|
Which Option Should You Choose? Facility maintenance is a real cost in every animal facility. Repair of interior finishes such as walls, floors and doors are a major part of maintenance cost. The question of how to best protect interior finishes has been pondered and debated by design professionals and facility personnel for some time. Traditionally three primary methods are use to protect walls from repeated abuse of cage racks and carts. One is to install wall mounted guard rails (crash rails). The protective rails are made of several types of materials including metal, rubber and plastic. The second method is to install a Kant cove base (splayed cove) along the wall/floor junction. A Kant cove is constructed from the same material as the seamless floor and is installed as a downward slope away from the wall e.g. from a height 4 inches up the wall to a floor distance of 4 inches away from the wall. A third less frequently used method is to mount metal bumpers on floor pedestals at a predetermined distance from the wall. For the most part these bumpers are metal. From time to time people seem to revisit the finish protection issue. Recently, interest in the question seems to have resurfaced. It is appropriate that I state a disclaimer early in this article to avoid being accused of an unwarranted material bias. At Life Science Products we sell crash rails, bumpers and other devices for wall protection. We also sell seamless flooring and therefore flooring products to construct Kant cove. As a company, we are in a very unique position to evaluate most commercially available finish protection options and, as a company; we have a historical perspective to assess both the advantages and limitations of such products. Based on our experiences, we have developed the opinion that wall mounted guard rails are best for wall protection. Hopefully we can share this information with you. There are often strong opinions regarding the method of choice on this subject. Generally people express their preference emphatically and without reservation, as if there is only one possible answer; and those who disagree are just not in the know. While it is true that all three methods have been successful, I think there is a better, more systematic approach to the solution. Why not approach the question on a comparative basis. What is the goal? How can the goal be accomplished? What are both the strengths and limitations to the proposed methods? The goal: The goal is to protect the walls from damage and to protect wall mounted equipment from destruction. Further, it is best if the protection can be accomplished both economically and without creating other facility problems related to personnel or maintenance. Wall protection and safety: Wall mounted guard rails are by far the industry favorite and in my opinion the most effective method to protect walls as well as doors. Any of the three protection materials can be made continuous around columns and corners as well as follow the wall contour, but this only accomplishes part of the goal. Every facility has other items mounted on the wall such as card readers or electronic monitoring equipment. While walls (for the most part) follow a straight line configuration, wall protection needed to protect both the walls and wall mounted equipment does not necessarily follow that same straight line design. Wall mounted guard rails can be equipped with mounting brackets of different lengths. This feature provides protection for equipment against walls; equipment that interrupts the straight line configuration. If the rails are mounted at the conventional 34 inch to 36 inch height above the finished floor the custom configuration does not present a safety hazard. While Kant cove and floor mounted bumpers can be extended from the wall to give added protection, they do present safety risks. If personnel do not have a clear line of site to the floor (as when they are carrying items or pushing racks) they tend to unconsciously use the wall as a positional reference to their line of travel. Protrusions below their line of site at the floor level present a tripping hazard. In today’s litigious society, tripping hazards can be costly. We have even heard several situations of personnel scraping their ankles on rails and bumpers that are mounted below 8 inches. OSHA may also have an opinion regarding the use of Kant cove and low bumper guards. Larger racks, smaller personnel and standard size doorways provide a perfect opportunity for collision yet doors are not usually part of the discussion concerning wall protection. Actually doors need more protection than walls. Neither Kant cove nor floor mounted devices can be used to protect doors effectively. The cost of door maintenance is greatly reduced by mounting crash rails on the door face to absorb impact. By incorporating the rails with door jamb roller bars to protect the jamb, door maintenance costs can be almost eliminated. Best made plans: Another advantage of wall mounted rails is realized when the best made plans that were supposed to account for all options are rendered ineffective by last minute changes or additions in equipment needs. After construction and in older facilities, unforeseen protocols changes often call for newer more effective security or monitoring equipment which is designed to be wall mounted. More often than not the new equipment size extends from the wall into the danger zone for collision. Regardless of how much the equipment costs or how well it is made, it stands little chance of surviving a collision with cage racks. If protection is required, it is much easier to install wall mounted guard rails to protect specific retrofit equipment. Floor mounted bumpers require drilling holes in the floor to install the mounting standards which hold the rail. Special trades are required to retrofit Kant cove to extend it beyond the original dimensions. The Kant option will also generate dust and, depending on the flooring system that was installed it may well introduce fumes and unwanted volatiles into the holding area environment. Both floor bumpers and Kant cove may require several days for installation adding even more to facility disruption. Wall mounted guard rails will likely only require 4 holes in the wall to mount the protective guard rail which can be done by facility maintenance personnel in a mater of minutes. Maintenance: If protective rails and bumpers are working properly they will receive impact in lieu of the wall. The impact will leave scratches in the surface and with time many scratches may be evident. Even though the surface of metal rail gets marred, it does not absorb microbes or allow their growth. This makes the issue of sanitation a non-issue. The metal is sealed below the surface scratch and as such presents no more than an aesthetic blemish. If Kant cove is installed at too sharp an angle it will also take impact from casters and lower rack edges. This impact is especially noticeable at outside corners. Many of these scratches will extend through the seal coat. By the nature of its construction, Kant cove is porous and absorbs liquids when the seal coat is violated. The porous flooring material, being saturated with moisture and nutrients, becomes a suitable environment for the growth of anaerobic bacteria. Therefore scratches through the seal coat must be repaired to maintain the “Guide” requirement for sealed floors in the facility. The Kant option can represent a true maintenance problem which adds not only operating costs but all the hazards associated with disrupting the animal facility. Depending on the flooring material used, repairs often introduce fumes as well as unwanted dust and other contaminants into the research environment. If wall mounted rails become too unsightly, they can be replaced easily by the facility maintenance personnel by removing bolts from the mounting brackets and replacing the new section of rail. No dust, fumes or special contracting provisions are needed and it requires no moving of animals. Space at a premium: Space is always a precious commodity in animal facilities and due to the cost of construction; it should be treated as precious. Wall protection consumes useable floor space since it removes the protected space from access. Wall mounted rail and floor mounted bumpers limit the lost floor space to only that required to protect the walls. Kant cove uses more floor space than the area it protects. This is because Kant cove, if properly installed, must be installed at an angle no greater than 45 degrees in order to avoid surface scratches from equipment. At lower angles, casters can migrate up the Kant for a short distance before the equipment stops or the wheels change direction back down the slope. In order for these lower angles to protect the wall, the Kant should be installed about an inch wider that the area to be protected. While the area is only one inch and may not be a critical dimension, there is no validity to the argument that wall mounted rails or floor mounted bumpers consume more floor space than Kant cove. Cost:
It always comes down to cost. It seems a shame to evaluate systems based on merit only to allow selection to be base primarily on cost. Too often proper merit and low cost are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The good news is that it is not true in this case. So as to not bias the cost issue, I surveyed several flooring contractors and compared their cost estimates to mine for the installation of a 4 inch by 4 inch Kant cove. The installed price estimates ranged from $24.00 per linear foot to $30.00 per linear foot if the cove was installed as part of the original flooring project. At those rates Kant cove would raise the cost of standard flooring installation by a minimum of $2.00 per square foot of floor space. Wall mounted aluminum guard rail will cost from $20.00 to $24.00 per linear foot installed for up to 6 inches of protection. There is not a lot of difference in price and pricing will always depend on local trade costs. At worst case they are a break even, at best there is a minor savings with wall mounted rail on new construction. In a small job scenario the cost comparison will be weighted heavily in favor of wall mounted rail since the cost of mobilizing for the Kant cove installation and finish work are so great. Stainless Steel rail and floor mounted bumpers are even more expensive than Kant cove. Before installing any wall protection system you should evaluate each cart and rack you use by placing them along the wall. Then observe the elevation at which rack and cage protections are best placed to account for cage mounted protrusions and overhangs. By evaluating the proper height as well as the required distance from the wall you can make a better assessment of your protection needs. There are only two options after all, protect your walls or repair them.
Reprinted with permission. animalLABNEWS™: July / August • 2003 Vol.2 • NO. 4 |