|
|
Shedding went AwayThis report was commissioned by the carpet mill.THE CLAIM STATISTICS INSPECTOR'S REPORT NUMBER: 2628 INSPECTOR WAS CONTACTED ON: 9/3/96 INSPECTOR WAS RETAINED ON: 9/3/96 DATE INSPECTION REQUESTED: 10/9/96 DATE INSPECTED: 10/24/96 PROBLEM REPORTED: Shedding WAS A DIAGRAM MADE?: No SAMPLES FROM INSPECTION: None Taken PERSONS PRESENT: Inspector & Claimant
THE CARPET FIBER/ ID METHOD: Nylon-Chemical COLOR: Tan CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Cut Loop STYLE: Saxony SQUARE YARDAGE: 160 BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene
THE INSTALLATION TYPE OF SITE: Residential DATE INSTALLED: 12/94 METHOD: Stretch-In CUSHION: 1/2-Inch Urethane 7 Lb./Sq. Ft. SUBFLOOR: See Report AREA INSTALLED: Living-Room, Dining-Room, Hallway, & 2 Bedrooms.
USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Just an Invoice TEMPERATURE: 67.2°F - 19.5° C RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 50% ADULTS: 2 - CHILDREN: 0 - PET(S): 3 - 1 Dog & 2 Cats DO THEY SMOKE? No SPOTTING AGENTS: Consumer Type VACUUM TYPE: Kirby Upright FREQUENCY: Weekly ENTRY MATS: Yes CONDITION of THE CARPET: See Report SOIL: Moderately Soiled HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Gas COOLING TYPE: Swamp Pump CLEANING: Never Been Cleaned
REASON FOR COMMISSION The carpet reportedly has a shedding problem.
THE REPORT Site Conditions and Geographical Information The carpets were located in the claimant's free standing single story house. This house was located in a residential neighborhood on the northern edge of the San Fernando Valley. The house was well maintained and was owner occupied at the time of the inspection.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR The carpet was a replacement for the one that was damaged in the Northridge Earthquake. Immediately upon installation, the carpet did not appear to have the same texture as the sample in the dealer's showroom. For the first month, each vacuuming would fill a bag with filaments. Until the eighth month the shedding continued. In addition, after eight months the seams began to show and became more obvious.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR The trafficked areas of the carpet were affected with crushing and a slight loss of twist throughout the installation. The floor under the carpet did not feel even when making transitions from the living-room to the dining-room. Along the perimeter there was an occasional pulled tuft and in one spot in the living-room, there were evident lines made by a knee-kicker or power stretcher. These lines did not recover when brushed. Occasionally there was a yarn that was pulled, but it did not conform to an individual stitch or gauge row or any discernible pattern. Pulled tufts were frayed and had their bundle wrap still attached. The seam going into a bedroom in the front of the house was fuzzy looking, but reportedly, one of the cats was responsible for this appearance. The filaments did not release fiber when rubbed. A carpet sample was taken from a remnant. The backing of this remnant was torn and the secondary backing was missing on one spot.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING An ultra-violet light was shone throughout the installation. The result of this test revealed that there was a strong lavender reflection in one or two locations. The affected areas did not feel tacky and no soil was being attracted to these spots. Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor. The results of these tests revealed that there were no moisture readings these readings included the ultra-violet reflections. Fifteen tuftbind tests were performed over a random area. The results were as follows:
THE ISSUE OF THIS REPORT The question that I have been asked to address is: what caused the carpet to shed?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
INDUSTRY STANDARDS, PRACTICES & DEFINITIONS According to the FLOOR COVERING DICTIONARY, it says this about ware. WEAR - A reduction in pile density as a result of traffic, abrasive soil build-up, maintenance and use. Wear is most apparent in high traffic areas, especially when compared to adjacent untrafficked areas. The DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE SECRETARY FOR HOUSING FEDERAL HOUSING COMMISSIONER sets the standards for minimum tuft-bind called UM44D. For cut-looped carpet this standard is 48 ounces or (3 pounds); for looped carpet the standard is 100 ounces or 6.25 pounds. According to the S001 - 1994 on page 4 it says this concerning cleaning frequency for residential: D. CONSUMER CHECKLIST FOR CLEANING CARPET 1. Cleaning Frequency - Installed residential carpet exposed to routine use should be programmed for cleaning at least annually. Carpet that is subjected to extreme soiling or heavy use, particularly high traffic areas, or carpet installed in homes occupied by persons with allergy or respirator problems requires greater cleaning frequency. Carpet in low traffic areas, such as formal living rooms, dining rooms, etc., needs less frequent cleaning.
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
The claimant's experiences from vacuum cleaner bags filling up with carpet fibers, the unsightly appearance of the seams, and the crushing and loss of twist can be easily estimated to be above the average experience of most people who buy new carpet for their home, but an explanation for these problem has not been found in error in manufacturing, installation, or usage and maintenance. Most likely the fiber-filled vacuum-cleaner-bags in the early stage of the installation were from improper shearing or clean-up from the shearing process during manufacturing. The worsening of the appearance of the seams could be related to unknown factors in installation or usage. The crushing is likely the result of no professional cleaning since the carpet was first installed. The marks near the wall that did not recover from brushing are likely from the installer's knee-kicker or power-stretcher. Other seam problems were agreed upon as being from the cat.
CONCLUSION Shedding and wear were from improper shearing based upon the background information. Current shedding almost non existing based upon the observations and the tuft-bind tests are acceptable. The installation and maintenance had minor infractions of the rules. |