Ask the Expert: Slip Resistance Specifications, Revisited
Written October 17, 2019
Why should you care about changing slip resistance specifications, and what does this have to do with you? That’s a great question, and one that Jeff Stadelman, Marketing Manager for Mactac Distributor Products, covered in the September/October issue of the 2016 SGIA Journal. After reading his article, one of our members reached out to SGIA as he had never heard of these new specifications.
His floor graphic provider was referencing Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 410 as their “standard,” and he needed clarification. It’s important to at least recap from Stadelman’s article so that we’re all on the same page. In a nutshell, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has, for years, had a well-known standard — ASTM-C1028. This standard was withdrawn in January of 2014. In 2015, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) announced the mandating of a new, stricter slip resistance specification — in effect, establishing a new national floor safety standard.
This standard was created after years of collaboration, and currently there are roughly 10 ANSI/NFSI B101 standards that are either active or in development. This new specification, known as ANSI/NFSI B101.3, varies markedly from the previous ASTM specifications. Because these differences were so well covered by Stadelman, suffice it to say the most notable change was that this new specification uses the dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) and not the older static coefficient of friction (SCOF).
Another point he referenced was that this new standard is “required” versus “recommended,” but after speaking with Russ Kendzior from NFSI, he pointed out that these are standards that may be required by an insurer, yet there is no regulatory requirement. Another point Kendzior wanted to share is that there are three ways for a manufacturer to certify their materials.
Number one is to test their product according to the ANSI/NFSI B101.3 standard and publish their SCOF results on their own data sheets. Number two is to send in their material to NFSI — pay $300 per test — and have NFSI test the material and report the SCOF results, which the manufacturer could then report on their data sheets. Number three and certainly most comprehensive is to pay $3,000 for “certification” by NFSI, which entails sending in their material, having it applied in a real-world application for 30 days and then being listed on NFSI’s website as a certified product.
I reached out to a number of our manufacturer members who supply floor graphic materials or laminates and was surprised, or maybe not so surprised, to discover that there was a lack of unanimity amongst them regarding these new specifications. Some are still referencing the old ASTM standards, while others reference the UL 410 standard. It should be noted that the UL 410 uses the “James Machine,” which only measures the SCOF and not the more accurate DCOF. ASTM determined that the SCOF did not adequately replicate real-world environments — which led them to withdraw their standard.
These SCOF and DCOF tests were covered thoroughly by Stadelman, and I would reference his article on SGIA.org to read more about the details. I spoke with my colleague Marci Kinter, SGIA’s Vice President — Government and Business Information, to see if OSHA had a position on this topic.
According to Kinter, OSHA does have a requirement for walkway inspections; however, those inspections do not cover floor coverings, per se. This leaves us with legal liability and insurance considerations. I did talk in general with an insurance company about the issue and they had no specific guidelines to reference, but I would at least have the conversation with the company you use for your liability insurance.
Your company may even provide a discount for taking proactive steps to prevent slips and falls. Kendzior mentioned that printers/installers may run into retailers/clients that will require these standards be followed — primarily because their insurers are requiring it from them. Legally, your goal is simple: Provide an environment (your floor graphic or installation) that is likely to keep someone reasonably safe from a slip or fall.
There is no guarantee that using a material that has passed the ANSI/NFSI specification means that no one will have an accident. However, using a material that has been tested with an outdated specification or standard leaves you vulnerable in the unlikely event that someone slips or falls due to your floor graphic installation. So again, the question becomes, why do you care, and what, if anything, should you do?
Firstly, it is incumbent to you as a printer and/or installer of floor graphics that you know what standard or specification your supplier is referencing for your materials. This information is easily attained by contacting the manufacturer of the products you use. Next, if the manufacturer is not using the ANSI/NFSI specification, then you as a business owner or graphics installer need to decide if the possibility of increased liability is something you are willing to risk.
His floor graphic provider was referencing Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 410 as their “standard,” and he needed clarification. It’s important to at least recap from Stadelman’s article so that we’re all on the same page. In a nutshell, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has, for years, had a well-known standard — ASTM-C1028. This standard was withdrawn in January of 2014. In 2015, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) announced the mandating of a new, stricter slip resistance specification — in effect, establishing a new national floor safety standard.
This standard was created after years of collaboration, and currently there are roughly 10 ANSI/NFSI B101 standards that are either active or in development. This new specification, known as ANSI/NFSI B101.3, varies markedly from the previous ASTM specifications. Because these differences were so well covered by Stadelman, suffice it to say the most notable change was that this new specification uses the dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) and not the older static coefficient of friction (SCOF).
Another point he referenced was that this new standard is “required” versus “recommended,” but after speaking with Russ Kendzior from NFSI, he pointed out that these are standards that may be required by an insurer, yet there is no regulatory requirement. Another point Kendzior wanted to share is that there are three ways for a manufacturer to certify their materials.
Number one is to test their product according to the ANSI/NFSI B101.3 standard and publish their SCOF results on their own data sheets. Number two is to send in their material to NFSI — pay $300 per test — and have NFSI test the material and report the SCOF results, which the manufacturer could then report on their data sheets. Number three and certainly most comprehensive is to pay $3,000 for “certification” by NFSI, which entails sending in their material, having it applied in a real-world application for 30 days and then being listed on NFSI’s website as a certified product.
I reached out to a number of our manufacturer members who supply floor graphic materials or laminates and was surprised, or maybe not so surprised, to discover that there was a lack of unanimity amongst them regarding these new specifications. Some are still referencing the old ASTM standards, while others reference the UL 410 standard. It should be noted that the UL 410 uses the “James Machine,” which only measures the SCOF and not the more accurate DCOF. ASTM determined that the SCOF did not adequately replicate real-world environments — which led them to withdraw their standard.
These SCOF and DCOF tests were covered thoroughly by Stadelman, and I would reference his article on SGIA.org to read more about the details. I spoke with my colleague Marci Kinter, SGIA’s Vice President — Government and Business Information, to see if OSHA had a position on this topic.
According to Kinter, OSHA does have a requirement for walkway inspections; however, those inspections do not cover floor coverings, per se. This leaves us with legal liability and insurance considerations. I did talk in general with an insurance company about the issue and they had no specific guidelines to reference, but I would at least have the conversation with the company you use for your liability insurance.
Your company may even provide a discount for taking proactive steps to prevent slips and falls. Kendzior mentioned that printers/installers may run into retailers/clients that will require these standards be followed — primarily because their insurers are requiring it from them. Legally, your goal is simple: Provide an environment (your floor graphic or installation) that is likely to keep someone reasonably safe from a slip or fall.
There is no guarantee that using a material that has passed the ANSI/NFSI specification means that no one will have an accident. However, using a material that has been tested with an outdated specification or standard leaves you vulnerable in the unlikely event that someone slips or falls due to your floor graphic installation. So again, the question becomes, why do you care, and what, if anything, should you do?
Firstly, it is incumbent to you as a printer and/or installer of floor graphics that you know what standard or specification your supplier is referencing for your materials. This information is easily attained by contacting the manufacturer of the products you use. Next, if the manufacturer is not using the ANSI/NFSI specification, then you as a business owner or graphics installer need to decide if the possibility of increased liability is something you are willing to risk.