Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 4

Client Number 244

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate rolling load resistance for various floor finishes.

Date Run:

06/08/2005

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.

Rolling Load
Measurements made during the rolling load will reveal damage to the coupon surface from repeated rolling forces, simulating heavy castored loads such as beds, desks and appliances. Coupons were placed into a holding device and clamped to restrict movement of the coupon. A load sled was constructed using a wood plank and three castor wheels. The round, hard wheels were 2” in diameter and 1” wide. The sled was loaded with 200 pounds. Figure 3 shows the sled passing over the surface of the finished coupon.

Figure 3. Rolling Load Apparatus

Ten passes (5 cycles) were completed and the three measurements were made along the path of the sled wheel. An additional 15 passes were made with three more measurements made. Following the 25 passes, another 25 passes were made with the deformation measurements. The averages for the three sets of passes were calculated. Any notable surface changes were recorded. The results for each floor finish were compared to the other finishes.

Trial Results:

Rolling Load Resistance

      Initial Readings Final readings
Coating Coupon # passes Middle End 1 End 2 Ave Microm Middle End 1 End 2 Ave Microm
2 37 10 7.548 7.565 7.532 7.548 7.542 7.508 7.537 7.529
    25         7.513 7.500 7.519 7.511
    50         7.505 7.497 7.505 7.502
  38 10 7.512 7.527 7.458 7.499 7.509 7.453 7.475 7.479
    25         7.500 7.440 7.454 7.465
    50         7.485 7.435 7.441 7.454
  39 10 7.541 7.520 7.545 7.535 7.521 7.523 7.543 7.529
    25         7.508 7.467 7.461 7.479
    50         7.457 7.492 7.454 7.468
3 40 10 7.506 7.543 7.495 7.515 7.502 7.516 7.492 7.503
    25         7.500 7.505 7.483 7.496
    50         7.495 7.492 7.467 7.485
  41 10 7.552 7.531 7.515 7.533 7.531 7.515 7.522 7.523
    25         7.522 7.506 7.487 7.505
    50         7.491 7.489 7.510 7.497
  42 10 7.538 7.517 7.526 7.527 7.524 7.511 7.488 7.508
    25         7.500 7.500 7.502 7.501
    50         7.489 7.473 7.470 7.477
4 43 10 7.454 7.427 7.461 7.447 7.391 7.388 7.390 7.390
    25         7.365 7.344 7.370 7.360
    50         7.369 7.333 7.380 7.361
  44 10 7.484 7.456 7.473 7.471 7.448 7.411 7.412 7.424
    25         7.424 7.395 7.376 7.398
    50         7.367 7.411 7.376 7.385
  45 10 7.507 7.500 7.496 7.501 7.442 7.435 7.438 7.438
    25         7.381 7.377 7.374 7.377
    50         7.379 7.382 7.358 7.373
5 46 10 7.516 7.484 7.508 7.503 7.446 7.433 7.455 7.445
    25         7.430 7.370 7.445 7.415
    50         7.430 7.427 7.430 7.429
  47 10 7.460 7.457 7.458 7.458 7.402 7.408 7.381 7.397
    25         7.394 7.340 7.376 7.370
    50         7.375 7.364 7.359 7.366
  48 10 7.488 7.481 7.423 7.464 7.430 7.459 7.421 7.437
    25         7.418 7.449 7.452 7.440
    50         7.418 7.445 7.422 7.428

Summary

Floor Coating 10 25 50 Total Depression Depth Rank Rank
Polyurethane Gloss 0.036 0.028 0.010 0.074 2 3
WB Polyurethane 0.003 0.011 0.014 0.028 1 1
WB Sanding Sealer 0.030 0.039 0.006 0.075 3 4
Aqua Deva Metro 0.077 0.018 0.0004 0.095 4 6
Hydro 202 Satin 0.023 0.039 0.031 0.093 2 5
SafeCoat Satin 0.017 0.041 0.016 0.073 1 2
SafeCoat Gloss 0.074 0.042 0.054 0.171 3 7

Success Rating:

A cleanliness study, addressing only various analytical techniques.

Conclusion:

Pro Finishers Water Based Polyurethane had the most resistance to rolling load, followed by Capitol Polyurethane Gloss.

Save Report as a PDF