T echnology

Who Pays When the Paint Fails?

By Mark Weston, Director, Incospec & Associates, North Adelaide, South Australia
remature coating failures are usually quite expensive; the cost of rectifying them can be more than the cost of original application. In most cases, experience indicates that the facility owners representative ends up carrying the bulk of the cost of the failure. To a lesser extent, the coating applicator bears either a proportion of the direct cost or a cost in terms of loss of reputation. These are the hard facts of the matter, but they can belie the story behind the failure. This article reviews findings reported in 1993 on reasons for paint failures as well as a revised breakdown of reasons based on more recent experience. It also provides examples of paint failures and gives guidelines for minimising these problems.

MAINTENANCE TIPS

been attributed to application error. Often, inadequate training of the applicator is cited as the reason. Sometimes, the failure is attributed to cutting corners. My companys experience indicates that until the early 1990s, this breakdown of reasons for failures was widely accepted by the industry.

Fig. 1: Delamination resulted from painting below the dew point. (Photos courtesy of Incospec)

out question to poor application. However, these failures all had the application procedures scrutinised both during and after the event, and they were found to be appropriate. Moreover, retained samples of the liquid paint system show that in similar environments, systems that recently failed in one instance are working well. It is possible that the root cause may be incorrect or inadequate instructions from the paint supplier to the applicator about the product. Or the facility owners specification may not be correct. So, I suggest that the coating failure breakdown we have observed in recent years may be somewhat closer to the following: 2%faulty paint; 41%incorrect specification; 11%change in environment from original design criteria; and 46%application error.

Reasons for Coating Failure

My company has provided expert and independent consultancy in protective coatings since 1981. During that time, we have undertaken numerous coating failure investigations. In 1993, I presented a paper at a conference in which I analysed more than 120 failure investigations.1 The results were tabulated by reasons for failure, type of product that failed, and size of the project/failure. The paper concluded that there are four basic reasons for coating system failure. Based on the analysis of our records up to 1993, here are the approximate percentages for each reason: 2%faulty paint; 19%incorrect specification; 11%change in environment from original design criteria; and 68%application error. Historically and for many reasons, the most common cause of failure has
56

However, since the early 1990s, we have had the implementation of two quality control systems: the ISO 9000 series and the Painting Contractor Certification Program from SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings. These quality standards have improved the record keeping of applicators. They also have improved coat- Fig. 2: Pinpoint rusting was ing application caused by inadequate film thickness. to the point where many of us involved in analysing coating failures are beginning to question whether the old percentages are in fact correct. We recently have seen a significant number of coating failures that previously would have been attributed withPCE March 2000

Findings in the Field

A few examples from our records illustrate these causes of paint failure. As expected, some cases were the result of applicator or manufacturer error, but there were also some cases in which the manufacturer or applicator was incorrectly blamed for specifier or owner errors. Fig. 1 shows an example of intercoat delamination. The applicator simply painted below the dew point. Fig. 2, another instance of applicator error, shows pinpoint rusting of a surface in a warm, moist, salty atmosphere. The coating was applied at 70 micronswell below the specified 250 microns and way too low to cover the peaks of the profiled surface. Hence, corrosion occurred. Fig. 3 shows the failure of an acrylic coating applied directly over galvanizing. No surface preparation or washdown was conducted, and no tie coat
Copyright 2000, Technology Publishing Company

T echnology
was applied. But what looks like an application error turned out to be a result of what could at best be described as a faulty specification: the applicator was simply asked to paint the galvanized surface, so he did. also swells when it absorbs moisture. In this case, the dust absorbed moisture from the coating as it cured. The swollen dust then ripped the coating apart. Fig. 6 depicts a rare case in which the manufacturers data sheet was inadequate. The data sheet said a parFig. 6: Inadequate information ticular tank linin a data sheet led to cracking. ing could easily be applied in excess of 1 mm without slumping, but it did not mention that when cured at film builds over 800 microns, the lining would crack. the coating specification and scope of work. The specification must clearly detail what is expected from the applicator and the performance expected from the recommended coatings. 2. Carefully select the correct specificationone that is suitable to the site environment. Some coatings perform very well when applied correctly under ideal laboratory conditions but may not perform nearly as well under site conditions. 3. Check the history of similar coating applications in similar environments. Use products, systems, and applicators whose work and worth are proven. 4. The applicator must be meticulous in taking site notes and documenting quality assurance. Application dates, batch numbers, equipment type used, and weather conditions all must be recorded accurately and in adequate detail.
Continued

Fig. 3: No surface preparation or tie coat were required before coating over galvanizing.

In Fig. 4, transportation damage to a coating is shown. The owner said the paint was faulty, but the paint actually was damaged because the structure was moved too early, before the coating had cured.

Prevention Is Good Practice

So, how do the facility owner, the applicator, and the paint supplier minimise the risk of coating failure and protect themselves should a failure occur? 1. Exercise extreme care in preparing

Fig. 4: Paint damage occurred because the structure was moved before the coating had cured.

The failure seen in Fig. 5 is the result of a faulty specification written for what proved to be an unusual and tricky specifying project. An alkyd enamel was specified for a silo that stored durum semolina, which is used to make pasta. Unknown to many, including the specifier, semolina dust has a high affinity for oil, such as the oil in alkyd, so the dust tends to cake onto the paint. The dust

Fig. 5: Specification error led to the breakdown of this coating on a storage tank. PCE March 2000

Copyright 2000, Technology Publishing Company

57

T echnology
5. Third-party inspection at all stages during the coating application is essential and should include thorough documentation of the work as it is undertaken and completed. Moreover, the inspection must be conducted by persons trained and experienced in coating inspection. 6. Before the first 12 months or the end of the applicator warranty period, the coatings should be inspected thoroughly to ensure that they are performing to specification. So, who pays if there is a failure? Unless all these checks and controls are in place, we have seen the owner pay at least twice over for the job to be done, and we have seen the contractor pay either financially or in loss of reputation. 1. Mark Weston, The Practical Implementation of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Standards for Coating Application, Australasian Corrosion Association (ACA) Corrosion Prevention Conference 1993, Newcastle, NSW. This article is based on a paper the author presented at Coatings for Asia 99, 30 August1 September, 1999, in Singapore. The conference was sponsored by the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, the Oil & Colour Chemists Association, SSPC, and PMC: Protective and Marine Coatings Asia/Pacific.

Guide to Quality Control Inspection Duties

By Brian F. Connell, Anti-Corrosion Inspection Services, Gilberdyke, UK

It is unlikely under any circumstances that the ambienconditions on a coatings project would not need to be recorded for reference purposes. This is equally true for exterior work in inclement weather and for interior projects in the best of conditions. An accurate record of this kind could prove invaluable for getting a project extension, if necessary, or for calculating overcoating times for specific types of materials. The person who would be responsible for recording these Part II: conditions is the coatings inAmbient Conditions spector, of course. The following checklist for recording ambient conditions is part of a nine-part series on quality control in the inspection of protective coatings work. It may be used as the basis for developing in-house quality control procedures or for communicating company requirements for external inspection services. Measure the following as close as practical to the work surfaces before work begins, during, and on completion of the work: 1) air temperature (wet and dry bulb readings); 2) steel (surface) temperature; 3) relative humidity; 4) dew point temperature of the steel. Check surfaces for residual A sling psychrometer (above) moisture. can be used to determine relative humidity and hence dew point. Observe for harmful atmosA circular magnetic thermometer pheric pollutants, chemicals, (below) is used to measure salt spray, fumes, or dust. surface temperature. Determine whether the mea(Photos courtesy of KTA-Tator Inc.) surements and observations taken allow work to proceed or not. Record all the information in the daily inspection report, including 1) areas where work is being undertaken; 2) areas where ambient conditions were measured.

Next month: Surface Preparation

58
PCE March 2000

Copyright 2000, Technology Publishing Company