See all ›
1 Citation
See all ›
11 References

Comparing two methods of data collection for walkway friction measurements with a portable slip meter and a force platform

Article in Safety Science 42(6):483-492 · July 2004 with 12 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2003.08.001
Abstract
The objective was to investigate how two distinct data collection procedures, raw coefficient of friction (COF) data versus averaged COF data, may affect the outcome and interpretation of statistical analysis of friction tests and thus the reliability of slip resistance assessments. A prototype portable slip meter (PSM) and a force platform (FP) were used for evaluating floor friction transients over contaminated surfaces. A one-way ANOVA was performed to estimate significant differences between the PSM and the FP using raw COF data (55 measurement points) and averaged COF data (five measurement points) respectively. For comparing the FP with the portable slip meter, the best approach is to use averaged friction data. When the portable slip meter is used independently for walkway friction measurement, either the averaged or the raw data can be used to present the test results. However, the larger sample size is always the preferred choice.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Slips and falls are associated with many public injuries in Korea. It is also estimated that slipping are major contributors to slip, trip and fall injury burden. The primary purpose of the present study is to determine if, and to what extent, the standard could be improved in present environment. In order to fulfill our objective, the regulations in Korea and foreign countries were investigated and reviewed. Many kind of standard, mandatory documents and guideline were also reviewed. And then, regulations, standard, guideline etc. reviewed were compared with each others. Also, some criteria was developed in this study. Standard and criteria developed in this study will help to prevent slip, trip, and fall injuries.
    Article · Sep 2014
    Read

People who read this publication also read

Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.
Learn more