When is a test report too old? – ASET’s updated position on suggested retest dates.

Note – Applies to reports issued after 2023.

In the past, ASET Services chose to include suggested retest dates on our suitability reports. We felt this was an important feature for those using our reports that would help to insure that the results were reasonably current. First, we were the only lab that we know of that included such a date on our reports. Secondly, our suggested retest date was seven years. That was based on our founder’s experience working for a sport surface manufacturer and included the complexities of scheduling retesting activities. We still believe that floors systems should be retested at least every 7 years.

Field testing of hardwood court

However, in 2019 FIBA, The International Basketball Federation, adopted a 4 year license period, and intends to have products tested prior to renewing each period. FIBA effectively endorsed a 4 year suggested retest schedule. We have decided that it is inappropriate for us to suggest a retest period that is nearly twice as long as FIBA’s.

To that end, ASET is removing ‘Suggested Retest Dates’ from our reports, and replacing it with the following statement:

Effective Jan 1, 2023 – ASET has removed suggested retest dates from our reports. Every sports surface involves materials that change over time. The older a report is, the less likely it is to reflect the current performance. For those interested, FIBA (Federation of International Basketball Associations) adopted a four year license cycle in 2019 and requires products to be retested for each cycle. Changes in grading rules, raw materials, and manufacturing processes can cause significant changes in the performance of this system. Regular retesting and quality control programs help insure that such changes are addressed. Specifiers should choose the maximum age of reports that will be accepted.

Area Deflection is highly sensitive often needing only 0.001 in (yes only 1 one-thousandth of an inch) change to fail. Changes in grading rules often change the average length of the flooring strips used. This can easily change area deflection properties of surfaces.

ASET has seen manufacturing errors significantly effect all performance properties. Such errors often go unchecked due to lax, or non existent, quality controls.

ASET has seen materials within a system changed to cut costs, where almost every factor of performance was altered. These systems may go untested, and are marketed under what are now incorrect suitability reports.

ASET has seen padding material altered to save money also change performance. Maybe something as simple as a different color additive was added to rubber pads.

For specifiers that want to make sure that the systems that are installed deliver the advertised and desired levels of performance and safety , a simple addition to their specifications can be made:

  • Suitability reports shall be no more than 5 (insert the number of your choosing) years old to be considered valid.

However, the most robust quality control check is to require acceptable performance levels of the installed product. This can be accomplished with the following addition to specifications:

  • On-site commission testing of the completed installation shall result in i) force reduction, as tested using ASTM F2569, shall be no less than 50%, and ii) ball rebound, as tested using ASTM F2117, shall be no less than 93%.

Contact us with any questions you have. www.asetservices.com/contact

Related Posts