlation with effects observed in

service

The ad hoc committee was of the opinion that the development of an aging test for sanitary plumbing fixtures was not practical during

the present investigation.

162
2.26 Odorlessness (C505)

The ad hoc committee established a functional requirement on odors

which stated that sanitary plumbing fixture materials should not

emit objectionable odors, either their own inherent odor or others

which they might acquire during normal use. While evaluation of

odors is not within the scope of technical investigations of the

National Bureau of Standards, the problem of odor emission by

materials use^ for sanitary plumbing fixtures was brought to the

attention of the Chairman of ASTM Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products. Although no formal reply was re- ceived from this Committee, it is recommended that further contact

be made with this ASTM Committee for assistance and guidance in

the evaluation of this property.

It was observed during the study of FRPE bathtubs at the National

Bureau of Standards, that some specimens produce a pronounced odor

when stored in a confined space. Flat specimens, stored overnight

in closed glass jars, caused odors to develop in the jars; some specimens having more pronounced odor than others. The odors were generally characteristic of styrene, a constituent used in manufacture of the FRPE material . The same odor was detected during

the Hot Water Resistance Test (Sec. 2.18) and the Radiant Heater

Resistance Test (Sec. 2.20).

163
2.27 Noise Control (N401) and (N402)

The damping characteristics of a bathtub for the noise generated by

falling water and the sound attenuation characteristics of an integral

surround were considered to be significant functional characteristics

of a bathtub. However, study of these factors was not included in

the approved project proposal.

164
2.28 Biological Characteristics (B601) (B602) (B603)

There was general agreement in the ad hoc committee that a sanitary

plumbing fixture should be cleanable with respect to micro-organisms , that

the materials in the fixture should not sensitize human skin on re- peated contact, and that the materials should be resistant to attack

by rodents or insects. However, investigation of these characteristics

was not included in the approved project proposal.

165
3. TESTS REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

Several needed test methods discussed in Section 2 of this report

are not sufficiently complete for recommendation in their present

stage of development for application to bathtubs in particular,

nor to sanitary plumbing fixtures in general, as performance tests.

Special attention is directed to three of these tests requiring

further work.

3.1

Cleanability and Soilability (M203A)

A suitable test method for these characteristics cannot be recommended

at this time principally because of (1) the lack of a representative

soiling medium, and (2) inadequacies in the means for simulating

scrubbing procedures and for evaluating residual soil. These deficiencies and recommendations for further development work are discussed in Section 2.11 of this report. Cleanability and soilability

may be considered as separate characteristics. However, they are closely related and could probably be evaluated, in sequence, during

a single test procedure.

3.2

Surface Slip Resistance (M207)

A suitable test method for this characteristic cannot be recommended

at this time, principally because of (1) poor simulation of use con- ditions in the existing tests, and (2) lack of correlation between

test results and slipping in service. These deficiencies and recom- mendations for further development work are discussed in Section

2.15 of this report.

3.3

Resistance to Thermal Shock (T304)

A test method and performance levels for resistance to thermal shock

was not recommended in this report, principally because of (1) poor

simulation of service temperature exposure in existing tests, and

(2) lack of information to correlate temperature levels and the

number of cycles required to produce failure. It is recommended

that further work be directed toward the development of a suitable

test that would replace both the Hot Water Resistance Test (T302)

described in Section 2.18 and the existing Thermal Shock Tests described in Section 2.21. A discussion of these matters is given in

Section 2.21 of this report.

166
The blistering of FRPE bathtubs revealed during the Hot Water

Resistance tests described in Section 2.18 was probably not the

result of thermal shock. It may have been caused by differential

expansion of the gel coat and the substrate or more likely by volatile products given off by the substrate at the elevated temperatures.

Therefore, the combination test procedure proposed above should include a cumulative long-term exposure of a bathtub to warm or hot

water as a part of a cyclic thermal shock test at different temperatures .

167
APPENDIX A. INSPECTION OF FRPE MANUFACTURING

PROCESSES AND INSTALLED FIXTURES

a. Purpose and Scope

A five-man inspection team from NBS, assisted by BRAB consultants

and FHA representatives, visited three plants engaged in the

manufacture of FRPE sanitary plumbing fixtures, and made on-site

field inspections of thirty-seven fixtures that had been in use for

periods ranging up to three years. The field observations on FRPE

fixtures were limited to bathtubs and shower receptors.

The purpose of the trip was twofold: (a) to become familiar with

current manufacturing processes for FRPE plumbing fixtures, and

(b) to inspect as many installed fixtures as time would allow.

The overall goal was to permit the NBS team to obtain a background

on FRPE plumbing fixtures before embarking on the BRAB- sponsored

program to select or develop performance tests for sanitary plumbing

fixtures fabricated from any material.

b. Manufacturing Processes

The manufacturing plants visited were (a) Maricopa Manufacturing Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona, (b) Plasticon Home Products Company, Santa Ana,

California, and (c) Cole -Sewell Engineering Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Details concerning each manufacturing process were recorded by the National

Bureau of Standards team for the information of the project staff. From

this information, several statements can be made.

There were many similarities in the operations observed at the three plants.

All three used a highly-polished black plastic mold, which is a male

image of the desired fixtures. A wax parting compound was first rubbed

on the mold surface after which a polyester gel coat was applied by hand

spraying with a special spray gun to a thickness of approximately 0.020

in. The required amount of catalyst was metered in the gun so as to provide hardening of the gel coat within 30 to 45 min. after spraying. The

white gel coats appeared to be opacified with titanium dioxide. The

appearance of the finish was similar to porcelain enamel. Its smoothness and gloss depended on the polish imparted to the mold prior to

spraying

After the get coat hardened the fiber glass backing was applied. Two

of the three plants used the sprayed-glass process. In this process glass

yarn was fed into a special spray gun where it was chopped into fibers

5/8 to 3/4 in. long before being propelled along with the polyester and

catalyst against the previously gel-coated mold. The resin-coated fibers

168 -
did not flatten out against the back of the gel coat but rather deposited as a loose mat. This required a hand rolling operation in which

the operators used steel rollers to compact the layer. This was done

periodically throughout the spraying operation. The thickness of

the backing as well as thickness uniformity appeared to depend to a considerable extent on the skills of the spray-gun and roller operators

with the methods and equipment being used.

In the glass-fabric process the gel-coated mold was first brushed with

a polyester varnish to which the proper amount of catalyst had been

added. Sheets of glass mat and glass fabric were then placed over the polyester and hand rolled into position.

The total thickness of the walls of the fixtures manufactured at all

three plants was of the order of 1/8 to 1/4 in. Since this was insufficient to provide the required rigidity, reinforcements were glued to

the back surfaces before removal of the fixtures from each mold. Each

manufacturer used a different type of backing reinforcement such as plywood, pressed hardboard, gypsum wallboard, or plastic ribs.

Mold removal occurred as a final operation. This was done by applying air pressure at the edges.

All three plants manufactured bathtubs of the same basic design, i.e.,

a tub with an integral front apron and a wall surround extending above

the top of the tub to a maximum of approximately four feet. The wall

surround was flanged with an edging strip about 1/2 In. wide for

nailing to the studs during installation. A few bathtubs with no wall

surround were being produced, but this type of fixture represented

only a small percentage of the total production.

c. Inspection of Installed Fixtures

A total of 37 plastic fixtures were inspected in the geographical areas adjacent to the manufacturing plants. However, all units inspected

in a given area were not necessarily manufactured by the plant that was visited in that area. The age of the fixtures inspected ranged

from a few months to approximately 3 years. Production methods and quality control procedures had been changed in some instances since the

first of these fixtures were manufactured.

The inspections were intended as spot checks. They were not arranged

by the manufacturers except in the St. Paul area where time limitations

prevented a more objective selection of installations.

The help of local FHA officials was used in locating housing developments where plastic fixtures had been installed. The selection of

installations was largely random after the development was reached.

Normally, three teams of two persons each made the inspections. Arrangements for the inspections were made in most cases by one of the

team members talking to one of the occupants of each of the selected

houses . 169
Detailed observations were recorded by the NBS team for the information of BRAB staff and the project staff. From this information,

several comments can be made:

(1) Installation Method

The plastic bathtubs were attached to the wall studding by nailing through the edge strip provided for this purpose on both the

frontapron and on the wall surrounds. In some cases cracking

of the edge strip was observed. The observed cracks did not extend, into the part of the fixture intended to be visible after

installation of the bathroom walls . One manufacturer recommended

screws for this purpose and predrilled the edging strip. However,

one such fixture inspected in a house under construction showed

that the installer had nevertheless used nails rather than screws. All of the plastic fixtures inspected had a bottom slope adequate

to provide complete draining of cold water introduced into them.

The bottom slopes varied from 0.2 to 4.2 percent with a median

of 2.5 percent. The top ledges showed slopes of -0.6 to +1.1

percent but most were installed level.

(2) Cleaning Methods and Cleanability

Although all manufacturers recommended that the tubs not be cleaned

with harsh scouring powders, about 80 percent of the occupants

interviewed reported that they used proprietary brands of scouring

powders. A cleanability test convenient for field use was made

during each inspection in which a 3B drawing pencil was used to

make marks on the surface of the fixture. On a newly installed bath'

tub the pencil marks could normally be removed by dry rubbing.

Once the gloss had disappeared, however, it was necessary to use

soap (Ivory) and water to obtain removal. On about 19 percent

of the fixtures it was necessary to use scouring powder (Bon Ami),

and in no case was it impossible to remove the marks with "Bon

Ami" .

(3) Scratching of Gel Coat

Almost all of the fixtures inspected had one or more visible

scratches. In general, these scratches were visible only on close

inspection and did not appear to affect cleanability as determined by the 3B pencil test.

(4) Cracking of Gel Coat

About half of the fixtures showed one or more fine cracks in

the gel coat. The depth of the cracks was not ascertained.

170 -
(5) Gouging of Gel Coat

Small gouges in the gel coat were observed in three of 37

fixtures

(6) Chemical Stains

Chemical staining was observed on four of the 37 fixtures. In

one case the staining apparently had resulted from use of a rubber mat in the bottom of the tub, while in the other three,

the stain had probably been caused by rusting of iron objects

(possibly bobby pins or metal toys)

(7) Cigarette Burns

Three tubs showed cigarette burns on the outer ledge. Two of

these were in motel units and the third in a private home.

It was found in the home fixture (FHA repossessed) that the discolored area could be removed by a vigorous and prolonged

localized scouring with "Bon Ami".

(8) Impact Damage

There was no positive evidence in any of the inspected plastic

fixtures of complete loss or penetration of gel coat from impact of a falling object. However, one fixture was found where

a star-shaped crack pattern in the gel coat on the wall surround

suggested that an impact from the reverse side might have

occurred previously.

(9) Rigidity and Strength

Several fixtures (two or three years old) exhibited considerable

flexibility, especially in the wall surround, and some fixtures

exhibited a "cracking noise"when pressed firmly with a foot or a hand. This condition suggested eigher a possible separation of

the reinforcement strips from the fiber glass resin backing, or insufficient rigidity of the reinforcement as designed. No

structural failures were observed in any of the fixtures.

(10)

Spalls and Pits

Small spalls or pits, approximately 1/16 in. in diameter to

1/8-in. diameter, were detected on the bottom of about 80 percent of the bathtubs that had been installed for periods of two

to three years. This percentage decreased to 35 percent on the

fixtures installed from one to two years while none of these defects were observed on the fixtures installed for one year or less.

171
(11) Lifting of Gel Layer (De lamination)

Several examples of separation of the gel layer from the fiber

glass resin backing were observed. In one case water could

be squeezed out of a break in the coating by pressing down on the raised portion of the gel coat.

(12) Apparent Slip Resistance of Gel Coat

Two members of the inspection team who took baths in FRPE tubs

installed in their motel rooms reported a feeling that the

tubs were less slippery than conventional porcelain enameled

fixtures

The manager of a development for retired people reported no

injuries from falls in bathrooms since the development started.

He ascribed this absence of injury to the plastic fixtures. All

of these homes (est . 1,000 completed), were equipped with deep

shower receptors with integral seats.

(13) Field Repairs of Plastic Fixtures

Several field -repaired fixtures were inspected. Some owners reported reappearance of defects after a relatively short period

of service following repair.

(14) Comments on Customer Acceptance

Although no comments from occupants were solicited during the

field inspections, opinions and comments were nevertheless

frequently volunteered. Some dissatisfaction was evidenced in

a number of cases where defects requiring field repairs had

appeared. One comment that was volunteered during many of the

inspections was that the FRPE fixtures were not only more difficult to clean than porcelain-enameled fixtures, but

that even after cleaning they did not look as ’’clean" as a porcelain enameled fixture. On the other hand, many favorable

comments were heard on the absence of a tub-to-tile seam with

the FRPE fixture. Some users commented favorably about

apparent slip resistance.

172
d. Suggestions Regarding Needed Tests

Based on Field Observations

The comments given below regarding needed tests for sanitary plumbing

fixtures were developed immediately following the field inspection

trip as a result of the field observations, and preceded the initiation

of laboratory work. In fact, the substance of these comments was later

found quite useful as guideline material in actual test development

work and in formulating recommendations. For these reasons, it is

appropriate to present the comments here.

(1) Delamination

Separation of the gel coat from the fiber glass resin backing,

if it occurs, is a serious defect from the standpoint of sanitation and fixture usability. A suitable hot water resistance

test might reveal tendencies to delamination and spalling of

the gel coat.

(2) Cracking or Crazing of Gel Coat

Cracking or crazing of the gel coat is undesirable from the

standpoint of sanitation and ease of cleaning and may permit

water entry into the fiber glass reinforced plastic. A hot

water resistance test might reveal susceptibility to crack or craze

(3) Gel Coat Thickness

In a performance specification a gel coat thickness requirement

does not seem appropriate. Instead it might be better to require

that the coating withstand a minimum number of abrasion cycles

under specified conditions.

(4) Bond Between Fiber Glass Resin Backing and Reinforcing Strips

A test of the bond strength of reinforcing strips should not

be a part of a performance specification. The integrity of the

bond could probably best be evaluated by specifying maximum

permissible deflection during localized loading and measuring

the deflection with respect to the immediate vicinity of the

loading point

(5) Abrasion Resistance

This is an important property since the field inspection indicated

that owners continue to use scouring powder for cleaning in

spite of instructions to the contrary from the manufacturer. A

suitable abrasion test should take into account the probable

number and severity of scouring treatments during the desired

period of service life.

173
( 6 ) Stain Resistance

The field inspection indicated that stains had not been a serious

problem with FRPE tubs except possibly stains from cigarette

burns. The criterion for stain resistance might possibly be

related to the thickness of coating that would have to be removed

to eliminate the stain.

(7) Aging

No installations were inspected that had been in service for longer

than three years. It might be desirable to have an accelerated

test to indicate whether or not the properties of the material

would change appreciably with time at approximately room temperature.

(8) Hardness and Scratch Resistance

One of the unexpected findings from the field inspection was

that scratches, while present, were not especially noticeable

and furthermore, they had little effect on the pencil cleanability

test employed in the field inspections. Nevertheless, it seems important that a scratch test be included in a performance specification.

(9) Cleanability

The field inspections indicated that cleanability is important

to the user. A suitable test should measure the ease with which

a standard soiling agent can be removed.

174 -
APPENDIX B TELEPHONE SURVEY OF

PRESSED- STEEL BATHTUBS

In two of the performance tests for bathtubs (Dynamic Load, Sec . 2.4 and Surface Impact Resistance, Sec . 2.12) relatively low values

were obtained in the laboratory tests for the pressed-steel bathtubs.

Therefore, it appeared desirable to conduct a survey of field damage

due to impact for tubs of this type before attempting to recommend a performance requirement. However, since available resources were limited it became necessary to select a type of survey that could provide statistically significant data in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.

The procedure decided upon was a telephone survey. Two housing

developments were first selected from the Washington, D. C. area where

it was known with certainty that only porcelain enameled pressed-steel

bathtubs had been installed by the developers. The two developments

selected were:

(1) Development "A". This is a very large medium-priced

housing development located approximately 15 miles

from the District of Columbia. Occupancies from 1-3

years

(2) Development "B" . This is a medium-sized development

located almost adjacent to the District of Columbia.

Homes, which are from 6 to 15 years old, are in the

medium-price range.

Telephone numbers were chosen at random from the street names

and house numbers known to be a part of these two developments.

Secretaries in the NBS Building Research Division then placed the

calls requesting the information specified on a survey sheet, a sample of which is included with this Appendix (Table B-l).

Table B-2 lists the results of the survey. In interpreting the

results the following comments appear to be pertinent:

(1) The homes contacted in Development "A" were built by

mass-production techniques. Information was obtained

indirectly indicating that extra precautions against

chipping damage were not exercised when installing bathtubs since the builder had found that it was more economical to repair chipped areas after installation than to

require elaborate protective procedures by the workmen.

This may account for the high incidence of damaged areas reported at the time of occupancy (See Table B-2)

175
(2) The survey indicated that a serious fall had occurred in

only 0.9% of the pressed-steel bathtubs and, what is more

important to the formulation of performance criteria, the

falls that did occur were reported to have caused no noticeable damage to the fixtures.

(3) A total of 20% of the 324 tubs were reported to have one

or more chips while 80% (258 tubs) were reported as having

no impact damage. Most of the chipped areas were small;

60% of the damaged areas were described as less than 1/4-in.

in diameter.

(4) No field inspections were made by project personnel. A few

spot checks would have been desirable, but these could not

be made because of time limitations. Therefore, since the

results were based entirely on the replies of the housewives,

the reference level for judging damage probably varied and,

for this reason, uncertainties exist in the data. On the

other hand it seems very unlikely that the reported percentages could be in error by any sizeable amount since there would

appear to be no logical reason for a housewife to supply either

a dishonest or an incorrect answer to the questions.

176
Table B-l„ Survey Sheet Used in Making Calls

for Telephone Sur.ve.v_.

NBS TELEPHONE SURVEY OF SHEET STEEL BATHTUBS

Date of Call Initials of NBS Interviewer

Name Telephone No.

Subdivision

1. How old is your house? years.

2. How many bathtubs in house?

3. Does your bathtub have any chipped areas: places where the white finish

has come off and you can see the black material underneath?

Yes No .

3.

0 If so, how many places are there like this?

3.c. Are they on one tub only? Both tubs

3.d. Are they on bottom? Rim?

3.e. About how large are they?

3,

f. Were they present when you moved into house? Yes No

4. Has anyone ever fallen while taking a bath or shower in your tub?

Yes No

4.

b. If so, were they injured? Yes No

4.c. Was there any damage to the tub? Yes No

If no chipping or falls are reported , complete the call by thanking them

for their assistance.

If either chipping or a fall has occurred , ask if it would be all right for

a team of two people from the Bureau of Standards to stop by to look at the tub

sometime during the next month. These people would not come without first calling and making an appointment.

Volunteered comments of interest (if any)

177
e

Eja O O' o o

o ° 00 CM

r-l O

sf m CO ^

cm in >1) CO Csl

vO o <flO

m |o

<f CM COI O'

co I ro H vD O' <f| O • O H H I OM 1

I9

i— on co r-~ col on i r-i I rCQ

co X

3

4J X4->

ct) CQ3

<u

4-1 CO

I x

CDCO

CO

0)u

PM

4-10

Po

0)>

u

3

CO3

3

OX

CM

0) T—

0) H

4-1o

CO

4-1

o N CO (N O cm co o co vO

r- o co o O O

<t CO CM | O

CQ

«1 x|x|

\X> m o\ h

CO

r— o m co o m

Po

l-i 3

3

CO

O O O

O • oo cm

r-l O

m in r-l mo co o

lO CO I O

CO CM X ml o

X r-1 1—I I O

Mi3 rooJcom om m on co cm <t Q ffi 00 <t 3

-3 r-iin <ti-i r—i co cm X 5

s CM CM • 3

I-l 2

X

3H

X)3

4-»

1-1 o

X) Cm 3 3

4-) Ml M4O CO CM3 t-l Ci 3

4-1 CO -Q CO 3 3

4-1 O X *H

4-1 !-l 3 3

02 CO

00 3

co 3 3

CM *H CM

•i-4 r—

3 Mi X r-l O 3

O 3 , o CM S o 3 X) CO

Mi Mi CM O 3 3 •H a 3 4-1 X

X 4-1 o

Mi £ 3

O X) 4-1

4-1 3 X O 3 3 •3 3

-3 x r-4 4-1 4-1 CM O

CO CO -3 X> 3 3

4-1 4-1 -3 x 4J 4-1 3 3

CQ pQ

CO CO CM 3

o

COCM

•Hxo

4-1o

ai 3

00 4-t 3 X

Mi

3O

MiCM3

cu X)

•H

CO

4-J 3

COCM X

o

4-4o

a = = 3 <t CM

CO ^ i—I i—I r—

0) 4-i U 3 3 O

o

i-3

x

O

Ml r-l CM A

-3 O

H N 3 <t

CO X Ml 3 ^

CO -3 3 . 00 3 4J 3 3 on

rO -3

4-J 3

co Mi

co 3

o 3 4-1

4-1 a x

O -H

l—

-3 4-1 a X 4-1 o 3 O

Mi O

4-4 •r4 3

Mi 00 XI CM 3

3 1 •H X • CM bO 3

3 H >

O X 3

o v-r o O

4-J CO 3 „ Mi 3 a 3

3 3 3

X- •HX

X) 3 in 3 a >“1 -3

« o

4-1 4-1 4-1 3 3

-3 3 X

4-1 a „

cm E

CO o o

3 r-4 Ml a 3 4-1 o >

-3 3 X

X 3 X •H 3 X CM

O' 3 3

•H N O

3 •r-l O

CM co O

a a 3

3 3 3

•H •rl 3 X X X

3 3

a s

'rti ^1

3

Mi3

4-1 X

•H

4-4O

4-1 X)3

4-1 M(O

CM3

Mi3

603

a3X

Oz

"o|

178

— ^

In

most

cases,

occupant

was

unable

to

answer

this

question.