Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 20

Client Number 244

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To determine the coefficient of friction for additional floor finishes.

Date Run:

09/07/2005

Experiment Procedure:

Control of Moisture Content and Temperature
The moisture content at the time of testing will influence results due to the hydroscopic nature of the base materials. Therefore, efforts must be taken to ensure that the moisture content and temperature remain constant during the evaluation period. Ideally, the sample floor should be kept at 65+/-1% relative humidity and 68+/-6 F.

During laboratory testing, conditions were slightly drier, 40% relative humidity, but the temperature was within the given temperature range ~70 F).

Sample Preparation
The flooring material supplied was Hardwood flooring made from Red Oak. The boards were ¾” thick, 2 ¼” wide and cut into 8” sections. Some pieces of the flooring had to be sanded prior to making initial thickness readings to remove residual packing tape adhesive. With the boards cut into 8” coupons, three readings were made using a Brown & Sharpe Micrometer to measure each coupons initial board thickness. Each reading was made to 0.001” and the three values were averaged to give a baseline thickness for the coupons. In addition to the thickness baseline, baselines were established for Gloss, Coefficient of Friction, Impact, Small Area Loads. Procedures for each baseline measurements followed the procedures to be outlined.

Following the establishment of the baselines, three coupons were coated with a supplied floor finish according to the manufacturers’ specifications. The finish was applied using a 1” Pure Bristle 1500 paint brush. To ensure consistent coating application, the finish was leveled off using a 10 mils Precision Gage & Tool Co Dow Film Caster. Three coats were used for each floor finish as this was common number of coating layers suggested by the various manufacturers. Each coating layer was allowed to dry for 2 hours prior to the application of the next coat. Completed coupons were allowed to sit for a minimum period of 24 hours before performance evaluations were conducted.

Coefficient of Friction
The ASTM specified apparatus was replaced with an IMASS, Inc SP-102B-3M90 Slip/Peel Tester (Figure 1). Two types of friction coefficients were measured using this instrument. The first, Static CoF, was determined by obtaining the force required to move the specimen from a stationary position. The second, Sliding CoF (or Kinetic), was found by measuring the average force required to maintain movement at a certain rate. Measured forces will have peaks and valleys in the amount of force needed to keep moving. Average these values results and dividing by the weight of the object will result in the desired coefficient.

Figure 1. IMASS Slip/Peel Tester

The Slip/Peel tester was first adjusted to ensure that the device was properly calibrated for the sled weight being used. A coupon was then placed and clamped onto the bed of the device. The speed of the bed was set to 45”/min. The instrument records two values, the peak, the valley and calculates the average. The device was run three times per coupon for measuring the Static CoF and three times to measure the Kinetic CoF. Each coupon’s value was averaged and then the values for each finish (three coupon averages) were averaged to get one value for the Static Coefficient of Friction and one value for the Kinetic Coefficient of Friction. These values for coated samples were compared to the CoF for the same uncoated coupons.

Coefficient of Friction = Ratio of tractive (pulling) force to the normal force (sled weight): CoF = F/N = (Tractive force)/(Normal Force) = (meter reading)/(sled weight)

Trial Results:

Initial CoF   Static     Kinetic  
Coupon # Peak Valley Average Peak Valley Average
A 806 614 654 721 634 674
  796 641 662 751 652 693
  811 640 670 749 643 688
B 832 663 678 692 647 670
  813 649 669 694 644 670
  820 657 676 684 652 666
C 838 597 628 657 598 620
  849 607 635 646 575 618
  793 603 620 649 594 620
J 848 646 649 705 624 645
  752 639 644 681 622 642
  763 636 647 657 624 638
K 784 586 602 577 517 559
  758 564 571 583 550 569
  780 552 570 572 537 552
L 779 593 615 662 563 588
  797 577 600 625 569 588
  730 564 590 634 569 589

Averages CoF

Kiilto
Static  Kinetic 
Peak Valley Average Peak Valley Average
804 632 662 740 643 685
822 656 674 690 648 669
827 602 628 651 589 619
818 630 655 694 627 658
Kiilto + Primer
788 640 647 681 623 642
774 567 581 577 535 560
769 578 602 640 567 588
777 595 610 633 575 597

Direct Comparison for All Products Tested

Final - Initial Static  Kinetic 
  Peak Valley Average Peak Valley Average
Capitol Polyurethane Gloss 136 182 216 248 212 223
Pro Finisher Water Based Polyurethane for floors 381 65 183 317 74 156
Pro Finisher Water Based Sanding Sealer -8 43 62 77 46 54
Quide SA Aqua Deva Metro 24 25 48 52 36 49
Capitol Hydro 202 Satin 348 331 398 477 349 419
SafeCoat BP Satin 158 40 78 114 63 71
SafeCoat BP Gloss 306 103 212 414 169 238
Kiilto -337 -266 -268 -277 -254 -271
Kiilto + Primer 63 -31 71 123 -50 48

Success Rating:

A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion:

The Kiilto was the only product to make the flooring more slippery than the flooring without any coatings.

Save Report as a PDF