|
|
Crushing Indicative of OlefinThis report was done for a carpet mill that make olefin Saxony. As ridiculous as that is, I could not find fault with them.THE CARPET FIBER/ ID METHOD: Olefin FIBER HUE: Off White CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Cut Pile YARN STYLE: Saxony BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tuft PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene SECONDARY BACKING: Action Back THE INSTALLATION LOCATION TYPE: Residential METHOD: Stretch-In CUSHION: 1/2 Inch Rebond SUBFLOOR: Concrete on the First & Second Levels, Plywood on the Third Level. AREA INSTALLED: Living-room, Dining-Room, 3 Bed-rooms, & Stairs USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: No TEMPERATURE: 78.7°F - 25.9° C RH 74% ADULTS: 2 - CHILDREN: 1 - PET(S): 1 - Cat DO THEY SMOKE? No SPOTTING AGENTS: ReSolveŽ VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Upright Twice Weekly ENTRY-MATS? Yes SOIL: Heavily Soiled HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Gas COOLING TYPE: None CLEANING: Professional METHOD: Truckmount Steam TYPE OF CHEMICAL: Not Given DATE LAST CLEANED: Not Determined TREATMENTS APPLIED: None Reported REASON FOR COMMISSION The claimant reports that the carpet has a yarn crushing problem. THE REPORT Site Conditions and Geographical Information The carpet in question was installed in town-homes in a common-interest residential development located in the coastal part of the Los Angeles Basin. The maintenance and condition of this property was good. This unit was owner occupied at the time of the inspection. BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR The claimant reports that the dealer said that the carpet cleans easily as if it were glass and that it would not mat. He also reportedly said that the carpet was of an excellent quality and that she would not be disappointed. Immediately after the installation, foot print impressions were beyond the claimant’s expectation. In addition, the carpet spotted easily and was difficult to remove. The carpet was professionally cleaned but some of the spots reportedly returned and the crushing in the trafficked areas did not improve. The dealer reportedly commented that the cleaner was lousy. Later, a seam in the entrance of the living-room began to become more noticeable and then a small gap began to form in the seam. This condition worsened with time. Some time in the past there was some water damage that reportedly did not affect the carpet. Allegedly the toilet in this unit had a problem and the roof was replaced. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR The carpet was crushed and slightly matted in most of the trafficked areas. Close inspection showed a slight loss of twist. A seam that ran perpendicular approximately 32 inches from the wall to the entrance was noticed This seam was slightly open on one end and had a small gap. There were no pulled yarns noticed in the seam. Various spots of different shapes and sizes were noted throughout the installation. The untrafficked areas had no crushing and appeared to retrain their natural hue. ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING An ultra-violet light was used to draw a reflection from substances with optical brightening agents. Yellow reflection will come from most urine stains; a blue or lavender reflection from detergents. The result of this test revealed that there was no reflection. Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor. This test would indicate the presence of moisture locked-up in salt compounds from urine and detergents. The results of these tests showed moderate to high moisture throughout all three levels. Numerous moisture tests were performed using a TRAMEX Moisture Encounter. This devise measures the percentage of moisture in the area that was being tested. This devise is suitable for measuring moisture in wood and concrete. The results of these tests showed moderate to high reading of moisture in the walls and ceiling throughout all three levels of this dwelling. A general spotting agent by Groom Industries called Perky SpotterŽ was applied to a towel and the towel was blotted onto the trafficked and spotted areas. The results of this test revealed that the towel picked up some foreign matter, but the spot changed in appearance slightly. THE ISSUE OF THIS REPORT The question that I had been asked to address is: what caused the carpet to crush?. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE Crushing can Occur when:
INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS According to the ACADEMY OF TEXTILES AND FLOORING, they say this about olefin: The advantages of olefin are as follows: ˇ ˇ Solution dyed during extrusion ˇ Least absorbent - no shrinkage ˇ Economical ˇ Stain resistant ˇ Light weight (floats on water) ˇ Strong -excellent abrasion resistance The disadvantages of olefin are as follows: ˇ Not resistant to oil ˇ Lowest melting temperature - soften at 200°F. and evaporates at 300° C. ˇ Poor resilience THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS ˇ The moisture test revealed that there has been severe wetting of the carpet, walls, and ceilings. ˇ The ultra-violet light test indicates that other chemicals such as industrial strength detergents were not present. ˇ The general spotting test reveals that the discoloring was not related to soil but cannot be removed easily. If the crushing were related to a soil attracting residue, then the soil spots would have cleaned-up easily and there would have likely been some foam created. None of these happened during testing, therefore it is unlikely that this would be the culprit. Installation errors from the lack of power stretching are a likely contributing cause of this problem, but would not account for the total problem. The indicative characteristic of olefin is the best candidate for crushing, based upon the observations made and definitions given by the ACADEMY OF TEXTILE AND FLOOR. Also, aggravating this problem is the style of yarn. Whereas olefin and loop construction are common to commercial installations and crushing does not develop beyond the user’s comfort zone, cut-looped yarns are inherently more affected by crushing. The noticeable seam was LIKELY being aggravated by a lack of seaming adhesive. Not using seaming adhesive and not power stretching with a power-stretcher are common errors to most residential installations in the inspector’s opinion. CONCLUSION Crushing in the carpet in question was due to characteristics inherent in the fiber based upon observations and in-field testing. |