I was called out to inspect a floor where the homeowner had some concerns with the sanding and finishing of their hardwood floors. The issues they had were the wavy appearance of the floor, applicator marks, and scarred baseboards.
The homeowners had purchased the home back in 2006. The home had existing Brazilian cherry (jatoba) floors. To the homeowner’s recollection, the floors looked very good until a leak from an upstairs bathroom left standing water on the floor in the kitchen. They contacted their insurance company. A restoration company quickly responded to remove the puddles and to install drying mats and dehumidifiers to dry the floors out. After the equipment was removed they noticed that the existing finish began to bubble.
A flooring contractor was then hired to refinish the entire main floor. When the contractor completed the job, the homeowners noticed a few areas around the doorways and in one of the corners, where the finish seemed “uneven.” The contractor came back and decided to apply another coat. Once the new coat was applied, they determined that the final coat appeared shinier; as a result they started noticing a wavy appearance. The issue was especially visible in the hallway, at a time when direct sunlight shone through the entry hall door. The wavy appearance was not visible in the evening. The contractor was reluctant to return and address these issues claiming that the finish was new and that the concerns would go away in time.
This issue may have been avoided if there was better communication between the contractor and the homeowner. If the homeowner was made aware of the wave at the time the contractor discovered it, there may have been an opportunity to explain what he can do to get rid of the wave, but he can’t guarantee that he can eliminate it completely. The homeowner may have even praised him for his effort in trying his best, rather than complaining about the result.
When I contacted the contractor, he stated that the wave in the floor was a pre-existing condition that was masked by the old finish. He stated that he rough cut with a 40 grit paper at a 15° to the left and then a 50 grit paper cut in the opposite direction at the same 15° angle. He then used a multi-disc sander with a 60 grit paper for his medium cut, and finished with a 100 grit paper using his 8” belt sander. The floor was edged twice using a 60 grit for the first cut, a 100 grit with the second cut, and a random orbital with a 100 grit paper before screening. The floor was screened with a 120 grit screen and all the edges were hand-sanded.
The floor is approximately 700 square feet of 21/4” Brazilian cherry installed on the main floor over a heated crawl space. The areas included the living room, dining room, kitchen eating area, and hall. There was no evidence of cupping, gapping, or crowning, and there was no noticeable deflection in the floor when I walked over it.
The homeowners gave specific instruction for me to visit between 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. as that was the time frame when the concerns were most noticeable. When I observed the floor, I could see the wave standing in the living room looking toward the entry hall. The issue was faint and I found it difficult to capture with my camera. The issues with the applicator marks and the scarred baseboard easily were identifiable from a standing position.
The ambient conditions on the day of inspection were 42 percent relative humidity at 70°F. I measured the distance between the peaks and valleys and found them to be approximately 4” apart. I also checked the nail schedule to see if there were areas that may have been loose. The nail schedule was acceptable and the floor appeared tight everywhere. I wasn’t able to view the contractor’s equipment, but he assured me that all his equipment was in good working order and all his machines were carried into the jobsite. I placed an edger disc at the areas where the baseboards were scarred to compare the size of the paper to the size of the scar. The size of the scar was slightly larger than the size of the paper. I also placed a 10” roller at the site where the applicator mark was visible. The marks appeared to be the same size.
I concluded that the applicator mark was a result of leaving a heavy spot behind the roller leaving the finish too thick to flow out before it hardened. The scarred baseboards were a result of bumping up against the baseboard when edging the floor. The conclusion concerning the wave is a tricky one. Although the concern was visible, it was only visible at certain times of the day and from a standing position in a completely different room. As a result, I concluded that the wavy appearance concern was within industry standards.
This issue may have been avoided if there was better communication between the contractor and the homeowner. If the homeowner was made aware of the wave at the time the contractor discovered it, there may have been an opportunity to explain what he can do to get rid of the wave, but he can’t guarantee that he can eliminate it completely. The homeowner may have even praised him for his effort in trying his best, rather than complaining about the result.
Kjell Nymark is the certification and training manager for the National Wood Flooring Association in St. Louis. He can be reached at kjell.nymark@nwfa.org.
