How Product Testing Reduces the Risk of Unsuitable Surfaces Being Installed in Wet Areas

The best time to discover that a flooring product is unsuitable for a wet pedestrian area is before it is ordered and installed.

Laboratory testing can provide objective evidence about how a new pedestrian surface material performed under the applicable test method.

Testing does not prevent a poor installation by itself.

Its value lies in giving manufacturers, suppliers, architects, builders and asset owners evidence that can be used to reject an unsuitable product before the cost and disruption are built into the project.

Product evidence commonly fails in three ways:

1. the wrong test method;
2. the wrong sample;
3. the wrong application.

1. The wrong test method

The test method must match the environment in which the product will be used.

A surface intended for a wet area may be exposed to:

• rain;
• tracked-in water;
• pool splash;
• cleaning water;
• soap;
• oils;
• food contamination;
• slope;
• barefoot use.

Evidence of dry performance does not establish wet performance.

Under AS 4586:2013:

• P ratings relate to wet pendulum testing;
• D ratings relate to dry floor friction testing.

The relevant method depends on the intended service conditions.

WorkSafe Victoria recommends selecting floor surfaces by considering the intended activity, environmental conditions, likely contamination, wet and dry performance, users and cleaning requirements.

The wrong test method can produce a perfectly valid result that does not answer the project’s actual question.

2. The wrong sample

The report must relate to the surface people will actually walk on.

A base product may perform differently after it is:

• sealed;
• coated;
• polished;
• glazed;
• etched;
• printed;
• textured;
• otherwise treated.

Testing an untreated tile may not support claims about the sealed or coated product supplied to the project.

The report should identify:

• product name;
• product reference;
• colour or variant;
• finish;
• coating or sealer;
• sample preparation;
• test method;
• result;
• classification.

If the tested sample cannot be reliably connected to the supplied product, the evidence becomes difficult to use.

Can one result cover every colour and finish?

Not automatically.

Variations may change:

• surface texture;
• glaze;
• aggregate exposure;
• coating thickness;
• manufacturing process;
• frictional performance.

A supplier may reasonably group variants where their walking surfaces are genuinely equivalent.

That decision should be technically supportable rather than assumed because the products share a range name.

Where the finish changes, separate testing may be required.

3. The wrong application

A product may have a valid report and still be unsuitable for the proposed location.

For example, the product may have been tested correctly but selected for an area involving:

• greater wet exposure;
• a slope;
• different contaminants;
• barefoot use;
• older or mobility-impaired pedestrians;
• intensive cleaning;
• heavy trolley movement.

A classification is not a universal statement that the product is appropriate everywhere.

The evidence must be interpreted against the actual use.

Start with the location, not the rating

The specification process should begin with:

• where the surface will be installed;
• whether it will be wet, dry or intermittently contaminated;
• whether it is level or sloping;
• who will use it;
• what footwear is likely;
• how it will be cleaned;
• what substances may reach it;
• what other operational requirements apply.

Only then should the project ask what test method and classification are required.

Starting with a rating and searching for somewhere to apply it reverses the decision process.

Why brochures are not enough

Terms such as:

• non-slip;
• wet-area suitable;
• commercial grade;
• textured;
• outdoor rated

may be useful marketing descriptions, but they are not substitutes for a test report.

A report provides traceable information about:

• the sample;
• test method;
• conditions;
• result;
• classification;
• limitations.

The certificate should be checked rather than relying only on a symbol or claim copied into a brochure.

Is the highest rating always the best selection?

Not necessarily.

Flooring must also function operationally.

Selection may need to balance:

• wet slip resistance;
• cleanability;
• hygiene;
• accessibility;
• trolley movement;
• barefoot comfort;
• durability;
• maintenance;
• appearance.

A highly textured surface may provide greater wet resistance but be difficult to clean effectively.

A smoother surface may be easy to maintain but inappropriate where water is foreseeable.

The goal is not the highest available classification. It is an appropriate surface that can be maintained under the real conditions of use.

When should testing occur?

Testing is most valuable before:

• the specification is finalised;
• a large order is placed;
• an alternative product is approved;
• marketing claims are published;
• a product range is launched;
• the surface is rolled out across multiple sites.

Early testing allows the project to:

• reject unsuitable materials;
• compare variants;
• correct overbroad claims;
• clarify sample requirements;
• identify the appropriate method;
• include defensible evidence in the specification.

What happens when testing occurs too late?

Late testing may show that:

• the certificate relates to a different finish;
• the wrong method was used;
• the supplied product differs from the sample;
• a sealer has reduced performance;
• one result was applied too broadly;
• the product is unsuitable for the location.

By that stage, the consequences may include:

• replacement;
• treatment;
• closures;
• delayed opening;
• contractual dispute;
• disruption;
• reputational damage.

The cost of laboratory testing is then no longer the central issue. The project is dealing with a surface already embedded in the building.

WorkSafe Victoria notes that eliminating or controlling hazards during design is generally easier and less costly than correcting them after the project is complete.

What should the laboratory report include?

A useful AS 4586:2013 report should identify:

• the client;
• exact sample;
• product reference;
• colour or finish;
• coating or treatment;
• test method;
• preparation;
• equipment and slider where relevant;
• numerical result;
• classification;
• observations;
• limitations;
• date of testing.

The report should allow another person to understand precisely what evidence applies to which product.

What happens after installation?

Laboratory testing answers:

How did the new sample perform?

It does not permanently answer:

How is the installed surface performing now?

Installation, cleaning, wear and contamination may later alter the surface.

Where the present performance of an installed floor needs to be assessed, in-situ testing under AS 4663:2013 may be appropriate.

That is a different stage of the surface lifecycle and a different form of evidence.

A practical pre-installation checklist

Before accepting a product report, ask:

1. Does the test method match the intended conditions?
2. Does the report identify the exact product?
3. Does it cover the relevant colour and finish?
4. Was the final sealer or coating represented?
5. Is the proposed application wet, dry or sloping?
6. Who will use the surface?
7. How will it be cleaned?
8. Are product claims broader than the evidence?
9. Could installation change the walking surface?
10. Is verification required before a larger rollout?