Dynamic friction seems to be more appropriate as a measure of floor slipperiness. However, static friction has been more commonly used and has been a good measure for non-slippery conditions. Therefore, an experiment was conducted to find the dominant COF (static or dynamic) in non-slippery floors and correlating slip distance with each COF. As a result, slip distance was found to be a good measure to represent floor slipperiness because it was exponentially related with static and dynamic COFs. In conclusion, static COF can be a good parameter in non-slippery conditions for prevention of slips and falls.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 1975. Designation D 2047-75, Standard method of test for static coefficient of friction of polish-coated floor surfaces as measured by the James machine.American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, U. S. A.
3.
BraunR.RoemerD., 1974, Influence of waxes on static dynamic friction. Soap/Cosmetics/Chemical Specialties, Vol. 59, No. 12, December, 60–72
4.
BroughR.MalkinF.HarrisonR., 1979, Measurement of the coefficient of friction of floors. Journal of Physics, D, 12, 517–528
5.
BrungraberR. J., 1976, An overview of the floor slip-resistance research with annotated bibliography.U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Technical Note 895
6.
BrungraberR. J., 1977, A new portable tester for evaluation of the slip-resistance of walkway surfaces.U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Technical Note 953
7.
EkkubusC. F.KilleyW., 1973, Validity of 0.5 static coefficient of friction (James machine) as a measure of safe walkway surfaces. Soap/Cosmetics/Chemical Specialties, Vol. 49, No. 2, February, 40–45
8.
GoochH. D., 1981, A comparison of four methods of measuring slip resistance of floor polishes. Chemical Times and Trends, July, 47–51
9.
JamesD. I., 1983, Rubber and plastics in shoes and flooring: The importance of kinetic friction. Ergonomics, Vol. 26, No.1, 83–99
10.
LanshammarH.StrandbergL., 1983, Horizontal floor reaction forces and heel movements during the initial stance phase. Biomechanics, Vol. VIII (Edited by H. Matsui and K. Kobayashi)
11.
LeamonT. B.SonD. H., 1989, The natural history of a microslip. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety I, Taylor & Francis, 633–638
12.
LeamonT. B.LiK. W., 1990, Microslip length and the perception of slipping.Proceedings of 23rd International Congress on Occupational Health, pp. 17
13.
LuijtenJ. A. J.FeldH. A., 1973, Slip resistance of soling materials and top pieces.Shoe and Allied Trades Research Association, Information Publication 1P 141
14.
PerkinsP. J., 1978, Measurement of slip between the shoe and ground during walking.American Society of Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication 649, 71–87
15.
PooleyR. W., 1978, Measurements of frictional properties of footwear sole and heeled materials.American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication 649, pp. 11–20
16.
RhoadesT. P.MillerJ. M., 1988. Measurement and comparison of “Required” versus “Available”. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Human Factors association of Canada, 137–140
17.
StrandbergL., 1983, On accident analysis and slip-resistance measurement. Ergonomics, 26, 11–32
18.
StrandbergL., 1985, The effect of conditions underfoot on falling and overexertion accidents. Ergonomics, 28, 131–147
