A Survey of Practices:

Surface Preparation for Industrial Coating Work

By the JPCL Staff

A
brasive blast cleaning is the most com- Annual Directory of Industrial Painting Contractors. The
monly used method of surface prepa- majority of the contractors contacted are based in the U.S.
ration for steel and concrete, according and Canada.
to responses to a May 2008 JPCL sur- We selected the 2008 Directory respondents for the sur-
vey on the state of practices in indus- vey to minimize sending duplicate forms to the same compa-
trial surface preparation. However, rising costs, compliance ny. Of the 1,500 contractor firms, approximately 100 either
with environmental and worker health regulations, and lacked email or had Internet servers that rejected our email.
advances in surface preparation equipment have led many Of the approximately 1,400 firms receiving the form,
contractors to change their methods or materials for surface approximately 193 recipients, or 14%, completed it by the
preparation over the past ten years, according to nearly half deadline. Not all respondents answered every question.
of the respondents to the JPCL survey. Unfortunately, we were not able to include every method
JPCL conducted the survey on line, emailing the question- and material in the survey. A scientifically developed and
naire to most of the 1,500 contractors who had, earlier this conducted survey was beyond our scope (and budget).
year, identified themselves as industrial painting contractors Rather, we developed the survey to get (and provide) an
when they completed the form for JPCL’s March 2008 informal look at current practices in surface preparation. In
this article, we focus mainly on preparing steel, the more
Fig. 1: Respondents and Industrial Surface Preparation* common of the substrates in the survey.

Fig. 2: Respondents and Surface Preparation of Steel*

Number of Respondents Who Do Industrial Surface Preparation

130
120
110
110
Number of Respondents Who Prepare Steel

100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10

0 – 25% 26 – 50% 51 – 75% 76 – 100%

0 – 25% 26 – 50% 51 – 75% 76 – 100%
Amount of the Respondents’ Work That Is Industrial (by range %) Amount of Industrial Surface Preparation Work on Steel (by range %)
*189 Respondents *178 Respondents

52 JPCL June 2008 www.paintsquare.com

Fig. 3: Respondents and Surface Preparation of Concrete*

110
Number of Respondents Who Prepare Concrete

100
90 Table 2: Abrasive Blasting Practices – Steel
80 Never Occasionally Often Almost
Always
70
Blast cleaning with coal slag 33.9% 26.7% 25.5% 13.9%
60
Blast cleaning with copper 47.2% 35.4% 11.8% 5.6%
50 or mineral slags
40 Blast cleaning with 25.6% 22.0% 24.4% 28.0%
recyclable shot or grit
30
Blast cleaning 50.3% 25.1% 17.4% 7.2%
20 with silica sand
10 Blast cleaning 77.4% 17.7% 3.7% 1.2%
with sponge abrasive
0 – 25% 26 – 50% 51 – 75% 76 – 100% *Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Table 3: Water Methods – Steel

Amount of Industrial Surface Prep Work on Concrete (by range %)
*157 Respondents

Never Occasionally Often Almost

A Profile of Our Respondents Always
As shown in Fig. 1, 126 respondents of 189 total respon-
Ultra-high-pressure (UHP 61.5% 25.4% 8.9% 4.1%
dents perform more than 75% of their work in the indus- water-jetting (>25,000 psi)
trial settings. Figure 2 shows that 108 contractors of the
High-pressure water jetting 58.4% 28.3% 10.8% 2.4%
178 who answered the question perform more than 75% of (10,000-25,000 psi)
their industrial work on steel, while in Fig. 3, 28 of 157
High-pressure water cleaning 32.9% 35.9% 27.1% 4.1%
respondents perform a majority of their industrial work on (5,000-10,000 psi)
concrete.
Low-pressure water cleaning 19.2% 30.2% 38.4% 12.2%
Figure 4 reflects the average percentage of industrial (<5,000 psi)
coating contracts for the survey respondents per sector:
Wet abrasive cleaning 41.2% 47.6% 11.2% 0.0%
private, public, and military. More than half of the con-
*Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding.
tracts are from the private sector.

The Survey at a Glance Table 4: Other Methods – Steel

Tables 1–5 reflect answers about the frequency with
Never Occasionally Often Almost
which each respondent’s firm uses a number of the com- Always

Table 1: General Overview of Methods Used – Steel

Power tool cleaning 6.4% 39.9% 42.2% 11.6%
Paint removal with lasers 86.0% 11.6% 2.3% 0.0%
Never Occasionally Often Almost or heat methods
Always Blast cleaning with dry ice 86.3% 13.1% 0.0% 0.6%
Dry abrasive blast cleaning 5.8% 8.1% 33.7% 52.3% Blast cleaning with garnet 53.6% 34.5% 10.7% 1.2%
Wet/water cleaning 20.0% 35.0% 36.9% 8.1% Paint removal 37.3% 54.4% 7.7% 0.6%
Power tool cleaning 5.9% 38.2% 45.9% 10.0% with chemical strippers
Other 37.3% 39.0% 15.3% 8.5% Other 75.7% 10.8% 10.8% 2.7%
*Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding. *Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2008 53

 mon methods of preparing steel. The
answers are qualitative, only, and
therefore somewhat subjective because,
for the sake of making the survey use-
able, “occasionally,” “often,” and “almost
always” were not further defined.
Table 1 gives an overview. Perhaps
not surprisingly, just over half of con-
tractors who responded use dry abra-
sive blasting almost always, while
power tool cleaning ranked second in
frequency of use at 45.9%. Wet and
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

water methods ranked third at 36.9%,

and “Other” methods ranked fourth
(39%). “Other” methods contractors
reported for preparing steel (that were
not part of other questions on the sur-
vey) included track blasting, hand tool
cleaning, solvent cleaning, steam clean-
ing, diamond grinding, and wheel blast-
ing.
Of the abrasives we listed in Table 2,
recyclable steel shot and grit had the
highest percentage of materials “almost
always used” (28%).
Wet and water methods of cleaning
have not, according to our respondents,
caught up with dry methods in fre-
quency of use, but there is strong occa-
sional use of the five types of wet
methods we listed (Table 3).
And of alternative methods that we
offered as choices in the survey (Table
4), power cleaning had the highest rat-
ing. “Other” methods recipients listed
(that were not part of the survey else-
where) included blasting with alu-
minum oxide, paint stripping with
steam, and blasting with crushed glass.
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

While we must underscore the fact

that these results are relative and
somewhat subjective, they indicate, as
shown in Table 5, that contractors do
use a variety of methods to prepare
steel; every method identified is used to
one degree or another, albeit not by all
contractors.
The same can be said of contractors
who prepare concrete (Table 6). The
response to our question about fre-
quency of use of nine methods indicat-
54 JPCL June 2008 www.paintsquare.com
Fig. 4: Average % of Industrial Coating Contracts by Sector

100
90
Average Percentage of Contracts

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Private Public Military

SECTOR

Table 5: Overall Use of Methods – Steel

1 (most 2 3 4 5 (least N/A

common) common)
Dry abrasive blast cleaning– 48.2% 15.9% 10.6% 7.1% 10.0% 8.2%
open blast cleaning
with expendable abrasives
Dry abrasive blast cleaning– 28.4% 10.5% 11.7% 11.7% 21.6% 16.0%
self contained machine
with recyclable abrasive
Wet abrasive blast cleaning 3.7% 7.5% 14.9% 18.0% 28.0% 28.0%
Low-pressure water cleaning 18.9% 16.5% 20.1% 11.0% 18.3% 15.2%
(<5,000 psi)
High-pressure water cleaning 8.7% 14.9% 13.7% 16.1% 20.5% 26.1%
(5,000 to 10,000 psi)
High-pressure water jetting 5.6% 4.4% 12.5% 11.3% 34.4% 31.9%
(10,000 to 25,000 psi)
Ultra-high-pressure water jetting 6.9% 6.3% 5.7% 11.9% 32.1% 37.1%
(>25,000 psi)
Powel tool cleaning 22.1% 29.1% 16.3% 17.4% 9.3% 5.8%
Paint removal 4.8% 7.2% 14.4% 13.8% 36.5% 23.4%
with chemical strippers
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

*Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding.

ed that many methods have a place in over the past ten years, and if so, how.
the contractors’ repertoire. No method 165 people responded to the question.
was rejected by everyone, just as no Just over half, 53%, said their prac-
single method was the only one used. tices had not changed in 10 years,
while just under half, 47%, said their
Trends: From Tougher Regs practices had changed. For those who
to Better Technology have made changes in the way they
We also asked contractors if their sur- conduct surface preparation, here are
face preparation methods had changed some of the changes or causes of
www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2008 55
 Table 6: Overall Use of Methods – Concrete change that they described.
Five persons specifically said that reg-
1 (most 2 3 4 5 (least N/A
ulations or other restrictions had led
common) common)
them to change how they worked: con-
Dry abrasive blast cleaning– 32.6% 13.9% 11.1% 6.3% 16.0% 20.1%
tainment/disposal requirements were
open blast cleaning
with expendable abrasives cited. “EPA-OSHA and cost have elimi-
nated media blasting,” noted another.
Dry abrasive blast cleaning– 19.0% 14.3% 14.3% 5.4% 23.1% 25.2%
self contained machine One respondent reported, “We used
with recyclable abrasive to use inexpensive silica sand (99% of
Wet abrasive blast cleaning 2.1% 10.6% 21.3% 12.8% 26.2% 27.0% our work is new steel) and now the
insurance companies do not allow the
Low-pressure water cleaning 21.3% 18.4% 20.6% 13.5% 8.5% 17.7%
(<5,000 psi) silica providers to sell to blasting con-
tractors. Our raw product costs have
High-pressure water cleaning 7.7% 10.6% 16.2% 14.1% 26.1% 25.4%
(5,000 to 10,000 psi) increased almost 4 times….”
Other comments on the regulatory cli-
High-pressure water jetting 2.9% 8.6% 7.2% 7.9% 37.4% 36.0%
(10,000 to 25,000 psi) mate were more general: “stricter
requirements and enforcement of speci-
Ultra-high-pressure water jetting 6.7% 6.7% 4.4% 6.7% 36.3% 39.3%
(>25,000 psi) fications,” and rule[s] and law[s]
enforced.”
Powel tool cleaning 14.7% 23.1% 17.5% 11.9% 14.7% 18.2%
Without naming regulations on blast-
Paint removal 7.0% 13.4% 16.2% 12.0% 26.8% 24.6%
ing operations as a reason for changes in
with chemical strippers
their work, many respondents said that
*Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding. in the past ten years, they have shifted

CAN ONE UNIT BLAST

AND POWER TOOL CLEAN?

THE X-MACHINE CAN!

Introducing the Xm1200 from ARS: the industry’s
first combined Blast and Power-Tool Unit
When you’ve got projects that require blasting AND power-tool cleaning,
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

the X-Machine puts everything you need on a 15’ deck for easy access!
• Powerful positive-displacement vacuum clears waste from power-tool
shrouds, allowing continuous operation from multiple heads
• Fast, efficient clean-up of waste at the end of the day at 50x the power
of a drum vac
• Auto-fill blast pot with two Thompson II Valves permits two-nozzle
continous blasting; on-board 5kW generator for power
• Aftercooler / desiccant air dryer for your compressed air ADVANCED
RECYCLING
ARS supplies a complete line of blast / recovery systems, dust collectors, and SYSTEMS
more. Take a good look. You’ll like what you see. Proven Technology...Custom Solutions

Tel 330.536.8210 • Fax 330.536.8211 • www.arsrecycling.com sales • rentals • leases • upgrades • repairs • parts • accessories

56 JPCL June 2008 www.paintsquare.com

to different abrasives for blast cleaning booth. It has revolutionized our busi- nology: “We do mainly maintenance pro-
or to other methods altogether, and ness,” wrote one contractor. Another jects that do not give us a lot of time for
many of the changes pose fewer risks to recipient noted simply the company’s prep so cleanup was always an issue. In
workers and the environment. “Upgrad[ing] of equipment, use of after the past we power tooled most of the
Approximately 15 respondents have coolers, dryers, sizes of blast hoses, dif- jobs because of this reason. Now with
switched to recyclable abrasives exclu- ferent nozzles, etc.” better equipment and abrasive technolo-
sively or are using them more often. One contractor’s response about gies, we are able to do a better, safer sur-
Remarks on the switch included “We changes combined cost-effectness, regu- face prep and clean up in the same time
are shifting towards all recyclable blast latory compliance, and advances in tech- that power tooling used to take.”
materials,” “more steel abrasive used on
a daily basis,” “more recyclable abra-
sives than expendable,” “stopped using
silica and went with grit,” and “recycling
with steel grit is the biggest change.”
Other media in the mix now weren’t
used by some contractors ten years ago.
Comments included “sponge, soda, ultra-
high water”; “utilizing environmentally
improved blast mediums (water and
glass)”; “ceramic micro bea[d]s blasting in
an enclosed cabinet”; “using a lot of
crushed glass”; and “use of grits (coal
and copper slag).”
Cost effectiveness figures in changing
materials for some contractors. One
noted, “We use primarily mineral slag
and are switching more towards alu-
minum oxide and steel grit as costs
increase.”
Almost as many respondents have
switched to water cleaning methods or
are using them more often than they did
10 years ago. “We have substantially
increased the amount of steel and con-
crete surface preparation…with UHP
waterblasting equipment,” wrote one
contractor. Another said that in the last
10 years, his company has used “only
HP water cleaning at 7200 psi
hot/cold.”
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

Some contractors noted benefits of

the switch: “Use mostly water now
instead of some type of sand or other
abrasive…more cost-effective, less haz-
ardous,” wrote one person surveyed,
while another said simply, “higher pres-
sures, less water.”
Taking advantage of advances in
equipment also figured in some compa-
nies’ changes in practice. “We have
added a 60-foot steel grit blast & paint

www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2008 57

Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric