A Study of The Characteristics of Cementitious Surface Toppings and Applied Concrete
A Study of The Characteristics of Cementitious Surface Toppings and Applied Concrete
A Study of The Characteristics of Cementitious Surface Toppings and Applied Concrete
Executive
RR547
Research Report
Health and Safety
Executive
Slips & trips are the most common cause of major injuries at work and they occur in almost all workplaces; 95% of
major slips result in broken bones. In a typical year, slips and trips account for 33% of all reported major injuries and
20% of over-3-day injuries to employees. The construction sector has a higher rate of slips and trips than any other
sector. Rarely is there a single cause of a slipping accident, and so a holistic approach to reducing the number of slip
accidents is required. The major contributing factor in a slip accident is the interaction of the pedestrians heel and the
floor surface. The potential for slip will depend on the footwear worn, the nature of the floor surface and the presence of
any contamination.
Cementitious floors are present in many work places, particularly in the construction sector and in warehouses. The slip
resistance of these surfaces will depend on the application technique used, and therefore the surface finish obtained.
The aim of this study was to assess the slip resistance of cement floors applied using a variety of techniques and to
determine whether the application of dry shake techniques such as surface hardeners and dust inhibitors effects the
slip properties of the surface.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any
opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE Books
or by e-mail to [email protected]
2
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5
2. Experimental Procedures........................................................................................................... 6
3. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 7
4. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Slips & trips are the most common cause of major injuries at work and they occur in almost all
workplaces; 95% of major slips result in broken bones. There are many separate factors which
contribute to the slip potential of a particular workplace. These include the floor surface,
footwear worn by pedestrians, contamination present and management regimes such as
cleaning. The aim of this study was to analyse the slip resistance of a range of cement floor
finishes and determine the effects of different application techniques and applied toppings in
order to further the knowledge of HSE and HSL.
A range of surfaces were measured using standard HSL/HSE techniques to determine their slip
resistance characteristics. Previous HSE/HSL work involving cementitious surfaces was
reviewed.
x Further study into the topic is required, specifically more work on the effects of surface
toppings.
x More measurements on cementitious floors with surface hardeners and dust inhibitors.
x A study of the effectiveness of dust inhibitors at reducing the incidence of dust on
concrete surfaces.
4
1. INTRODUCTION
Slips & trips are the most common cause of major injuries at work and they occur in almost all
workplaces; 95% of major slips result in broken bones. In a typical year, slips and trips account
for 33% of all reported major injuries and 20% of over-3-day injuries to employees. The
construction sector has a higher rate of slips and trips than any other sector. Rarely is there a
single cause of a slipping accident, and so a holistic approach to reducing the number of slip
accidents is required. The major contributing factor in a slip accident is the interaction of the
pedestrians heel and the floor surface. The potential for slip will depend on the footwear worn,
the nature of the floor surface and the presence of any contamination.
Cementitious floors are present in many work places, particularly in the construction sector and
in warehouses. The slip resistance of these surfaces will depend on the application technique
used, and therefore the surface finish obtained. The aim of this study was to assess the slip
resistance of cement floors applied using a variety of techniques and to determine whether the
application of dry shake techniques such as surface hardeners and dust inhibitors effects the slip
properties of the surface.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Visits were undertaken to evaluate the slip resistance in a range of premises with different
cementitious floor surfaces. Previous site work involving cementitious floors was also
evaluated.
A series of full forensic slipperiness investigations were undertaken using standard HSL / HSE
techniques in accordance with the Guidelines Recommended by the United Kingdom Slip
Resistance Group, (Issue 2, 2000 and Issue 3, 2005) where applicable. Due regard was also
given to the protocols outlined in BS 7976:2, 2000. Data generated during the assessments is
reproduced in Appendix A. Tables used during interpretation are given in Appendix B.
Measurements of floor surface “Pendulum Test value” (PTV also known as SRV, closely
related to Coefficient of Dynamic Friction) were made using a calibrated Pendulum slipperiness
assessment instrument. Data was generated [i] in the as-found, dry condition, and [ii] after
application of low volumes of potable water to the flooring by hand-spray. Two test slider
materials were used as appropriate; Slider 96, also known as Four-S rubber (Standard Simulated
Shoe Sole, developed by the UKSRG to represent a footwear material of moderate
performance), and TRRL rubber, also known as slider 55 (which is used as a secondary standard
shoe soling material by the Health & Safety Laboratory and the UK Slip Resistance Group).
Data was generated in three complementary test directions where appropriate in order to
account for the presence of floor surface directionality. Further testing was undertaken using a
calibrated surface microroughness transducer, set to the Rz parameter.
The UKSRG Guidelines have been used to interpret the surface microroughness and Pendulum
Test Value results given (relevant tables and excerpts are reproduced in Appendix B). Due
regard was also given to HSE’s Slips & Trips 1 Information Sheet (Appendix C).
The test results presented relate only to the floor areas under study at the time of testing. The
performance of installed flooring materials may change significantly during their lifetime; slip
resistance is critically dependent on the level and type of contamination, treatment, maintenance
and effective cleaning subsequent to installation.
3. RESULTS
The following table summarises surface roughness and Pendulum Test Values for the range of
surfaces tested. All PTV results are generated with slider 96 rubber, which represents a shod
pedestrian (the most frequent user in all of the areas studied). Full results for each area studied
can be found in Appendix A.
Wet I 9
Wet II 11
Wet III 11
Power floated 6.3 Dry I 61
concrete
Dusty I 47
Dusty II 41
Dusty III 46
Wet I 21
Wet II 29
Wet III 24
Installed cement 13.7 Damp I 40
paver
Wet I 26
Power floated 16.8 Dry I 50 Greasy,
concrete, with Dry II 49 difficult to
hardener Dry III 45 get totally
clean
Wet I 19
Wet II 25
Wet III 21
Power floated 17.8 Dry I 65 Porous
concrete, worn Dry II 64
Dry III 63
Dusty I 60
Wet I 39
Wet II 47
Wet III 41
Power floated 19.9 Dry I 62
concrete
Dusty I 45
Wet I 30
Wet I 45
Dusty and I 40
wet
Rough concrete 38.0 Dusty I 56
Dusty II 58
Dusty III 58
Wet I 54
Dusty and I 50
wet
Power floated 39.8 Dry I 52
concrete, worn Dry II 47
Dry III 51
Wet I 38
Wet II 48
Wet III 36
Rough concrete, 49.4 Dry I 69
with
epoxy/aggregate Wet I 69
coating
Rough concrete, 55.5 Dry I 57
etched
Water/chrome I 56
tan
Rough concrete, 58.3 Wet I 40
with aggregate Wet II 41
Wet III 40
Uninstalled 68.2 Dry I 66
cement paver
Wet I 57
Patterned N/A Wet I 40
concrete paver Wet II 45
Wet III 44
Profiled N/A Wet I 67
concrete paver Wet III 54
Wet IV 49
Power floated N/A Wet, paste, I 43
concrete, with paper pulp
epoxy/aggregate
coating
Figure 3.1 Table of surface roughness and PTV data for the range of surfaces studied.
8
If we plot surface roughness against wet PTV we see a clear trend. As surface roughness
increases so does wet PTV.
80
70
60
50
PTV
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80
Rz
80
70
60
50
PTV
40
30
20
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rz
9
4. DISCUSSION
The correlation between Rz and wet PTV was plotted for all surfaces on which both values
could be obtained. Two graphs were produced of Rz against wet PTV in direction I only (Figure
3.2) and Rz against wet PTV where the average of the three directions was taken (Figure 3.3).
Where possible on site, direction I is the main direction of pedestrian travel. If the floor surface
is clean and dry it can be reasonably expected that the floor will present a low slip potential. The
slip potential in contaminated conditions is therefore more important when considering the slip
resistance of a surface.
A rougher surface has a better chance of breaking through a squeeze film of contaminant and
making contact with a pedestrians heel. The more viscous the contaminant the greater the level
of roughness required to offer a high level of slip resistance. Cementitious floor surfaces appear
to behave in a similar manner to other hard surfaces observed in previous HSL/HSE lab work
and site visits. As Rz surface roughness increases so does PTV in contaminated conditions.
The main limitation of this study is the relatively small number of floors measured. Although
the trend shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 is quite clear we still know very little about the effects of
various surface toppings. Only one dutyholder in the premises visited knew the exact
specification of the floor. From this work it would appear that surface hardeners do not alter the
slip resistance of a surface, which is still dependant on the level of surface microroughness,
however as only one floor was known for sure to have been treated with a surface hardener this
is far from conclusive evidence.
One of the main problems seen with power floated concrete floors was the inconsistent nature of
the application. Almost all floors studied had rougher and smoother patches within the overall
finish. One of the biggest contributing factors in a slipping accident is a change in the level of
slip resistance underfoot without an accompanying visual difference to warn the pedestrian to
change their gait. This may mean that power floated concrete floors are more dangerous than
consistent surfaces with similar levels of slip resistance.
Another problem with concrete floors, especially newer surfaces, is the generation of dust. Most
of the power floated surfaces studied had significant level of dust present on the surface. This
reduced the dry Pendulum Test Values obtained and quickly built up on the soles of workers
shoes. Often cleaning regimes were not effective enough to remove dust from the surface.
10
Conclusions
Recommendations
x Further study into the topic is required, specifically more work on the effects of surface
toppings.
x More measurements on cementitious floors with surface hardeners and dust inhibitors.
x A study of the effectiveness of dust inhibitors at reducing the incidence of dust on
concrete surfaces.
11
[i]
Slider Reconditioned
[ii]
[iii]
[iv]
[v]
Smooth area
Rougher area
[vii]
[viii]
[ix]
Contaminated Edge
[i]
[ii]
[i]
[iii]
[i]
[i]
[i]
Rz Surface Roughness:
38.0 µm (mean)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Research in the UK by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has
identified that more than 90% of slipping accidents occur on wet floors, most usually on
relatively smooth surfaces. Evaluation of the slip resistance of floors is not an exact science. In
addition to selected measuring instruments, it demands the relevant expertise and methodical
procedures. In this context these guidelines offer advisory information in respect of measuring
the slip resistance of flooring materials under water-wet conditions.
The information within this document, which may be revised as knowledge and understanding
of pedestrian slipping increase, does not define the ‘safety status’ of any floor or flooring
material at any stage of its service life.
1 of 6 pages
Health and Safety
Executive
The data generated may be strengthened by Research has confirmed the pendulum to be a reliable
considering additional test data where appropriate. and accurate test, leading to its adoption as the
standard HSE test method for the assessment of floor
slipperiness in dry and contaminated conditions.
Pendulum However, to use it reliably needs a suitably trained and
competent person to operate it and to interpret the
The pendulum CoF test (also known as the portable results.
skid resistance tester, the British pendulum, and the
TRRL pendulum, see Figure 2) is the subject of a
British Standard, BS 7976: Parts 1-3, 2002.2 Interpretation of pendulum results
PTV
High slip potential 0–24
Moderate slip potential 25–35
Low slip potential 36 +
This instrument, although often used in its current form Information generated by the pendulum using Slider
to assess the skid resistance of roads, was originally 96 rubber, also known as Four-S rubber (Standard
designed to simulate the action of a slipping foot. The Simulated Shoe Sole) is sufficient for assessing
method is based on a swinging, imitation heel (using a slipperiness in most circumstances. However, for
standardised rubber soling sample), which sweeps assessing barefoot areas, unusually rough or profiled
over a set area of flooring in a controlled manner. The floors, the use of Slider 55 rubber, also known as
slipperiness of the flooring has a direct and TRRL rubber (a similar but softer, more malleable
measurable effect on the pendulum test value (PTV) compound) may be advantageous.
given (previously known as the Slip Resistance Value).
Although using the pendulum on heavily profiled
The preparation of the standard rubber sliders is flooring materials, stair treads and nosings is possible,
detailed in BS 7976 and the UKSRG guidelines.3 doing so can be difficult, and should only be
There is a small difference between the two methods undertaken by experienced operators.
of slider preparation, and in certain limited situations
the two methods may give slightly different results. The pendulum test equipment is large and heavy, so
HSE and the UKSRG believe the changes in the latest consider the manual handing of the equipment
version of the UKSRG guidelines (2005) are best carefully for testing in the field.
practice.
Figure 3 Surface microroughness meters (left to right: Mitutoyo Surftest SJ201P, Surtronic Duo, Surtronic 25)
2 of 6 pages
Health and Safety
Executive
Interpretation of surface roughness Table 3 Typical Rz surface microroughness levels for a low
slip potential, as a function of contaminant type
When surface microroughness data is used to
supplement pendulum test data, the roughness results Where the size of the pendulum tester limits its use,
should be interpreted using the information such as on stairs, surface microroughness can be
reproduced in Table 2 (from UKSRG, 2005). Where used to compare the surface with an area of the same
only roughness data is available, use it in conjunction surface that can be tested using the pendulum.
with the Slips Assessment Tool (SAT) detailed below.
The figures quoted in Table 2 relate to floor surface The UKSRG ramp test
slipperiness in water-contaminated conditions. If there
are other contaminants, differing levels of roughness The UKSRG ramp test (Figure 4) is designed to
will be needed to lower slip potential. As a general simulate the conditions commonly encountered in
rule, a higher level of surface roughness is needed to typical workplace slip accidents. Clean water is used
maintain slip resistance with a more viscous (thicker) as the contaminant and footwear with a standardised
contaminant. Note that the figures in Table 3 are soling material is used, although barefoot testing may
typical Rz surface microroughness levels at which also be undertaken. The test method involves using
floors are likely to result in a low slip potential, as a test subjects who walk forwards and backwards over
3 of 6 pages
Health and Safety
Executive
a contaminated flooring sample. The inclination of the Floor surface materials are often classified on the basis
sample is increased gradually until the test subject of the DIN standards. The classification schemes
slips. The average angle of inclination at which slip outlined in DIN 51130 (Table 4) and DIN 51097 (Table
occurs is used to calculate the CoF of the flooring. 5) have led to some confusion, resulting in the wrong
The CoF measured relates to the flooring used on a floor surfaces sometimes being installed.
level surface. It is possible to assess bespoke
combinations of footwear, flooring and contamination
Classification R9 R10 R11 R12 R13
relating to specific environments using this method;
HSL also use the ramp to assess the slipperiness of Slip angle (°) 6-10 10-19 19-27 27-35 > 35
footwear.
Table 4 DIN 51130 R-Value slipperiness classification
Classification A B C
Slip angle (°) 12-17 18-23 > 24
DIN 51097 involves the use of barefoot operators with Roller-coaster tests
a soap solution as the contaminant, and DIN 51130
uses heavily-cleated EN:ISO 20345 safety boots with HSL have evaluated two new instruments for the
motor oil contamination. HSE has reservations about assessment of floor slip resistance on a wide range of
these test methods, as neither uses contaminants that installed floor surfaces, in dry, wet and contaminated
are representative of those commonly found in conditions.7 The instruments have been dubbed ‘roller-
workplaces and the way the results are sometimes coaster tests’ as both involve a trolley rolling down a
interpreted and applied (see below) is a cause for ramp and skidding across the floor surface. The first
concern. was developed by SlipAlert LLP (and is commercially
available), the second was a laboratory prototype. The
results show good agreement with the pendulum,
provided that Slider 96 is used as the test slider
4 of 6 pages
Health and Safety
Executive
References
Sled-type tests
1 Workplace health, safety and welfare. Workplace
The instruments that have been dubbed ‘sled tests’ (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
involve a self-powered trolley that drags itself across Approved Code of Practice L24 HSE Books 1992
the floor surface, measuring the CoF as it moves. ISBN 0 7176 0413 6
Laboratory-based assessments have strongly
suggested that several tests currently available 2 BS 7976-1:2002 Pendulum testers. Specification
(particularly those based on ‘sled-type’ principles) can British Standards Institution 2002 ISBN 0 580 40144 8
produce misleading data in wet conditions. Information
from such tests shows that some smooth flooring BS 7976-2:2002 Pendulum testers. Method of
appears to be less slippery in wet conditions than operation British Standards Institution 2002
when dry; this is clearly at odds with everyday ISBN 0 580 40145 6
experience. Such tests may give credible results in dry
conditions, though it should be stressed that the vast BS 7976-3:2002 Pendulum testers. Method of
majority of slipping accidents occur in wet, calibration British Standards Institution 2002
contaminated conditions. ISBN 0 580 40146 4
5 of 6 pages
Health and Safety
Executive
Slips and trips: Guidance for employers on identifying This document is available web only at:
hazards and controlling risks HSG155 HSE Books www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/web/slips01.pdf.
1996 ISBN 0 7176 1145 0
© Crown copyright This publication may be freely
Slips and trips: Guidance for the food processing reproduced, except for advertising, endorsement or
industry HSG156 HSE Books 1996 commercial purposes. First published 03/07. Please
ISBN 0 7176 0832 8 acknowledge the source as HSE.
Published by the Health and Safety Executive 03/07 Slips and trips 1(rev1) 6 of 6 pages
Published by the Health and Safety Executive 04/07
Health and Safety
Executive
RR547
www.hse.gov.uk