Pooling on Cut & Loop
This report was done for the fiber producer and the serpentine line was broken because
this was a cut & loop pile. It also had a Shaw Softbac.
THE CARPET
FIBER: Staple Nylon
ID METHOD: According To Manufacturer
FIBER COLOR: White
CONSTRUCTION: Conventional Tuft
YARN STYLE: Cut & Loop Texture Pattern
SQUARE YARDAGE: 174.8
BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tuft
PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene
SECONDARY BACKING: Softbac® by Shaw
INSTALLATION STATISTICS
TYPE LOCATION: Residential
METHOD: Stretch-In
CUSHION: 1/2 Inch Rebond 7 Lb./Cu. Ft.
SUBFLOOR: Plywood
AREA INSTALLED: Livingroom/Piano Room, Office, Stairs, Hallway,
& Four Bedrooms
USE & MAINTENANCE STATISTICS AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Yes
ADULTS: 2 - CHILDREN: 0 - PET(S): 0
DO THEY SMOKE? No
SPOTTING AGENTS: Not Known
TEMPERATURE: 72.5°F - 22.5° C RH 44%
VACUUM TYPE: Upright
VACUUM FREQUENCY: Weekly & More
ENTRY-MATS: Yes
SOIL: See Report
HEATING TYPE: Forced Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: Professional
METHOD: Not Reported
TYPE OF CHEMICAL: Not Reported
DATE LAST CLEANED: Not Reported
TREATMENTS APPLIED: None Reported
PROBLEM REPORTED
Matting, excessive wear, visible traffic lanes. Staining - not cleanable, known or
unknown.
SITE CONDITIONS & GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
This is a 4,400 square-foot, free standing, recently built, two-story house located in a
hilly, golf-course community, with other similar homes. A sign advertising houses in this
subdivision said, "HOMES IN THE LOW $600,000s".
The claimant's furnishings were extraordinarily clean and organized. Some of the
furnishings included artificial or preserved plants from the claimant's business.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
During the installation, there was a problem with seam appearance, which the installers
could not correct, though they tried. There has been no other correction attempts since
then.
Two or three months later, spots began to appear as if they were coming through from the
carpet backing. These spots would vary in appearance depending upon how the light would
strike them. A professional cleaning company was hired to remove them, but was
unsuccessful. Reportedly, these spots were visible even immediately after the cleaning.
The method of cleaning or the company's name was not reported.
Later, the carpet began to form little fuzzballs of which most stayed attached to the
carpet for awhile. No fuzzballs were pointed out during the inspection and none were seen.
Shaw Industries, the carpet maker, commissioned An other inspector to make an inspection.
One of the findings of this report, was that the carpet was pooling. The claimant was
aware of this, but did not understand what pooling was all about.
All of the remaining carpet remnants of this installation were turned over to Shaw
Industries for laboratory testing. The results of those tests were not reported to this
inspector. There were no samples available.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
The pattern of this carpet was made of diamonds of loop-yarns, surrounded by high-density,
cut-loop, staple yarns. In addition, and as noted in the statistical information, this is
a Softbac® backing system.
The claimant's vacuum cleaner was inspected and was found to be in good working order. The
bag was empty. There were no burrs on the head. The brush was soft and there was a
beaterbar.
Although this is a two-story house, the first level is split-level and the
livingroom/piano room is on the lower level of the first floor. This was essentially one
room, of which the original plan was to have two separate rooms. The entrance, study, and
kitchen are on the upper-level of the first floor.
It was peaked and the natural lighting from the windows created a shadow making the seam
very noticeable. In addition, it had occasional gaps and sprouted yarns. Finally, it ran
the length of both rooms, parallel with the natural light source and on the far side of
the room from the windows.
In the study, just off the main entrance, there was a single noticeable spot measuring
four by five inches. This spot would vary in appearance depending upon where it was
viewed. Close examination revealed that this spot was made by pile reversal only. It had
no unusual hand or odor.
In the stairs, there were additional spots made from pile reversal. This condition
continued into the landing and hallway. Barely visible were serpentine lines made by the
spots, however, the spots were more pronounced than the serpentine lines.
In the drawing below, a seam with an unusual location is represented by the dotted line.
It had gaps and sprouting yarns. There was also one gold spot found in the hallway that is
not shown in the drawing. Reportedly, this is a rust spot made from an air-conditioner
leak. The cleaner was reportedly unable to remove it and it was not considered an issue
for this report.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING
An ultra-violet light was used to draw a reflection from substances with fluorescent dyes
in the spot in the study. Yellow reflections will come from most urine stains while blue
or lavender reflections will come from inappropriate detergents. The results of this test
revealed that there were no reflections.
Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor that would
indicate the presence of moisture locked-up in the same compounds mentioned above, but the
test revealed that there were no moisture readings in this spot either. Additional
readings were taken in the livingroom with no readings too.
In a test to find detergent residue, distilled water was placed on the carpet in small
room being used as an office, but it beaded and would not soak into the yarn until
agitated. There was no slippery feel to the carpet when it was wet and there were no
soapsuds made.
pH tests using a digital type pH meter and a special low moisture probe that made direct
contact with the face yarns found readings of the spot in the study between 6.4 - 6.5.
A Pile Direction Test was done using a piece of paper and a pencil. The pile direction of
the carpet was confirmed as running the same direction on both sides of all seams, but
differently where the spots were seen.
THE ISSUE
The questions that I have been asked to address are to determine whether this carpet has a
wear or yarn problem and if the fiber producer is responsible.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
Crushing and wear issues are covered in the warranties from both the carpet and fiber
producer. Additional guidelines can be found in the CARPET AND RUG Institute's CLAIMS
MANUAL. Definitions of terms can be found in various standards and reference guides
including the FLOOR COVERING DICTIONARY by the Academy of Textile & Flooring of
Whitter California.
INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS
According to the FLOOR COVERING DICTIONARY, it says this about shading.
SHADING - An optical effect cased by light reflection on the carpet pile giving the
appearance of alternate lighter or darker areas. Examination will show that the tuft are
actually of a uniform color and are restored to a one-color effect when the pile is
smoothed in one direction. This characteristic is most notable in cut loop constructions,
particularly pile carpets. In addition, in cut-pile fabrics, an apparent change in color
when the pile is bent, caused by differences in the way light is reflected off the bent
fibers. This phenomenon is a characteristic of pile fabrics, not a defect.
According to the CARPET AND RUG INSTITUTES's CLAIMS MANUAL, it says this.
8. Pile crushing, pile shading, and soiling are not manufacturing
defects and will not be considered as a basis for claims. Claims for fuzzing and pilling
will be subjected to examination and testing by the manufacturer. Claims for missing tufts
will not be considered except on a basis of repair. No claims will be honored for carpet
installed on stairs, in elevators and in bathrooms. The mill reserves the right to correct
any repairable manufacturing defect. (See Glossary for definition of terms).
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
The seam problem is beyond the scope of the issue, but is worth mentioning. Peak seams can
be reduced or eliminated by stretching and/or restretching the carpet. The other problems
with gaps and sprouting yarns are normally installation problems beyond the scope of the
issue.
Wear is defined as the reduction of faceyarn and some faceyarn may have been lost with the
fuzzballs. However, fuzzball formation is a normal indicative behavior of staple filaments
that ends after a few months. If it continues beyond that, then there could be a problem.
Since, none were seen during this inspection, this should not be considered a problem.
Aside from the seam problems, the claimant's other concerns centered on the changes in
appearance. The wear and/or yarn problems are coming from the crushing and pile reversal.
The soil resistance is a wear and/or wearability issue too.
· Of the yarn problems, crushing is believed to be the claimant's second most serious
problem. High/low graphic patterns have an inherent characteristic of losing some
appearance from crushing. From a professional opinion, crushing and/or loss of appearance
retention was not critical when comparing it to the store sample. It is most pronounced in
the stairs, which are not covered under the warranty.
· The mysterious appearance of the spots is the crucial issue of this report and is
believed to be the claimant's most important problem. This inspector would be in agreement
with the other inspector this carpet is pooling. Pooling has two known prerequisites:
1. The carpet generally has a dense cut pile yarn system.
2. The condition will be geographically particular or unique to that dwelling or
structure.
The reason spots were more noticeable than the serpentine line is likely because this is a
cut & loop yarn system. There is no recognized way to stop and/or reverse the
development of more pronounced serpentine line in the future. Studies have shown that if
another carpet of the same basic style, but from a different manufacturer, is installed in
a pooled carpet's place, it too will pool. If this pooled carpet was installed in a
different place not known to have a pooling problem, then it would not pool.
Light colored carpets have become very popular in recent years and this carpet fits into
that category. One of the reasons for this trend is due to advanced soil protectants. In
this case, the protection repels water, indicating it is working very well.
CONCLUSION
From a professional opinion, based upon background information, observations, and
field-testing done at the time of the inspection, the wear problem is a pooling condition
or pile reversal issue and is not the fiber producer's responsibility.
|