My architectural client has designed wood treads (metal risers) for the main decorative stairs in a fire station. These stairs are in the administrative portion of the building and will be used by office staff and general public, not firefighters in wet clothes. The stairs are interior and will not be exposed to UV light. The wood will either be slabs of White Oak or Maple. The treads also must be slip resistant, so no high gloss finish.
Do you have any recommendations of products? Thanks.
There are plenty of reasons to not want a high gloss finish, but I didn’t think slipperiness was one of them. I’ve always understood there is not a direct correlation with gloss and slipperiness (but perhaps I’m wrong, or that is only true for other floor finishes). Most basketball courts have a high gloss finish on wood floors. Next time you watch a basketball game, let me know if the players are sliding around like it’s a hockey game.
As for a product, I usually look to wood flooring finishes for this type of application. There are many different manufacturers and products to choose from that should meet your needs.
define slip resistant, please.
haha good one
Is that SCOF or DCOF?
Use whatever finish you want, plus a non-slip nosing or plate.
A “decorative” stair in a fire station seems out of place in a building that will receive hard ware and needs to stand up to long term use.
WARE - noun - articles of merchandise or manufacturer.
I always spec wood floor finishes for wood stair treads, but require shop application since treads are not continuous like a floor (to avoid the finish getting on adjacent surfaces).
Anons,
I was always taught that a person should own their communication. So if you don’t have the guts to show your name, please don’t post here.
David, the anons of the world have their reasons, perhaps some work for companies that do not want their employees posting on forums. I have learned to accept all responses and have received good responses from the anons of the world. However some of the responses today seem to be making fun of this thread and that is not acceptable, we are all here to solve problems, seek information from our peers. I for one greatly appreciate this forum. I work alone, and don’t get to travel to trade shows or conferences. I count on this forum to expand my horizons and yes answer some questions by those who have more experience than I. So chill David, its all good.
Thank you Jerome for your support.
This will be my last post on 4specs discussion forum. I am tired of all the snarky comments from anonymous wimps and guest chickens. On my thermally broken thread some loser attacked Marc Chavez’s company. That crap does not fly with me. We are here to help each other out learn from other’s experience.
I have told Colin Gilboy that unless he removes anonymous posts, I will not return.
If anybody wants to contact me, please feel free to email me at David@AxtConsulting.com
Hey ANON ,here’s your definition from OSHA, next time google it like every one else:
Slip resistance, the relative force that resists the tendency of the shoe or foot to slide along the walkway surface. Slip resistance is related to a combination of factors including the walkway surface, the footwear bottom, and the presence of foreign materials between them.
Slip resistant, the provision of adequate slip resistance to reduce the likelihood of slip for pedestrians using reasonable care on the walking surface under expected use conditions.
Although Anon was being a little cheeky, he does have a point. Jerome’s definition, while accurate, is lacking one key ingredient: a definitive performance level and a method by which to measure it.
Although one method seems to have risen to the top above all others (BOT3000), there is no performance level that one could specify that would definitively indicate a surface will be slip-resistant or not.
Slip resistance has many variables, and one person’s slip-resistant surface may not be another’s (gait, speed, sole material, surface wear, etc.). The failure to provide a slip-resistant surface is only apparent after a slip-and-fall event–then it involves expert witnesses to support the case for each side.
I believe this is one of the reasons that the Access Board dropped the COF values from the nonmandatory appendix in the former ADAAG–it was becoming mandatory just by its mere presence in the document even though it wasn’t intended to be. Also, they never stated a test method to establish the COF to compare. Thus, in a lawsuit, anyone could bring in test results from any method to show compliance with the appendix and hopefully avoid an unfavorable decision.
I actually think Anon’s question was quiet valid. I have client’s all the time say, “Make sure the spec says the floor will be slip resistant” and I follow up with a similar comment of, “Let’s discuss what that means”. The minimum industry standard of “slip resistant” may not be appropriate if the flooring/stairs are in a nightclub where drinks will be spilled. So, although all the comments on this thread may not be exactly the help we are looking for, they do often open up valid points for further discussion that others can learn from.
Dave, I’ll recommend Glitsa Satin: 270112.ST.
Waterborne isocyanate (urethane) finish, available from Rudd Co here in Seattle.
As far as gloss vs slip resistance, the airport expansion project I worked on had extensive epoxy terrazzo flooring. The client insisted on a low-gloss finish because of the perceived opportunity for unscrupulous persons to claim compensation for false slip and fall injuries on a floor with a gloss finish.
The slip resistance for both the gloss and low gloss finishes is virtually the same.