OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to quantify coF across 16 work shoes, 11 marketed as slip resistant(SR) and 5 with no distinction(NSR), to determine variations across and within each group. Shoe perf ormance was evaluated across two fluid contaminant conditions, diluted detergent and water
SUCCESS CRITERIA
The slip resistance level of the shoe in the two contamunanl conditions was determined based on how the COF value obtained compared to a draft ANSINFSI standard developed by Beschorner et als. High sli resistance(o.1% slip risk on level ground) was defined as having a CoF greater than 025 and moderate slip resistance(5% slip risk on level ground) was defined as having a CoF between 0.16 and 0.25. Any shoe contaminant combinations with an average coF less than o.16 were considered lowlnon-slip resistant. Based on previous literature and experience, it was also expected that the detergent condition would be less slippery than the oil condition and therefore have a larger COF
METHODS
A stand-alone force platelslip testing apparatus Bertec. Columbus, OH)" was constructed for data collection purposes and a method of determining shoe-floor angle was developed A 10-inch digital goniometer was validated against an optical measurement system(Vicon motion capture) with one degree of accuracy.
Sixteen work shoes of varying styles. tread patterns, and slip resistance labels(Table 1) were selected and then evaluated using the force platelslip tester apparatus. The slip tester parameters were controlled throughout the experiment with a normal force of 250N, a shoe-floor angle of 17 and a sliding(acceleration 5 m/s deceleration 10 m/s speed of 0.5 m/s
Table 1. Label, style, and tread pattern of the 16 work shoes.