Slip Testing Standards

Slip Testing Standards

Common question we are asked is “what is the Australian Standard for Slip Testing and what are the requirements?” We asked the floor safety gurus at SlipSmart and they provided the following information:

Current and proposed amendments to the Australian Slip Testing Standards

Please keep in mind that Australian Standards AS/NZS 4586:2004 was generally designed for laboratory testing in controlled conditions and Australian Standards AS/NZS 4663:2004 for In-situ Testing.

Handbook HB 197 illustrates tables required for both standards and specific location recommendations with conversions.

AS/NZS 4663:2004. Slip resistance measurements of existing pedestrian surfaces.

Appendix A. Wet Pendulum Test Method. (In-situ and Lab Testing)

Appendix B. Dry Floor Friction Test Method. (In-situ and Lab Testing)

 

AS/NZS 4586:2004. Slip resistance classifications of new pedestrian surface materials.

Appendix A. Wet Pendulum Test Method. (Lab Testing)

Appendix B. Dry Floor Friction Test Method. (Lab Testing)

Appendix C. Wet/Barefoot Ramp Test Method. (Lab Testing)

Appendix D. Oil-Wet Ramp Test Method. (Lab Testing)

Appendix E. Displacement Volume Test Method. (Lab Testing)

 

Handbook HB 197:1999. An introductory guide to the slip resistance of pedestrian surface materials

Chapter 3. Use of AS/NZS 4586 Classifications in Selecting Pedestrian.

Chapter 4. Which Wet Slip Test should I use as the bases for my Specification?

Chapter 5. General Commentary.

Ramp Classifications.

Pendulum Classifications.

Chapter 6. Requirements for Ramps and other Sloped Surfaces.

Chapter 7. Selection of Pedestrian Surface Materials According to the Ramp Tests.

Wet Barefoot Slip Resistance.

Slip Resistance in Commercial and Industrial Areas.

The meanings of terminologies used for reporting slip resistance.

Appendix (A) Wet Pendulum Test Method. (MBPN) Mean British Pendulum Number.

V Class Classification = >54MBPN

W Class Classification = 45-54MBPN

X Class Classification = 35-44MBPN

Y Class Classification = 25-34MBPN

Z Class Classification = <25

Appendix (B) Dry Floor Friction Test Method. Coefficient of Friction.

F = ≥40CoF

G = ≤40CoF

Appendix (C) Wet/Barefoot Ramp Test Method. (Laboratory testing only)

A ≥12 <18

B ≥18 <24

C ≥24

Appendix (D) Oil-Wet Ramp Test Method. (Laboratory testing only)

R9 = ≥6 <10

R10 = ≥10 <19

R11 = ≥19 <27

R12 = ≥27 <35

R13 = ≥35

Please keep in mind that Australian Standards AS/NZS 4586:2004 was generally designed for laboratory testing in controlled conditions and Australian Standards AS/NZS 4663:2004 for In-situ Testing.

Handbook HB 197 illustrates tables required for both standards and specific location recommendations with conversions.

Reference HB197:1999 Table 3 Pedestrian Flooring Selection Guide-Minimum Pendulum or Ramp recommendations for specific Locations

Specific Locations Pendulum Ramp MBPN
Toilet facilities in offices, hotels, shopping centers X R10 35-44
External colonnade, walkways and pedestrian crossings W R10 45-54
External Ramps V R11 >54
Entry foyers hotel, office and public Buildings – Wet X R10 35-44
Entry foyers hotel, office and public Buildings – Dry Z R9 <25
Lift lobbies above external entry level Z R9 <25
Internal ramps, slopes(greater than 2 degrees) – Dry X R10 35-44
Communal changing rooms X A 35-44
Swimming pool surrounds and communal shower rooms W B 45-54

 

Reference : AS/NZS 4663:2004 Slip resistance measurements of existing pedestrian surfaces.

TABLE 2 Interpretation Of Dry Floor Friction Results

Floor Friction Tester Mean Value Notional* contribution of the floor surface to the risk of slipping when Dry
≥0.40 Moderate to very low
<0.40 High to very high

The term notional has been used to highlight the need to consider all potential contributing factors to a slip incident.

Note: for a ‘Moderate to very low ‘interpretation, each individual test result shall be equal to or greater that 0.35.

Reference: Australian Standards AS/NZS 4663:2004.

In late 2006 at our Standards meeting in Sydney we instigated revisions and amendments to AS/NZS 4663:2004, AS/NZS 4586:2004 and Handbook HB 197:1999. You may ask why I went through the trouble of explaining the old Standards in this document, the reason being that you need to grasp the terminologies of the old Standards to relate to the new. At our last Standards meeting in Melbourne we reviewed the results from the Postal Ballot/Draft for public comment that was sent out in late 2006 and found strong opposition from the industry concerning the introduction of a residential slip resistance recommendations, so we withdrew our recommendations for the residential sector. The following are the amendments to AS/NZS 4586:2004 and AS/NZS 4663:2004. The new Standards will be available in late 2009.

LOCATION (abandoned recommendations) Pendulum Ramp
Residential kitchens Y R9
Residential Bathrooms, enquires,  toilets and laundries Y A/R9
Private, publicly inaccessible balconies X R10
Private paths, primary access to premises, driveways and carports W R11

 

 

 

AREA CLASSIFICATIONS

 

· Dry areas  those areas in which appropriate control measures ensure an area remains dry when in use.

· Transitional areas  those areas that are intended to be kept dry, such as by the provision of design features (awnings, drains, mats, air locks etc.) appropriate to the physical locations, climate and general exposure to water as maintained in a dry and clean conditions by the facility manager.

· Wet areas  those areas that are not defined as a dry or transitional areas, which may be either constantly or intermittently wet or otherwise contaminated.

TESTING RUBBER: NEW CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PENDULUM TESTING

The Standards Four S rubber is now also known as Slider 96. It was developed as a rubber of average slip resistance characteristics. When assessing products for wet barefoot areas, or unusually rough products, the use of the softer more malleable TRL may be advantageous. The TRL rubber is now also known as Slider 55.

AS/NZS 4663:2009. Slip Resistance Measurements of Existing Pedestrian surfaces.

Appendix A. Wet Pendulum Test Method. (In-situ and Lab Testing)

Appendix B. Dry Floor Friction Test Method. (In-situ and Lab Testing)

Appendix C. Surface Roughness Method of Testing.

Appendix D. Examples of Determining Slope Design Value (SDV) and Slope Correction Value (SCV)

Slip Resistance Value (SRV)

The SRV is the mean BPN value for the sample that has been tested, regardless of whether the surface was level or on a slope.

Slope Correction Value (SCV)

When the slip resistance of a sloping surface of known maximum gradient is measured, the SCV is an adjusted SRV, giving a value equivalent to that of the equivalent SRV for a level surface.

Slope Design Value (SDV)

The SDV is the mean BPN value required of a known maximum gradient. The SDV may be calculated by using the tables that are given in Appendix D, using the minimum SRV that is considered appropriate for a level surface.

 

Reference to Australian Standards

AS/NZS 4586:2004

AS/NZS 4663:2004

Handbook HB 197:1999

DR 07067 revision of AS/NZS 4663:2004

DR 07066 revision of AS/NZS 4586:2004

Barry Spud

Barry Spud

Safety Crusader, Zero Harm Zealot and Compliance Controller at Everything Safety
Barry Spud

Latest posts by Barry Spud (see all)

Barry Spud
What is a Safety Spud? Lets look at a few more spud head activities in risk and safety: 1. Coming on to site saying there is a safety issue when in fact there’s no such thing, it’s a political issue. 2. ‘Falling apart’ when people make choices that we think are stupid because they won’t do as we ‘tell’ them. Then we put on the angry face and think that overpowering others creates ownership. 3. Putting on the zero harm face, presenting statistics, knowing it has nothing to do with culture, risk or safety. 4. Putting on the superman (hazardman) suit and pretending to be the saviour of everything, this is good spud head cynic stuff. 5. Thinking that everyone else is a spud head except me. 6. Thinking there’s such a thing as ‘common’ sense and using such mythology to blame and label others. 7. Accepting safety policies and processes that dehumanize others. 8. Blaming, ego-seeking, grandstanding and territory protecting behind the mask of safety. 9. Thinking that risk and safety is simple when in fact it is a wicked problem. Denying complexity and putting your spud head in the sand. 10. Continually repeating the nonsense language and discourse of risk aversion that misdirect people about risk, safety, learning and imagination.

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below