Understanding the Friction Measured by Standardised Test Methodologies Used to Assess Shoe-surface Slip Risk

This paper discusses standardised mechanical test methodologies that measure dynamic coefficient of friction in order to assess the risk of a pedestrian slip. Currently, two shoesurface contact test methods are specified in British Standards to assess the risk of pedestrian slips during the heel strike phase. A pendulum test device as specified in BS 7976-2:2002 is used to determine the slip resistance of surfaces. Another standard, BS EN ISO 13287:2007 specifies the test method to assess the slip resistance of conventionally soled safety, protective and occupational footwear. Experiments were conducted on six common household surfaces in water contaminated conditions in compliance with the aforementioned standard procedures. The roughness and stiffness of each surface was also found. The results show no statistically significant linear correlation between the dynamic coefficient of friction found via the two standardised test methods. At low levels of roughness, no statistically significant linear correlations were found between the coefficient of friction found via the two standardised test methods and roughness. For flooring with a compliant layer, the contact conditions of the pendulum test device were found to cause friction losses associated with energy dissipated as the surface deforms and recovers during sliding. Differences in sliding velocity and area of contact were found to influence the measurements given by the two test procedures. The higher velocity pendulum is a more appropriate test device to replicate slip in wet conditions as it predicts the worst case scenario. However, it is likely to give misleading results on deformable surfaces as, on such surfaces, as it is not replicating the loading conditions during a real-life heel strike.

[1]  B. Persson Elastoplastic contact between randomly rough surfaces. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[2]  G. Palasantzas Influence of self-affine roughness on the adhesive friction coefficient of a rubber body sliding on a solid substrate , 2004 .

[3]  Christopher M. Powers,et al.  Repeatability and bias of two walkway safety tribometers , 1999 .

[4]  Mark I. Marpet,et al.  ON THRESHOLD VALUES THAT SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS THAT ARE SLIP RESISTANT FROM THOSE THAT ARE NOT , 1996 .

[5]  Hisao Nagata,et al.  Microscopic observations of the progressive wear on shoe surfaces that affect the slip resistance characteristics , 2001 .

[6]  B. Persson Rubber friction: role of the flash temperature. , 2006, Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal.

[8]  Mi Marpet,et al.  Comparison of Walkway Safety Tribometers: Part Two , 1997 .

[9]  Giacomo Cerisola,et al.  A comparison of results from portable and laboratory floor slipperiness testers. , 2009 .

[10]  Simon Matz,et al.  The validity and reliability of a portable slip meter for determining floor slipperiness during simulated heel strike. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  M. Redfern,et al.  Modeling Shoe-Floor-Contaminant Friction Applied to a Pin-on-Disk Apparatus , 2008 .

[12]  In-Ju Kim,et al.  Observation of the floor surface topography changes in pedestrian slip resistance measurements , 2000 .

[13]  Wen-Ruey Chang,et al.  Field evaluation of two commonly used slipmeters. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[14]  Raoul Grönqvist,et al.  Evaluation of three portable floor slipperiness testers , 2000 .

[15]  J. T. Inglis,et al.  The effect of subject awareness and prior slip experience on tribometer-based predictions of slip probability. , 2006, Gait & posture.

[16]  B. Persson On the theory of rubber friction , 1998 .

[17]  B. Vilquin,et al.  Transport and magnetic properties of La0.9Ce0.1MnO3 thin films , 2005 .

[18]  Wen-Ruey Chang,et al.  The effect of surface roughness on the measurement of slip resistance , 1999 .

[19]  Bohdan T. Kulakowski,et al.  Evaluation of Performance of Three Slip Resistance Testers , 1989 .

[20]  R. Smith Test Foot Contact Time Effects in Pedestrian Slip-Resistance Metrology , 2005 .

[21]  P. J. Perkins,et al.  Measurement of Slip Between the Shoe and Ground During Walking , 1978 .

[22]  Lennart Strandberg,et al.  The dynamics of slipping accidents , 1981 .

[23]  Gunter P Siegmund,et al.  Assessment of Walkway Tribometer Readings in Evaluating Slip Resistance: A Gait‐Based Approach , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[24]  M. Whittle,et al.  Generation and attenuation of transient impulsive forces beneath the foot: a review. , 1999, Gait & posture.

[25]  A Microscopic Model for Pedestrian Sl ips Caused by Particle Contamination , 2009 .

[26]  Kurt E. Beschorner,et al.  Analysis of the Contribution of Adhesion and Hysteresis to Shoe–Floor Lubricated Friction in the Boundary Lubrication Regime , 2012, Tribology Letters.

[27]  Dudley D. Fuller,et al.  Theory and Practice of Lubrication for Engineers , 1956 .

[28]  Mark S. Redfern,et al.  Modeling Mixed-Lubrication of a Shoe-Floor Interface Applied to a Pin-on-Disk Apparatus , 2009 .

[29]  B. Persson,et al.  Elastic contact between randomly rough surfaces: Comparison of theory with numerical results , 2002 .

[30]  M. Redfern,et al.  Biomechanics of descending ramps , 1997 .

[31]  C. Irvine,et al.  Evaluation of the Effect of Contact-Time When Measuring Floor Slip Resistance , 1986 .

[32]  M Marpet Comparison of Walkway-Safety Tribometers , 1996 .

[33]  G. Palasantzas Comparison of hysteric and adhesive coefficient of friction for rubbers sliding onto self-affine rough surfaces , 2005 .

[34]  B. Persson Theory of rubber friction and contact mechanics , 2001 .