Yarn Slippage from Latex Bundle Wrap

The tuft-bind was good, but AVERAGE LATEX BUNDLE WRAP 37% -- AVERAGE LATEX PENETRATION’ 48%.

THE CLAIM STATISTICS

PROBLEM REPORTED: Pulled Loops

PROBLEM FOUND: Pulled Loops

WAS A DIAGRAM MADE?: No

SAMPLES FROM INSPECTION: Carpet

PERSONS PRESENT: Inspector & Claimant

THE CARPET

FIBER HUE: Off-White Gray Specks

CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Loop

YARN STYLE: Berber

SQUARE YARDAGE: 84

BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tuft

PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene

SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene

THE INSTALLATION

LOCATION TYPE: Residential

METHOD: Stretch-In

CUSHION: 7/16 Inch Urethane

SUBFLOOR: Concrete

AREA INSTALLED: Living-Room & 3 Bedrooms

USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION

LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Not Determined

TEMPERATURE: 73.8°F - 23.2° C RH 31%

ADULTS: 2 - CHILDREN: 1 - PET(S): 1 - Small Dog

DO THEY SMOKE?

SPOTTING AGENTS: Consumer Type

VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Canister W/Motorized Brush Weekly

ENTRY-MATS? Yes

SOIL: None Noticed

HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Gas

COOLING TYPE: None

CLEANING: Never Been Cleaned

INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSPECTION

To determine the reason for pulled loops in the carpet in question.

THE REPORT

Site Conditions and Geographical Information

The carpet was in the claimant’s free standing single story house. This house was located in a residential neighborhood in the San Gabriel Valley, was well maintained, and was owner occupied at the time of the inspection.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR

Pulled loops were first noticed approximately three months after installation and got progressively worse with time. Some correction services were attempted with limited success. On 8/12/97 Don Bogosian was commissioned by the manufacturer to perform a field inspection. Tuft bind testing at that time indicated an average tuft bind strength of 8.2 pounds and stated "No Manufacture Responsibility".

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR

Pulled loops existed in trafficked areas throughout the installation.
Four were noted in the transition from the tile to carpet in the living-room. All of these were in close proximity to one another.
Six were noted in the master-bedroom in trafficked areas.
One was noted in the trafficked area in a bedroom used as an office.
One broken and frayed loop was noted in the child’s bedroom.

No unraveling was noticed at the edges of the carpet. They did not conform to individual stitch or gauge rows, straight or serpentine lines, or diagonal lines. No yarns were found to be pulled completely free, however analysis done on the bundle wrap showed latex was still attached to yarns. There were no actual voids in the carpet. No animal hair was noted in the carpet.

The carpet was pulled back and there were oblong stretch marks in the secondary from the tackless strip indicating that the carpet had been power stretched.

The claimant’s vacuum cleaner was inspected and the setting on the brush was set for low pile. There were no burrs or sharp edges found. The brush was soft.

ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING

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.

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 were no reflections.

Five Tuftbind Tests were performed over a random area in the closet area of the master-bedroom. The results were as follows:

8 11 9 9 11 Ave 9.6

A corner of that same area was cut out and was sent to Independent Testing Laboratory Inc. Of Dalton Georgia for AVERAGE LATEX BUNDLE WRAP and AVERAGE LATEX PENETRATION testing. The results of these tests were as follows:

AVERAGE LATEX BUNDLE WRAP 37% -- AVERAGE LATEX PENETRATION’ 48%

THE ISSUE OF THIS REPORT

The question that I have been asked to address is what caused the carpet yarns to pull?

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE

Pulled loops can occur when:

1. there is a failure to meet minimum standards of installation

2. there is excessive foot traffic and/or improper proper maintenance

3. there is a manufacturer’s defect

INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS

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.

Also, according to the FLOOR COVERING DICTIONARY the following definitions are given for latex:

LATEX - A water emulsion of synthetic rubber, natural rubber, or other polymer. In carpet, latex is used for laminating secondary backings to tufted carpet, backcoating carpet and rugs, and for manufacturing formed cushion. Almost all carpet latex consists of styrene-butadiene synthetic rubber (SBR) compounded with large quantities of powder fillers. The latter are most often whiting, which is calcium carbonate. Latex is the raw material from which rubber is made.

BUNDLE WRAP - The bead of latex that surrounds a pulled tuft.

LATEX PENETRATION - Yarn is removed from the primary and secondary backings and inspected under a micro-scope to determine how much latex penetrated the yarn bundle that exist beneath the primary backing. The results are stated as a percentage of latex penetration. A generally acceptable level is about 85% Latex penetration determines the tuft bind of the carpet.

THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS

1. INSTALLATION -- Power stretching and proper cushion are essential installation issues when it comes to pulled loops and problems from the installation are not suspected as a contributing factor for causing this problem.

2. USE AND MAINTENANCE -- Two adults, a child and a small dog are not considered unusual factors in the usage of carpet. However, all of the pulled loops noted were in trafficked areas indicating that loops slipped because they were pulled.

Since professional cleaning had reportedly not taken place, the vacuum cleaner and spotting agent chemical would be the most likely culprits of causing the problem. However, moisture and ultra-violet light tests indicate that no abuse had taken place that would weaken the latex. The vacuum cleaner as well did not miss-functioning mechanisms or burrs or objects attached to the brush that would snag the carpet.

3. MANUFACTURING -- The tuft bind test done does indicate that pulled strength needed to have pulled the loops is above the Federal standards, but the analysis of the latex is shockingly below what would be normal. Whereas there is no convening authority determining what these number should be, the FLOORING COVERING DICTIONARY does suggest that 85 per cent would be a general number. The 37 per cent bundle wrap would be similar to a tire being held onto a car with only two of its five lug-nuts.

The likely culprit for this low number would be high concentrations of ‘filler’ and/or ‘clay’ and lower concentrations of ‘latex’ in the backing. If this scenario is correct then under limited condition the ‘clay’ would hold the yarn in place like cement under typical conditions, but under specific conditions such as wet cleaning or the removing of a spot tuft bind strength would be very low. This would be so due to the water solubility of clay or filler being much higher than that of rubber or latex. Thus satisfactory performance of this carpet could not be expected.

CONCLUSION

The pulled loops in the carpet in question were due to problems inherent in manufacturing based upon laboratory testing of the latex.