Shading could be pooling
This report was performed for a carpet mill and involved new testing procedures.
THE CLAIM STATISTICS
COMMISSIONER’S P O NUMBER: Not Applicable
NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS: 2
PROBLEM REPORTED: Side Match
PROBLEM FOUND: Shading
WAS A DIAGRAM MADE?: No
SAMPLES FROM INSPECTION: None Taken
PERSONS PRESENT: Inspector & Claimant
THE CARPET
FIBER/ ID METHOD: Nylon
FIBER HUE: Green
CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Cut Pile
YARN STYLE: Velvet Plush
BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted
PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene
SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene
THE INSTALLATION
LOCATION TYPE: Commercial
TYPE OF BUSINESS: Accounting Firm
DATE INSTALLED: 4/98
METHOD: Direct Glue Down
SUBFLOOR: Concrete
AREA INSTALLED: Offices & Hallway
USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Not Determined
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 12
TEMPERATURE: 71°F - 21.6° C RH 86%
VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Professional Service Nightly
ENTRY-MATS? Yes
SOIL: None Noticed
HEATING TYPE: Forced Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: Never Been Cleaned
REASON FOR COMMISSION
The carpet’s hue reportedly does not match at the seam.
THE REPORT
Site Conditions and Geographical Information
This is a two story office building located in a shopping and business area near Wilshire Boulevard. The facility was occupied with employees and owners at the time of the inspection. The maintenance was good.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
Immediately after the installation, lines that were attributed to roll crushing were noticed in the carpet. The appearance did not change with time. Previous carpets were not noted as having this problem. No corrections had been attempted at the time of the inspection.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
Serpentine or wave like lines ran along the baseboard throughout the inspection. Their appearance varied when viewed from different directions and the hue of the carpet varied from light to dark, depending upon the direction you viewed the lines.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING
A Pile Direction Test was done using a piece of paper and a pencil. It was confirmed that the pile direction was running in different directions on either side of the serpentine lines.
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 no moisture throughout the installation.
A compass was used to check for magnetic differences where the lines were located, but there were no unusual changes in the Earth’s magnetic forces.
A smoke-gun was used to determine if the lines conformed to the air flow of the central air system, but the test was inconclusive.
THE ISSUE
The question that I have been asked to address is: what caused the pile reversal in the carpet in question?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
Pile reversal can be caused by:
1. manufacturer’s defects
2. spills from liquid that would soften the latex backing
3. excessive wear on the carpet or improper maintenance procedures.
4. heat in combination with mechanical action.
5. unknown force referred to as Pooling or Shading.
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. Also, 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 Institute’s CLAIMS MANUAL, it says this about shading.
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 carpet in question has the classic appearance of the shading condition known as pooling which is a permanent change in the pile directions of which there are no lasting corrections. Two common factors are that are involved are that:
1. it does happen more often on plush, dense pile carpet
2. it is location specific.
The forces that create it have no consensus of the cause, but there is speculation that ionization of the air and fluxes in the magnetic fields are contributors. Testing indicated that those conditions were not represented in this location and an accumulation of data for this type of testing is necessary for more meaningful interpretation of its significance. Moisture testing though, does indicate that some type of spill from usage or maintenance was not present and the lines do not totally conform to usage or patterns made by vacuuming.
Also. what is unusual about this case is that it reportedly took place at the time of the installation. Occurrences of pooling have been reported in matter of days, but it was not a condition that was in the carpet before the installation. Since this portion of the background information does not match the condition of pooling, the conclusion can only use the more general term of shading.
Shading according to Section 8 of the CRI CLAIMS MANUAL is not a manufacturing defect and should not be considered as a basis for claims. Considerations beyond the CLAIM MANUAL are beyond the scope of this report.
CONCLUSION
Pile reversal in the carpet in question is due to shading and is not a manufacturing defect and should not be considered as a basis for claims.