Streaks appear in One Direction Only
This report was written for the mill.
THE CARPET
FIBER/ ID METHOD: Nylon-According To Manufacturer
FIBER HUE: Multi-Color
CONSTRUCTION: Tufted
YARN STYLE: Cut & Loop
SQUARE YARDAGE: 1110
BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted
PRIMARY BACKING: Not Accessible
THE INSTALLATION
LOCATION TYPE: Commercial
TYPE OF BUSINESS: High-Rise Office
DATE INSTALLED: 9/6/97
METHOD: Direct Glue Down
SUBFLOOR: Concrete
AREA INSTALLED: Hallway
USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: None Reported
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Vacant
TEMPERATURE: 73.4°F - 23.0° C RH 24%
VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Upright Not Determined
ENTRY-MATS? Yes
SOIL: None Noticed
HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: New Carpet
INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSPECTION
To determine the reason for streaking.
THE REPORT
Site Conditions and Geographical Information
The carpet was on the fifth floor of this building, located just west of downtown Los Angeles. The condition and maintenance of the property was good. This floor was undergoing remodeling at the time of the inspection.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
Suspicion that there was a line in the carpet during the installation was noted by the claimant, but was not fully realized until the installation was finished. No correction service had been made and the line had not changed in appearance since the installation.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
The line noted in this hallway was 11 feet and 11 inches wide. The hallway ran over 100 feet and the carpet was laid in the length.
The line appeared as a pair of lines that started four feet six and one half inches from one wall. They were both one and three quarter inches wide and had a gap of one inch in-between them. Another similar pair of lines was barely visible on the other side of the hallway.
The lines were only visible looking down in the same direction as manufacturing and were not visible looking the other direction. Also, they appeared to be lighter than the surrounding carpet. Looking directly overhead, they disappeared and had no apparent problem.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING
A Pile Direction Test was done using a piece of paper and a pencil. The pile direction of the carpet was easily confirmed but the direction of the pile in the line or just outside of the line did not have a detectable direction.
A steam generator with 40 to 50 psi and temperature between 212°F. to 250°F. was used to redirect the pile’s direction. After 30 minutes of trying there was no describable improvement on the appearance.
THE ISSUE
The question that I have been asked to address is: what caused the streaks on the carpet in question?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
Streaking can be caused from
1. Dye
2. Defective yarn
- From size
- Improper twist
- Pile Direction
- From stretch
- From blend
- Oil contamination
3. Elongated soil patterns remaining in the carpet following cleaning.
4. From lines or ridges of uneven floor finish in rows
INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS
According to the FLOORCOVERING DICTIONARY is says this about STREAKS --
STREAK - Any lengthwise narrow visual defect in carpet. Dye Streaks may be caused by a single pile end having different dye affinity from the others. Other streaks may be yarn defect such as tight twist, stretched yarn or yarns larger or smaller than the other. A moderate level of streaking is almost always present in Saxony made from plied heat-set yarns and should be considered characteristic of this style.
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
A dye streak or oil contamination would not disappear in one direction. Yarn defects would also be detectable directly over head. Furthermore oil streaks get worse with time and would have been affected by the steam. Thus the pile direction test confirms that this is a pile direction problem. Often this can be corrected with steam, but in this case, the problem seems to be severe.
CONCLUSION
The streak in the carpet in question was due to pile direction distortions inherent in the manufacturing process and was not correctable at the time of the inspection. This conclusion was based upon observations and testing done at the time of the inspection.