There are at least two issues about specifying slip resistance that may be unclear in general:
-
What are the regulatory requirements - and they may vary by jurisdiction.
-
How much protection from lawsuits - whether legitimate or not - does the Owner want? (like Jerome mentioned in the initial post)
For the 1st item, there still does seem to be a major lack of specific recommendations in U.S. standards, i.e. it says you might need higher than 0.42 but we’re not going to give you any clues how to decide how much.
For the 2nd item, their maintenance may have the primary effectiveness as long as the material and installation allows for #1 and #2 above also, which is secondary in effectiveness but comes first in the sequence of events.
The only useful help I was able to find, was the Australian implementation of ASTM E303 at the link above (the-worlds-most-sophisticated-floor-slip-resistance-testing-standards). This is from a California-based testing agency who points out that Australian requirements are very detailed for various circumstances. (scroll down at that link for detailed slip resistance values recommended for various circumstances, but using the British pendulum test - which we call ASTM E303.) About ANSI A137.1 they write “Does this system make more sense than a one-size-fits-all minimum such as 0.42 after which the customer must make important decisions based on no advice or data whatsoever? The Australian standard we refer to is a minor revision of one thats been in effect since 1999. We think thats something to hang your hat on when you try to prevent injuries or to defend yourself in court. The pendulum test instrument used in this situation-specific test has been testing floors involved in actual real-world slip and fall accidents in the United Kingdom since the 1950s, so the research into these safety standards are unparalleled with any other instrument or test method. Its used in at least 49 nations on five continents.”
You may say Australian standards cannot be enforced in the U.S. It is actually a long-time British and US standard, they have just gone a step further by providing the detailed recommendations that we lack. About whether or not things are enforceable - Non-codified standards can be and often are specified. That makes them the basis of the bidding, and once awarded then they are the basis of a contract. Construction contracts are enforceable by law unless there is a contract modification. This goes for public and private entities alike. Private Owners may have more leeway to uphold non-codified standards during the pre-contract stage than public Owners do.
It doesn’t help to just go with DCOF 0.42 when it adds a wide-open statement that THE SPECIFIER must go higher than that in many situations without telling us how high. Like William says, just the fact that one standard is updated and this information is available may be usable for defense (or offense) in a legal case. So an Owner my wisely want to enforce a provision for even higher slip and fall avoidance in some circumstances.
DCOF at all is the big shift the last couple years in the U.S. (which can be measured by the British Pendulum Tester, or BOT-3000E, or others) and the U.S. tile manufacturers are all doing BOT-3000E pretty much now, so what does it do to interior designer’s selection of products to add testing few people here are using for their products? That is another issue. Last I checked, specifiers do not control interior designers.
Also, what about other types of flooring? Why is this addressed in guide specs for ceramic tile (albeit poorly due to the standards) and not other surfaces? Is it because tile is harder to fall on? I have seen very high dry coefficient of friction requirements discussed for pro basketball court floors, that is about it.