Fundamentals of Stripe Coating

1.
Fundamentals of stripe coating

From JPCL, January 2014
More items for Quality Control
Paint
failures on
bolted
connectio
n that had
not been
stripe
coated
Photos
courtesy
of
Corrosion
Control
Consultan
ts and
Labs, Inc.
Consider the following scenario, which points out one of the worst disappointments in the painting of steel structures.
The owner carefully plans a project to include a well-written specification, careful material evaluation and selection, a qualified
contractor, and thorough inspection of the work. The project is done on time, within budget, and with no claims for extra work.
Two years later, visual inspection of the project reveals that 99% of the painting work shows no signs of failure. Yet, essentially
every edge, bolt, and weld is rusting.
What happened?
The project specification did not require “striping” or “stripe coating” of all edges and welds during the painting work. Is this the
problem? Maybe…maybe not.
What is ‘Striping’ or ‘Stripe Coating?’

A stripe coat is “a coat of paint applied only to edges or to welds on steel structures before or after a full coat is applied to the
entire surface. The stripe coat is intended to give those areas sufficient film build to resist corrosion.”1
Therefore, striping, as it is sometimes called, is the process of “painting the edges of a surface or welds to give them extra
protection. Striping is done before priming or before the application of a full coat of paint.”1
(In this article, the terms “stripe coating” and “striping” are used interchangeably.)
SSPC-PA 1, Shop, Field, and Maintenance Painting of Steel, includes the following advice about stripe coating.2
 If stripe coating is specified for a project, then all corners, crevices, rivets, bolts, welds, and sharp edges should
receive a stripe coating with the priming paint before the steel receives a full coat of primer.
 The stripe coat should extend at least 1 in. (2 cm) from the edge.
 To prevent removal of the stripe coat by later application of the primer, the stripe coat should be allowed to set to
touch before the full coat of primer is applied. (However, it should not be permitted to dry long enough to allow rusting
of the unprimed steel.)
 Alternatively, the stripe coat may be applied after a complete coat of primer, especially if a long drying period for the
stripe coat would allow the uncoated steel to deteriorate.
 Tinting of the stripe coat is advisable to promote contrast.
 Stripe coating is most effective on edges that are rounded by grinding.
The specification notes that stripe coating is advantageous in preventing coating breakdown on edges, etc., in very corrosive
surroundings, but it is an expensive operation and may only be justified when it is believed that the cost will be compensated for
by extra service life of the coating system.
Is Stripe Coating Necessary?

Stripe coating of edges, bolts, and welds is often specified because liquid paints tend to flow away from these parts. This is a
result of surface tension in the paint film and shrinkage of the paint film during curing.
If this occurs, the paint film at or near the edges will be thinner than elsewhere on the painted surface, and the result can be
early corrosion failure in these areas. This can become a critical issue when the paint is failing on the nuts, bolts, rivets, and
welds, because these are the items holding the structural pieces together.
Edge
failure on
stiffener
that was
not stripe
coated
Edge
failure
evident on
yellow
angle
The benefits of striping are two-fold. First, it tends to fill in small voids, laps, and irregularities in the substrate (such as porosity in
welds). Second, if allowed to cure to the point of tackiness, striping tends to retard the next full coat of paint material from flowing
away from edges.
High-solids paints are less prone to thinning at edges than low-solids paints because they generally have faster setting time,
higher viscosity, and lower surface tension.
At one time, most structural steel painting work was done with low-solids, relatively slow-curing, oil-based (alkyd) materials. The
fact that the industry has moved toward the use of faster setting, higher solids coating materials, which exhibit less tendency to
flow away from edges after application, does not mean that stripe coating is not necessary.
The corrosiveness of the environment will often determine whether stripe coatings are needed. Stripe coating is often considered
most cost-effective in highly corrosive environments such as the insides of tanks and marine or chemical exposures. In
moderately corrosive environments such as those frequently wet by fresh water, coating choice and good control of the
application without stripe coating may be adequate to protect the structure cost-effectively. In mild environments such as those
with low humidity or indoors, striping is not necessary.
Stripe Coating Techniques

Since the original ATB on stripe coating was published in 2001, SSPC has issued SSPC-PA Guide 11, Guide to Protection of
Edges, Crevices, and Irregular Surfaces. Published in 2008, the guide discusses the reasons for employing extra corrosion
protection measures on edges, corners, crevices, bolt heads, welds, and other irregular steel surfaces, as well as various
protection options such as edge grinding, chamfering, and application of stripe coats. Some details, including the advantages
and limitations of specific methods of obtaining additional coating thickness by stripe coating, are described to assist the
specification writer in assuring that the project specification will address adequate corrosion protection.
While Guide 11 should be consulted for projects that may include stripe coating application, each specifier and paint applicator
must interpret the necessity, means, and methods for stripe coating for each individual project.
Therefore, the following information is provided for the reader, based on the author’s experiences and interaction with various
paint manufacturers, specifiers, and applicators. This information is not meant to be comprehensive; for more specific questions
on stripe coating application, you should refer to Guide 11.
When Should Stripe Coating be Specified?

Stripe coating should be specified when the history of the structure indicates that edge failure of the paint system has been a
problem. Consideration also should be given to specifying stripe coating in a severely corrosive environment, or if the paint
manufacturer recommends stripe coating.
Is Stripe Coating an Additional Coat of Paint?

Owners and contractors have disagreed about whether stripe coating is an additional coat of paint. That depends on what the
specification says. The need to cover a blast cleaned surface is paramount in corrosive environments. Therefore, the logical
course is to apply the stripe coating after the primer. In this case, the stripe coating is clearly an extra step. On the other hand, in
moderate environments or if there are not a lot of edges, it may be possible to apply the stripe coat just prior to the full primer.
Then the contractor may have workers applying the stripe coat in front of workers applying the primer, and both of them using
paint from the same cans. This process would not necessarily be considered an extra step.
Which Generic Paints Warrant Consideration of Stripe Coating?

For the most part, low-solids/low-viscosity paints (such as alkyds) tend to benefit from stripe coating. In general, fast-setting
paints (such as inorganic zincs) and high-solids/high-viscosity paints (such as epoxy mastics) do not draw away from edges.
However, striping does apply additional coating thickness to edges that might not have received enough paint originally.
Which Coating Layers Warrant Stripe Coating?

Keeping in mind that the primary benefit of stripe coating is compensation for possible reduced coating thickness at sharp edges
and irregularities in the substrate, it is reasonable to conclude that only the primer should be striped. After application of the
primer, substrate irregularities are covered.
Applying stripe coats to all layers of paint can cause more harm than good. Too much paint increases stresses in a coating film,
thereby causing cracking or peeling. The tendency of liquid paint to pull away from edges is reduced once a layer of primer has
been applied. It is quite common to measure 750 micrometers (30 mils) of paint or more on a surface near edges where a three-
coat system of 300–450 micrometers (12–18 mils) was specified with stripe coating of all three layers.
Should Stripe Coating Be Applied Before or After the Full Coat of Primer?
If a high degree of surface cleanliness is specified, such as SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2, Near-White Blast Cleaning (the
equivalent of Sa 2½ in ISO 8501-1), the applicator has only a short period of time, depending upon atmospheric conditions, to
prime the steel substrate before flash rusting occurs. To preclude flash rusting, the entire substrate probably should be primed
first and the stripe coating applied later. The stripe coat should then be tinted so that it is obvious where the stripe coat was
applied and if any areas were missed.
Is Thinning Required for the Striping Material?

If stripe coating with a particular paint material is specified, the application data sheet should be consulted for thinning
instructions for the application method selected. For instance, if the stripe coat is to be applied by brush, the thinning instructions
for brush application should be followed. No extra thinning should be done. Too much solvent in the paint, especially when the
stripe coat is applied before the primer, will require more time for the stripe coating to become tacky. Solvent entrapment,
bubbling, or pinholing can occur.
Should a Thickness Be Specified for a Stripe Coat?

Since irregular surfaces are one of the places stripe coating is used, it may be difficult or impossible to get an accurate dry film
thickness reading. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that if total dry film thickness is exceeded by applying both a stripe
coat and a full coat, then film defects may result. To achieve a stripe coat that is not excessively thick, the specifier may require
that the paint be applied to produce a visual color change on the affected areas and not specify a particular wet or dry film
thickness. It should be noted that only a portion of the paint applied directly to an edge flows away, so only a small amount of
additional paint is needed to bring the coating on an edge to the same thickness as on flat surfaces.
What Application Methods Should Be Used for Stripe Coating?

The specifier and applicator must first examine the required qualities of the stripe coating to determine the optimum method of
application. In general, the required qualities of stripe coating are
 filling voids and other irregularities in the affected substrate areas;
 providing a tacky surface for subsequently applied full coats of paint to adhere to; and
 not exceeding the optimum dry film thickness for the stripe coat in combination with the full coat.
Two application methods meet the requirements of these three qualities: brushing and spraying with conventional or air-assisted
airless equipment. The specifier should permit all of these application methods for stripe coating, depending on specific job
conditions. For instance, brushing can be used for stripe coating of small, complex shapes (such as lattice members and bolted
connections), whereas conventional spraying is appropriate for the edges of large structural shapes.
Application methods that can deposit relatively high volumes of paint (e.g., rolling with a heavy nap roller or airless spraying)
should be avoided to prevent excessive dry film thickness and possible film defects. (This assumes that the stripe coating or full
layer of primer is being applied while the underlying material is still tacky. More latitude in application methods can be allowed if
a full layer of primer is applied and allowed to cure until its dry-to-recoat time. Then, the stripe coating can be thought of as an
additional coat of paint being applied to the primer.)
Edge Retentive Coatings

You have probably also heard of edge retention coatings, which claim to have an edge coating thickness similar to that of a
nearby flat plate. The question you’re asking is, can I use one of these coatings, or do I still need to carry out stripe coating?
The answer is simple—stripe coating still needs to be carried out, as it serves more than one purpose. In addition to increasing
the film thickness at the edge of plates or beams, stripe coating carried out by brush is better at “wetting” the surface and forcing
the paint into cracks and crevices, over weld beads and bold heads, and other areas which are subject to premature failure.
Conclusion
Striping or stripe coating is used to extend the life of certain paint systems in corrosive environments. It compensates for liquid
coatings that flow away from edges of steel structures, thus reducing the dry film thickness. For stripe coating to be beneficial
and cost-effective, the specifier must consider the configuration of the structure to be painted and the type of paint system to be
applied. Stripe coating should be limited to one coat of paint to avoid overly thick coating systems. Proper stripe coating
application is needed to avoid defects in the paint film that can cause other problems besides early rusting, for which the stripe
coating was applied.
Editor’s Note: The original ATB on stripe coating was written by Jon R. Cavallo, P.E., of Corrosion Control Consultants and Labs,
Inc. (Eliot, ME) for the May 2001 JPCL. It was slightly updated for this issue by JPCL Technical Editor Brian Goldie.
REFERENCES
1. SSPC Protective Coatings Glossary (Pittsburgh, PA, USA: SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings,
2011), p. 201.
2. “SSPC-PA 1, Shop, Field, and Maintenance Painting of Steel” (Pittsburgh, PA, USA: SSPC: The Society for
Protective Coatings, April 2000), p. 13.
THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2014 Technology Publishing Company

Comment from Michael Deaton, (2/26/2014, 7:03 AM)
After supervising the 1 million square foot Innerbelt project in Cleveland last year and dealing with the very intense inspection by
Mr. Dave Nolan, owner of Quality Control Services, stripe coating was an essential part of the coatings application. There is over
a half a million bolts on this project and the finish coat is white, therefore the stripe coat must provide a paint tight seal. Painters
utilized 4" cigar or weeny rollers to apply 1st the organic zinc, then macropoxy 646 and finally the acrylic polyurethane to all
bolts, edges, welds, etc. The finish coat only required striping where the airless gun could not access, but both the primer coat
and the intermediate required full striping. This striping was very time consuming and should be factored into any bid.
Comment from Tom Selby, (2/26/2014, 12:49 PM)
It makes more sense to get all blasted surfaces covered with the first coat of paint so that there is no compromising of the quality
of the initial blast. After that coat is dry a contrasting color can be used to stripe coat with a brush or weenie roller.
Comment from Billy Russell, (2/26/2014, 4:35 PM)
3.Testing adhesion of multi-coat system
When should the adhesion of an applied coating or lining multi-coat system be tested?
From Karen Fischer Amstar of WNY
Adhesion testing should be performed for one of two basic reasons:
 if the specification calls for it as a qualifying test for acceptance of the coating system, or
 if there is a failure or suspected failure in the coating system (material and/or methods) that cannot be evaluated (or
fully evaluated) by non-destructive methods.
One must always keep in mind that an adhesion test is a destructive test, so the resulting test area now becomes a repair that
could, in itself, fail. This is especially important to keep in mind in the case of linings or any system that will be in immersion
service, mechanical service, or a chemical/harsh environmental service. Because it may be necessary to perform adhesion
testing in multiple areas (depending on the size of the suspected areas), there will be multiple repairs. Destructive testing should
always be the last method employed, not the first method, when evaluating a coating for suspected or obvious failure.
From James Albertoni CA Department of Water Resources

Some good instances where a multi-coat system should be tested for adhesion include if the re-coat window is missed, if the
topcoat is not specifically recommended by the manufacturer to be compatible with the basecoat, if the basecoat and topcoat are
from two different manufacturers, or if it is suspected one of the coats was mixed slightly off ratio. Most importantly, the system
should always be tested for adhesion if the spec calls for it.
From Daniel Liu APC

First, it will be up the specifier to decide if an adhesion test is required, and, if so, the specification should include not just the
testing requirement but also the acceptance criteria and tester type. From my experience in the field of tank coating, this test is
normally not required in the specification because it is a destructive method. Any repair area creates a weak point in the lining,
so the more repair areas you have, the more weak spots you have.
However, it is quite necessary to make a proper adhesion test recommended by the paint maker when application has or may
have deviated from the specification, such as by exceeding the recoat interval, not maintaining the proper level of humidity, or
using the wrong mixing ratio for plural-component coatings. Adhesion is quite important for tank coatings that are to be
immersed in liquid. But passing the adhesion test does not mean the whole coating system is conclusively qualified for service.
The test is only a reference.
From Tom Swan M-TEST

It’s important to note that if an adhesion test is called for in the specification, the document should specify failure criteria as well
as the pull tester to be. All pull testers pull at different rates, and, when I discuss pull tests with most people, they have no idea
what the pass/fail criterion is or what adhesion tester to use.
If you want to use adhesion testing for pass/fail testing, the specifications should specify the minimum pull required and what test
instrument to use. Also note that if you stop the test before the coating fails, there is no guarantee that the pull fixture will not
take off the coating when you try to remove the fixture, nor does passing the test guarantee that the adhesion or coating integrity
was not affected by the pull.
From Manpreet Singh Spiecapag Australia PTY LTD

If the client’s specification calls for adhesion testing, the paint system should be simulated on a test specimen of the same
material class, 100 mm2 and 6 mm thick. ISO 4624 describes the method of performing the adhesion test. Acceptance criteria,
unless specified by the end user, shall be a minimum of 7 MPA at 23 C, and, at 65 C, no more than 40% decrease from pull-off
at 23 C.
From Atanas Cholakov ACT

Adhesion should be tested after the complete cure of the coating system. Information on curing can be acquired from the paint
supplier’s technical representative. In the product data sheet, curing is highlighted in a table in accordance with different ambient
temperatures and other conditions.
From Trevor Neale TF Warren Group

Critical service specifications typically call for adhesion testing, so I assume this question relates to field painting where weather
and other delays are often unavoidable and formal adhesion testing is not part if the job/project specification. If there is any
suspicion that adhesion may be compromised, then the appropriate form of adhesion testing is recommended to ensure the
complete system integrity. This is simply a CYA procedure to avoid possible conflicts, or worse, premature failures.
From Bryant Chandler Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.

Adhesion testing on coatings must be done after the proper cure time at the correct temperature. This enables the coating to
develop the full physical properties. If the coating is tested prematurely, the results often will not meet the specified minimum
requirement. The test may or may not be destructive, depending on the thickness of the coating/substrate, and whether or not
the test is continued until coating disbondment.
As called for in ASTM D 7234 (adhesion testing of coatings on concrete), scoring around the dolly down to the substrate will
require a repair even if the test does not go to failure and stops at the minimum test value; a thick coating system (>30–40 mils)
on a metallic substrate may require scoring if called for in the specification. If the test can be stopped at the minimum value
specified without causing coating failure, than the dolly can be removed, often times by striking the dolly with a sharp blow from
the side or carefully inserting a sharp 5:1 tool (putty knife) at the glue line and shearing off the dolly. Repairing the top surface
may be required but is much better than having to repair the total coating system.
When testing thermal spray coatings, always perform the adhesion tests before application of the seal coat. Tests performed
after seal coat application will result in test values that are two to three times the value of virgin thermal sprayed coating.

4. The case of…bubbles, and pinholes, and blisters, oh my!
From JPCL, September 2013
James D. Machen
PCS, KTA-Tator, Inc.
James D. Machen is a Senior Coatings Consultant with KTA-Tator, Inc., a coatings consulting engineering firm and distributor of inspection
instruments, where he has been employed for over 20 years. Machen is an SSPC-certified Protective Coatings Specialist, a NACE-certified
Coatings Inspector Level 3 (Peer Review), and a Level II Inspector in accordance with ASTM D4537. He performs coating failure analyses, coating
system recommendations, specification preparation, and major project management for a variety of clients in the transportation, water and waste,
power generation, chemical processing, and marine industries. He holds a B.A. from the Pennsylvania State University.
Richard Burgess
KTA-Tator, Inc., Series Editor
This month’s Case from the F-Files describes the problem of bubbles, pinholes, and blisters in a polyurethane finish coat applied
to new structural steel members at a coal-fired power generation plant. Many of the pinholes and bubbles were so small that
they were difficult to detect with the unaided eye. Many of the largest blisters on the webs of structural members were very flat
and shallow and also difficult to detect by eye. These conditions became more difficult to see overtime as thin layers of dirt from
normal plant operating processes formed on the surface of the polyurethane finish coat. This case file illustrates that interacting
variables, rather than a single cause, can combine to cause a failure.
Background
The specification required that the structural steel be blast cleaned in the shop in accordance with SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3,
Commercial Blast Cleaning. Following blast cleaning, a two-coat system, consisting of a moisture cured urethane (MCU) zinc-
rich primer and an aliphatic polyurethane finish, was shop-applied. The MCU primer was specified to be applied at a dry film
thickness (DFT) of 2.5 to 3.5 mils, and the polyurethane finish was to be applied at a DFT of 4.0 to 5.0 mils. The total two-coat
DFT was to be 6.5 to 8.5 mils.
formation
on the
zinc-rich
primer
surface,
beneath
the
removed
blistered
finish coat
The zinc-rich primer used on the project was a MCU material. MCUs react with moisture (atmospheric humidity or other moisture
source) to cure. During the curing reaction with moisture, carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is liberated as a reaction product. The
CO2 gas escapes from the coating film in a process commonly referred to as “out-gassing.” When a lot of moisture is available,
MCUs cure at an accelerated rate, and CO2 formation and out-gassing increase. When an additional paint layer is applied while
the MCU is still out-gassing, the release of CO2 from the MCU can be inhibited. The gas must now pass out of the MCU and
through the newly applied layer. Depending on the state of drying and curing of the newly applied layer, some CO2 gas may
escape, and some may become trapped in the new film. The CO2 that escapes produces pinholes or craters when the topcoat
has begun to gel, while CO2 that is trapped creates sufficient pressure to form bubbles through the cross-section and at the
surface of the new film.
Laboratory microscopic examination of the paint samples consistently revealed that pinholes and bubbles were present in the
green topcoat layer applied over the MCU primer. This evidence indicates that the MCU zinc-rich primer was top-coated with the
polyurethane before the primer had sufficiently cured.
Infrared spectroscopic analysis of the green polyurethane finish coat identified bound moisture within the film. In order for
moisture to become bound within this layer, the moisture would have had to have been present on the MCU zinc-rich primer
layer over which the polyurethane finish was applied. This evidence indicates that the surface of the MCU zinc-rich primer where
defects occurred (i.e., bubbling, pinholes) was damp when the polyurethane was applied.
Field thickness measurements and laboratory microscopic measurements revealed that the MCU zinc-rich primer was often
applied above the specified DFT range of 2.5 to 3.5 mils. Destructive thickness measurements and laboratory microscopic
measurements indicated DFTs of up to 7 mils and 9.9 mils respectively. Excessive primer thickness prolongs the dry and cure
time of the primer; as a result, the CO2 out-gassing is also prolonged, serving to increase the likelihood of pinholes and bubbling.
The polyurethane finish coat was also applied above the specified DFT range of 4.0 to 5.0 mils, with measurements up to 8.7
mils in some instances. These thicker films could slow the escape of the CO2 or trap it, possibly contributing to increased bubble
and pinhole formation.
The white powdery residue on the backside of the detached blister area and on the substrate was identified as zinc oxide in the
laboratory. Zinc oxide (“white rust”) is produced as the zinc dust in the primer oxidizes. This finding indicates that the MCU zinc-
rich primer layer was performing as designed: providing galvanic/sacrificial corrosion protection to the carbon steel substrate.
Moisture (rain, condensing moisture) was gaining access to the MCU zinc-rich primer through the voids (i.e., pinholes, fractured
bubbles) in the polyurethane finish coat. The moisture served as the electrolyte, allowing the MCU zinc-rich primer to oxidize.
Moisture condensing on the steel was likely contaminated with sulfides from the coal-fired power generating station. Water-
soluble salts such as sulfides, in combination with moisture, increased the corrosivity of the exposure environment.
Recommendations
The defective areas (i.e., bubbles, pinholes) were identified and removed by high-pressure water cleaning. Industry experience
has shown that water pressures in excess of 4,000 psi are usually effective for revealing and removing defective coatings.
However, because each individual project is unique, some experimentation is needed to arrive at the optimal cleaning pressure.
It was ultimately determined that the best removal method involved the use of a zero-degree, rotating tip on the pressure washer
gun, with careful observation to maintain the equipment manufacturer’s gun-to-work-piece distance and dwell times. In areas
where pressure washing was not entirely effective, supplemental mechanical cleaning with power tools (i.e., power sanding) was
used. Once the defective coating was completely removed, any coating that remained was probed with a dull putty knife as
described in SSPC-SP 2 and SSPC-SP 3, Hand Tool and Power Tool Cleaning, respectively. Remaining coating that passed the
dull putty knife test criteria was considered “tightly adherent” for touchup repairs. The periphery of touchup areas was feather-
edged to provide a smooth transition from the repair area to surrounding intact coatings.
Once surface preparation was accomplished, touchup proceeded using the field touchup system, consisting of a coat of epoxy
mastic followed by a matching green polyurethane finish coat.

5. Measuring Dry Film Coating Thickness According to SSPC-PA 2
From JPCL, April 2013
William D. Corbett
William D. Corbett
Bill Corbett is the Vice President and Professional Services Group Manager for KTATator, Inc., where he has been employed for 33 years. He chairs
SSPC committees C.3.2 on Dry Film Thickness and C.6 (Education). He is an SSPC-approved instructor for four SSPC courses, and he holds SSPC
certifications as a Protective Coatings Specialist, Protective Coatings Inspector (Level 3), and Bridge Coatings Inspector (Level 2). He is also a NACE
Level 3-certified Coatings Inspector. He was the co-recipient of the SSPC 1992 Outstanding Publication Award, co-recipient of the 2001 JPCL Editors’
Award, recipient of SSPC’s 2006 Coatings Education Award, and recipient of SSPC’s 2011 John D. Keane Award of Merit.
Coating thickness shall be measured in accordance with SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings Paint Application Standard No.
2 (SSPC-PA 2) is a simple enough statement, yet this common specification requirement is often misinterpreted or regarded as a
document that simply states how to measure the dry film thickness (DFT) of coatings, something we already profess to know how to
do. Yet the requirements of SSPC-PA 2 regarding gage calibration, verification of gage accuracy and adjustment procedures, the
number of measurements to obtain, and the tolerance of the measurements are complex and should be fully understood by the
specification writer before invoking PA 2 in a contract.
iStock
On more than one occasion, I have heard the question, “When did SSPC-PA 2 and dry film thickness measurement become so
complicated?” In fact, when you take a close look, measuring DFT isn’t that complex. We have allowed it to become more
technologically complex while making the data easier to analyze. We can gather hundreds of gage readings in a relatively short
time; batch the measurements; print the data or upload it to a computer for graphing; report the highest, the lowest, the mean, and
standard deviation of the collected data; incorporate digital images of the structure or coated area; and even program the gage to
produce an audible signal if a spot measurement is outside of the tolerance range. I am no doubt leaving out other bells and
whistles, but my point is that while we are able to do a lot with the readings obtained, measuring DFT involves four or five basic
steps.
 Step 1: Instrument Calibration
 Step 2: Verification of Gage Accuracy on Certified Coated Standards or Certified Shims
 Step 3: Base Metal Reading Acquisition or Gage Adjustment (using certified or measured shims)
 Step 4: Measurement of Coating Thickness
 Step 5: Correction for Base Metal Reading (if acquired).
After a brief review of the history of SSPC-PA 2, this article will describe each of the five steps, based on the 2012 edition of SSPC-
PA 2. Special attention will be given in the article to how PA 2 addresses the required number of coating thickness measurements;
the acceptability of gage readings, spot measurements, and area measurements; nonconforming thickness; measuring DFT on
coated edges; and measuring DFT on pipe exteriors.
Some History
SSPC-PA 2 was originally published as a temporary standard 40 years ago in 1973 (73T) as “Measurement of Dry Coating
Thickness with Magnetic Gages.” The standard referenced gages like the one shown in Fig. 1, which are now all but obsolete. The
standard has been updated on multiple occasions. Until 2012, the most recent technical changes were published in May 2004, with
a minor editorial revision in 2009 to one of the appendices (regarding measurements on test panels). The SSPC Committee on Dry
Film Thickness Measurement began revising and updating the 2004 version in 2007. The revisions took five years to complete. The
latest edition of the standard (“Procedure for Determining Conformance to Dry Coating Thickness Requirements”) is dated May
2012 and was made available to the industry in July 2012.
Fig. 1: One
type of
magnetic
gage
referenced
in original
SSPC-PA 2
for
measuring
dft Figures
courtesy
of the
author
except
where
otherwise
indicated
In nearly the same timeframe, the 2005 version of ASTM D7091, “Standard Practice for Nondestructive Measurement of Dry Film
Thickness of Nonmagnetic Coatings Applied to Ferrous Metals and Nonmagnetic, Nonconductive Coatings Applied to NonFerrous
Metals” was being revised and updated. It, too, was published in 2012. The most current version of the ASTM standard focuses on
proper gage use, while SSPC-PA 2 focuses primarily on the frequency of measurements and the acceptability of the acquired
measurements. References to the frequency of measurements were removed from the ASTM standard. The two documents are
designed to be used together. It is important to note that both documents address the measurement of the DFT of coatings on
ferrous and non-ferrous metal substrates. Before 2012, SSPC-PA 2 addressed measurement of coatings only on steel, a ferrous
metal. (The sidebar on p. 32 in this article summarizes the key changes made to PA 2 in 2012.)
Summary of Changes to SSPC-PA 2: 2004 Version and 2012 Version
2004 2012
“Measurement of Dry Coating Thickness with “Procedure for Determining Conformance to Dry Coating Thickness
Magnetic Gages” Requirements”
Addressed measurement of coatings on steel only Addresses measurement of coatings on ferrous and non-ferrous metal
surfaces
No referenced standards section ASTM D7091 and SSPC Guide 11 included by reference
Definitions section included Calibration; Verification; Definitions section includes Gage Reading, Spot Measurement and Area
Adjustment; Coating Thickness Standard; Shim (foil); Measurement only. All definitions related to gage calibration, accuracy and
Dry Film Thickness Reference Standard; Accuracy; adjustment are incorporated by reference in ASTM D7091. Spot
Structure. measurement definition was expanded.
No. of “Area Measurements” based on the size of the No. of “Area Measurements” based on the size of the area of coated
structure surface
Isolation of nonconforming areas required The magnitude of nonconforming thickness assessed by obtaining spot
measurement of each 100 square foot area painted measurements in eight equally spaced directions radiating outward from the
during the work shift. nonconforming area
Recommended specifying minimum & maximum If a single value is specified and the coating manufacturer does not
thickness range; if no range was specified, thickness recommend a range, the minimum and maximum thickness range is
value was considered minimum (with no maximum) established at ±20% of the stated value
Contained a minimum gage accuracy requirement to No minimum gage accuracy requirement to qualify for use
qualify for use
Conformance to Specified Thickness: Conformance to Specified Thickness:

Gage Readings: Unrestricted Five different Coating Thickness Restriction Levels established. If no
Spot Measurements: ± 20% of specified range Restriction Level is specified, default is based on 2004 conformance
Area Measurements: Per Specification requirement.
Notes section contained principles of gage operation Notes section includes Overcoating and Correcting for Low/High Thickness
and various substrate/surface conditions that may only ASTM D7091 describes principles of gage operation and various
affect measurements; overcoating; and correcting for substrate/surface conditions that may affect measurements.
low/high thickness.
Contained 6 appendices Contains 8 appendices. Six appendices from 2004 version included. Added
two:
 Method for Measuring DFT of Coating on Edges
 Method for Measuring DFT of Coated Steel Pipe Exterior
Gage Types
SSPC-PA 2 addresses two types of DFT gages, both of which are supplied by a variety of manufacturers. Magnetic pull-off gages
are categorized as Type 1 (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2:
Example
of
magnetic
DFT gage
categorize
d as Type
1 in SSPC-
PA 2
These gages were designed in the 1950s. While their use has declined, they are still readily available and used by some. For these
gages, a permanent magnet is brought into direct contact with the coated surface. The force necessary to pull the magnet from the
surface is measured and converted to coating thickness, which is displayed on a scale on the gage. The operating principle is
simple. Less force is required to remove the magnet from a thick coating, while more force is required to remove the magnet from a
thinner one. The scale is not linear, as will be discussed below.
Electronic gages are categorized as Type 2 (Fig. 3). These gages use electronic circuitry to convert a reference signal into coating
thickness and are more popular than Type 1 gages. They are typically regarded to be faster, more accurate, and easier to use.
Fig. 3:
Example
of
electronic
DFT gage
categorize
d as Type
2 in SSPC-
PA 2
Gage Calibration, Accuracy Verification, and Adjustment

To help assure the reliability of the coating thickness measurements, ASTM D 7091 describes three operational steps that must be
performed before taking the measurements. These steps are (1) gage calibration, (2) verification of gage accuracy and (3) gage
adjustment. The steps are incorporated by reference in SSPCPA 2 and are completed before obtaining coating thickness
measurements to determine conformance to a specified coating thickness range. The steps to verify the accuracy of the gage are
based on the principle that you check the gage by measuring a known thickness before you use the same gage to measure an
unknown thickness. Verification of gage accuracy is typically performed using certified coated thickness standards (for Type 1 or
Type 2 gages) or certified shims (Type 2 gages). Adjustment of Type 2 gages to compensate for substrate characteristics
(described later) is typically performed using certified shims. Measured shims (individually labeled with a stated thickness value)
commonly supplied with Type 2 gages can also be used for gage adjustment.
Dry film thickness gages are calibrated by the equipment manufacturer, its authorized agent, or an accredited calibration laboratory
(under controlled conditions). A test certificate or other documentation showing traceability to a national metrology institution is
required. While there is no standard time interval for re-calibration, an interval can be established based on experience, the work
environment, and/or the internal equipment calibration procedures of the company using the gage. A one-year calibration interval is
a typical starting point suggested by gage manufacturers.
Verifying Gage Accuracy

To guard against measuring with an inaccurate gage, SSPC-PA 2 requires that gage accuracy be verified (at a minimum) at the
beginning and end of each work shift according to the procedures described in ASTM D 7091. If a large number of measurements
are being obtained, the user may opt to verify gage accuracy during measurement acquisition (for example, hourly). If the gage is
dropped or suspected of giving erroneous readings during the work shift, its accuracy should be rechecked.
Verifying the Accuracy of Type 1 Gages

The accuracy of Type 1 (magnetic pull-off) gages is verified by placing the gage probe onto a certified coated thickness standard
(Figs. 4 and 5). A one-point or two-point accuracy verification procedure can be performed; typically, the two-point verification
provides greater accuracy. If a one-point verification procedure is adopted, the coated standard should be selected based on the
intended range of use. For example, if the intended use is between 4 and 6 mils, then a five-mil coated standard is appropriate.
Using the same example, if a two-point verification procedure is adopted, then a two-mil and an eight-mil set of coated standards
(slightly below and above the intended range of use) is appropriate.
Fig. 4:
(top) and 5
(bottom)
Verifying
the
accuracy
of Type 1
gages
using
certified
coated
thickness
standards
The final step in the process is to obtain a set of base metal readings (BMRs) to compensate for substrate characteristics including
(but not limited to) substrate metallurgy, geometry, thickness/thinness, and roughness (Fig. 6). These readings represent the effect
of the substrate conditions on the coating thickness measurement device. SSPC-PA 2 states that a minimum of 10 (arbitrarily
spaced) locations should be measured (one reading per location) and then averaged. This average BMR is then deducted from
subsequent coating thickness measurements to remove any effect of the base metal surface and its conditions.
Fig. 6:
Obtaining
base metal
readings
with Type
1 gage
Because Type 1 gages cannot be adjusted, some gage operators believed that a “correction value” could be applied to the coating
thickness readings to compensate for the inaccuracy of the gage. For example, if a gage reading was 5.7 mils on a five-mil coated
standard, a 0.7-mil “correction value” could be deducted (by the gage operator) from subsequent coating thickness measurements.
However, because Type 1 gages are non-linear, one cannot assume a linear (mil-for-mil) correction value across the full range of
the gage. While the gage may be out of tolerance by 0.7 mils at 5 mils, it may be out of tolerance by more or less than 0.7 mils at a
different thickness. Accordingly, SSPC-PA 2 states that the practice of using a linear correction value is not appropriate.
However, Note 6 in the standard states, “A correction curve can be prepared by plotting the actual gage readings against the stated
values on the (coated) test blocks (standards). Subsequent coating thickness measurements can be “corrected” by plotting the
measurements along the correction curve. The correction curve may or may not cover the full range of the gage, but should cover
the intended range of use. The Base Metal Readings (BMR) described in 6.1 may also need to be plotted on the correction curve.”
This requirement makes Type 1 gages very difficult to use. While some gage operators may simply subtract a fixed amount (for
example, 0.5 mils) from any reading, such a practice is not in compliance with SSPC-PA 2.
Verifying the Accuracy of Type 2 Gages

The accuracy of Type 2 (electronic) gages can be verified by placing the gage probe onto a certified coated thickness standard
(described for Type 1 gages) or certified shims (Figs. 7 and 8). The certified shim should be placed onto a smooth, uncoated metal
surface to remove any effect of the surface roughness during this process. A one-point or two-point accuracy verification procedure
can be performed (as described earlier for Type 1 gages).
Fig. 7:
Verifying
accuracy
of Type 2
gage on a
certified
coated
standard
Fig. 8:
Verifying
accuracy
of Type 2
gage using
a certified
shim
Adjusting Type 2 Gages

The final step in the process is to adjust the gage on the surface to which the coating will be applied. Adjustment is accomplished by
placing a certified or measured shim (or shims) onto the prepared, uncoated metal surface and adjusting the gage (when feasible) to
compensate for substrate characteristics including (but not limited to) substrate metallurgy, geometry, thickness/thinness, and
roughness (Fig. 9). The gage reading is adjusted to match the thickness of the shim, which effectively removes any influence from
the underlying surface.
measurement. Figure 10, from Appendix 1 in SSPC-PA 2, depicts an approximate 100-square-foot area containing gage readings
and spot measurements.
Fig. 10:
Approxima
te 100-
square-
foot area
containing
gage
readings
and spot
measurem
ents, as
depicted in
Appendix
1 of SSPC-
PA 2.
Courtesy
of SSPC
The number of areas that must be measured for coating thickness varies, depending on the size of the coated area. There are three
categories of coated area: less than 300 square feet; 300 to 1,000 square feet; and greater than 1,000 square feet. For areas
containing less than 300 square feet of coated surface, every 100-square-foot area must be measured for coating thickness. For
areas of coating 300 to 1,000 square feet, three random areas are selected and measured. For areas of coating exceeding 1,000
square feet, three random areas are selected from the first 1,000 square feet, along with one additional area for each additional
1,000 square feet.
Because areas of coating often exceed 1,000 square feet, our example will be based on this third tier (>1,000 square feet). Let’s
assume that the total coated area (perhaps the area coated during a work shift, although SSPC-PA 2 does not equate coated area
with work shift) is 12,500 square feet. A total of 15 areas must be measured (three in the first 1,000 square feet and one additional
area in each of the 12 remaining 1,000-square-foot areas or portions thereof). This culminates in a total of 75 spot measurements
(15 x 5) and a minimum of 225 gage readings (15 x 5 x 3). If spot measurement variances result in area measurements that do not
meet the specification, then additional spot measurements are acquired (radiating outward in eight directions from the
nonconforming area) to determine the magnitude of the non-conforming thickness. This process is described later in this article.
Acceptability of Gage Readings, Spot Measurements, and Area Measurements

While individual gage readings that are unusually high or low (and cannot be repeated consistently) can be discarded, there are
limitations on the thickness values representing the spot measurements (the average of three gage readings). A minimum thickness
and a maximum thickness are normally specified for each layer of coating. However, if a single thickness value is specified and the
coating manufacturer does not provide a recommended range of thickness, then the minimum thickness and maximum thickness for
each coating layer are established by SSPC-PA 2 at ±20% of the stated value. For example, if the specification requires 3 mils’ DFT
and the coating manufacturer does not provide any additional information regarding a recommended thickness range, then, by
default, the specified range is established as 2.4–3.6 mils. Because the coating may not perform at the lower thickness, it is
important for the specifier to indicate an acceptable range for each coating layer. To assist the specifier, the 2012 edition of SSPC-
PA 2 incorporates a Restriction Level Table (Fig. 11). The Table enables the specifier to select from five different restriction levels
related to spot and area measurements.
Fig. 11:
Coating
Thickness
Restriction
Levels (as
shown
in Table
1 of SSPC-
PA 2,
Section 9)
Courtesy
of SSPC
Level 1 is the most restrictive and does not allow for any deviation of spot or area measurements from the specified minimum and
maximum thickness, while Level 5 is the least restrictive. Depending on the coating type and the prevailing service environment, the
specifier can select the DFT restriction level for a given project. The specifier may also invoke a maximum thickness threshold for
Level 5 Spot or Area Measurements for a generic product type and/or service environment that will not tolerate an unlimited
thickness. If no Restriction Level is specified, then the default is Level 3, which is based on the 2004 version of SSPC-PA 2 (what
many users of the standard have become accustomed to).
For the purpose of final acceptance of the total DFT, the cumulative thickness of all coating layers in each area must be no less than
the cumulative minimum specified thickness and no greater than the cumulative maximum specified thickness.
For example, assume that the specification requires a four- to six-mil application of primer. The actual minimum and maximum spot
and area thickness requirements are shown in Fig. 12 for each of the five restriction levels.
Fig. 12:
Coating
Thickness
Restriction
Levels
Based on a
Four-to-
Six-Mil
Requireme
nt
Derived
using the
2012
edition of
SSPC-PA
2, “Table 1,
Coating
Thickness
Restriction
Levels”
Determining the Magnitude of Nonconforming Thickness

Another change in the 2012 version of the standard is the procedure for identifying nonconforming areas (Fig. 13). In the 2004
edition, if spot or area measurements were out of conformance, each 100-square-foot area coated during the work shift had to be
measured, and nonconforming areas had to be demarcated. On a larger structure with multiple applicators, the measurement and
documentation process could be extensive, so the approach was changed in the 2012 revision. If a nonconforming area is identified,
spot measurements are made at five-foot intervals in eight equally spaced directions radiating outward from the nonconforming
area, as shown in Fig. 13.
Appendix 6: Method for Measuring the Dry Film Thickness of Coatings on Edges
For decades, the industry was cautioned about taking coating thickness measurements within one inch of an edge, let alone on an
edge. However, several Type 2 (electronic) gage manufacturers offer a variety of probe configurations, some of which are less
affected by proximity to edges and are designed to better measure the thickness of coatings on edges (Fig. 14). Obviously, the gage
operator should consult the gage manufacturer’s instructions before measuring coating thickness on edges.
Fig. 14:
One of a
variety of
Type 2
gage
probe
configurati
ons
designed
to better
measure
DFT of
coatings
on edges
Before measuring coating thickness on edges, the user should verify the gage and probe for accuracy by placing a thin, flexible
shim (certified or measured) onto the prepared, uncoated edge. Adjustments to the gage may or may not be required. This
procedure also verifies that the probe configuration will accommodate the edge configuration before acquiring coating thickness
data.
Once verification of accuracy and adjustments are made, a minimum of three gage readings are taken within 1.5 linear inches of
coated edge. The average of the gage readings is considered a spot measurement. The number of spot measurements along the
edge will vary, depending on the total length of the coated edge.
Appendix 7: Method for Measuring Dry Film Thickness on Coated Steel Pipe Exterior
Appendix 7 was added to accommodate pipe coaters that need to determine coating thickness conformance on non-flat (or non-
plate) areas, including smaller pipe sections on a cart or rack and longer pipe spools.
Pipe sections loaded onto a cart or rack can be considered a complete unit (Fig. 15). The total number of spot and area
measurements is based on the total square footage of pipe on the cart or rack. The square footage is calculated as shown on p. 35.
Fig. 15:
(top and
bottom):
Appendix
7 of the
2012
edition of
SSPC-PA 2
describes
a method
for
measuring
DFT on
non-flat
steel, such
as pipe
sections
that can be
loaded on
racks or
carts.
Photos
courtesy
of Turner
Industries
Group,
L.L.C.
Some carts may have several small pipe sections, and the total coated surface may exceed 100 square feet. In this case, a Pipe
DFT Frequency Factor shown below may be invoked.
 Pipe DFT Frequency Factor 2 = (length of each pipe x circumference) x number of pipe sections on cart or rack = (number
of spot measurements) x 2
Based on the example above, if “Pipe DFT Frequency Factor 4” was invoked, 20 spot measurements would be taken (5 spots x
Frequency Factor 4)
Pipe spools that are not loaded onto a rack or cart are typically measured individually (Fig. 16). The number and locations of spot
measurements are based on Appendix 7’s Table A7 (Fig. 17). Three sets of four circumferential spot measurements should be
obtained on pipe spools less than 10 feet in length.
Get the Latest Standards on Dry Film Thickness of Coatings
The 2012 edition of SSPC-PA 2, “Procedure for Determining Conformance to Dry Coating Thickness Requirements,” is available
from the SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings through sspc.org, under the “Standards” tab at the top of the home page.
The 2012 edition of ASTM D7091, “Standard Practice for Nondestructive Measurement of Dry Film Thickness of Nonmagnetic
Coatings Applied to Ferrous Metals and Nonmagnetic, Nonconductive Coatings Applied to NonFerrous Metals,” is available from
ASTM International through astm.org under the “Standards” at the top of the navigation bar on the site.
Change is never easy…. Communicating the new requirements of this standard to the industry is challenging but essential. One
conduit is through training and education. For example, SSPC offers a short course, “Using SSPC-PA 2 Effectively,” that was
recently updated to reflect changes made to the standard. Free webinars are available through SSPC/JPCL for those who cannot
participate in instructor-led training. Updates to SSPC and other industry-provided inspector training and certification courses (and
the associated instructor education) will be critical to fully understanding and effectively communicating the requirements of this
highly regarded industry standard.
THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2013 Technology Publishing Comp
6.Testing the cure of IOZ

From JPCL, April 2013
Is the MEK rub test a conclusive test to check the cure of inorganic zinc coatings?
From Rob Francis Consultant
The solvent rub test for cure of ethyl silicate inorganic zinc (IOZ) coatings, as described in ASTM D4752, is the accepted test for
checking if such a coating is cured. This is especially critical before overcoating, but even a single coat system can dry without
curing if applied under low humidity conditions. Other tests that are used include scraping with the edge of a coin (the “Quarter test”
in the USA) or simply a fingernail. If significant zinc powder is produced with either test, the coating is considered uncured. However,
these tests are considered more subjective than the solvent rub test.
An uncured coating will result in considerable zinc removal with a few double rubs, while a cured coating will be little affected with
the 50 double rubs required. It should be noted that even a fully cured coating will show some zinc discoloration on the white rag.
While as with any test, it may be possible to get ambiguous results, this test, in most situations, will be definitive, and certainly
superior to any other simple field test. If there is any doubt regarding the cure, leave the coating (if the humidity is high enough) or
water mist it and retest.
From Simon Hope BIS Salamis (M&I)

The MEK rub test is only subjective as proof of cure for IOZ coatings. The test is only valid for the actual area tested and can be
applied to the whole item only by extrapolation of the result.
Confidence in the result can vary wildly, depending on time, humidity, and temperature, because the curing mechanism of IOZ is
totally dependent on the integration of water into the silicate precursor to create the matrix to support the metallic zinc. Hence, the
best advice is that once touch dry, fresh water washing enhances the cure mechanism. High humidity and water washing will give
confidence, and MEK rub then gives verification.
From Gary Hall Consultant

I am answering the question about the MEK test as it relates to testing a coating in the field.
The ASTM test method that pertains to measuring cure of inorganic zinc coatings/primers by solvent resistance is ASTM D4752,
“Standard Practice for Measuring MEK Resistance of Ethyl Silicate (Inorganic) Zinc-Rich Primers by Solvent Rub.” This method has
been shown to correlate well with the results obtained with an analytical chemical test called diffuse reflectance infrared
spectroscopy, by which the degree of cure of inorganic zinc (IOZ) primers can be accurately determined. It should be noted that the
results of D4752 might not indicate when full cure has been achieved because the coating may become resistant to MEK before full
cure occurs.
A hardness test may also be used if the coating manufacturer can provide the appropriate hardness data. One such test is ASTM
D2240, which uses a Shore durometer. The Shore durometer test gives the amount of indentation made by a specific needle.
Because the ASTM D2240 test will deform the coating surface under the needle, this type of test is best performed on a companion
piece of substrate coated and cured in the same manner as the coating on the substrate on the actual project.
Problem Solving Forum questions and answers are published in JPCL and its sister daily electronic publication, PaintSquare News.
Upcoming questions in JPCL include the following.
 Whose responsibility is safety on a bridge coating site?
 If an inorganic zinc (IOZ) coating has not fully cured because of low humidity, can water be sprayed onto the IOZ-coated
surface to accelerate the cure?
 What action should be taken if an inorganic zinc coating fails the MEK (methyl ethyl ketone) rub test?
 What causes “amine blush” in epoxy topcoats?
 Do water treatment processes to stop the transfer of invasive marine species in ballast water affect the performance of
ballast tank coatings?
 How soon does metallizing need to be sealed after it is applied to concrete on bridges?
Responses to JPCL questions can be submitted to kkapsanis@paintsquare.com. Readers may also propose questions.
Readers can also respond to PSF questions posted on PaintSquare News and can propose questions on PaintSquare
News at paintsquare.com/psf.
7. Basics of corrosion of steel for applicators

Joe Pikas
A good coating job requires the right steps to be performed to achieve the protection needed. It is important to know why things are
done, as well as how the various steps are performed. A primary reason for using protective coatings is corrosion protection.
For the purposes of this series, corrosion of steel is defined as “the destruction of steel by an electrochemical process that is
characterized or recognized by the formation of rust or pits.” To understand how protective coatings protect a steel surface, the
nature of corrosion must be understood— why it occurs and how it can be prevented.
Steel is manufactured by taking the mined ore and adding a large amount of energy to it in the blast furnace. This produces an
unstable metal. Nature does not like all that energy stored in the steel. So upon exposure to the atmosphere, especially moisture
and oxygen, this energy is released, and the iron returns to its natural stable state—iron ore. Rust, therefore, is nothing more than a
pure form of iron ore (oxides). Protection of steel from corrosion involves methods to retard this natural release of energy (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: One
approach
to slowing
the natural
corrosion
of steel
and
appearanc
e of rust is
the use of
protective
coatings.
Courtesy
of JPCL
To understand how coatings protect steel, we must understand the four conditions required for corrosion to occur. Unless all four of
these conditions are present, corrosion will not occur. These four conditions are:
 a positive pole (a cathode),
 a negative pole (an anode),
 an electrical conductor, and
 an electrolyte.
The terms “anode” and “cathode” have technical definitions in electrochemistry, but for our purposes, we will use them to refer to
areas on a substrate or materials of different electrical potentials. The “electrical conductor” is a means of conducting electricity,
similar to the copper wiring in your house. An “electrolyte” is a liquid solution (usually water) that also can conduct electricity.
To help illustrate these terms and how corrosion happens, let’s look at the dry cell (battery). A battery represents a beneficial use of
corrosion, though the process is the same as corrosion that occurs with steel.
A battery has two terminals. Typically, one is connected to a carbon rod running down the center of the battery, while the other is
connected to the outer casing, which is made of zinc. These are the two dissimilar materials of different electrical potential, which
serve as cathode and anode. If you have ever taken a battery apart, you would have seen that there is a pasty material between the
casing and the carbon rod. This substance is the electrolyte.
If you wanted to use the battery, you would connect the wires to something such as a flashlight. The wires are the electrical
conductor. Once the wires are connected, the flashlight will keep on glowing until the battery has become corroded. In the battery, it
is actually the zinc casing that is consumed and corroded.
How does this example of a battery relate to corrosion of steel? You would see that steel is not a smooth, uniform material if you
looked at it under high magnification (Fig. 2). It actually consists of very small grains or grain boundaries. This means that steel has
spots on it with slightly different electrical potentials.
Fig. 2:
Peaks and
valleys of
profiled
clean steel
Courtesy
of KTA-
Tator
Adding stresses to the steel also creates areas of different electrical potential. This normally occurs by such processes as
differential heating of the steel during treatment, bending or cutting the steel, or even hitting it with a hammer. Any of these
processes adds small amounts of energy to the steel. So by its very nature, steel contains spots of different electrical potential, or
anodes and cathodes.
What about the electrical conductor? This was the wire in the example of the battery.
Does steel conduct electrical current? It certainly does, so wires are not needed. As you can see from this explanation, steel
contains anodes and cathodes, and is an electrical conductor. It already contains three of the four conditions necessary for
corrosion.
The fourth condition needed is the electrolyte or liquid that can conduct electricity. Where does it come from? Normally, atmospheric
moisture that condenses on the surface serves as an electrolyte. It can be in the form of rain, dew, or simply humidity in the air.
Some structures either are used to hold water or are used in water. They are constantly exposed to an electrolyte.
Our atmosphere is laden with moisture at all times, even in desert areas, although to a esser degree. Most steel surfaces are
exposed to dew at night and water vapor during the daytime hours in addition to the normal rainfall. In highly industrial areas such
as Houston, Los Angeles, and New York, airborne chemical contaminants contain substances called ions.
The point to be made is that steel (like most other manufactured metals) contains three of the four conditions needed for corrosion.
The most common way to slow down corrosion is to isolate the steel from the electrolyte. Therefore, the major function of the
coating is to keep moisture off the steel. Some coatings, such as zinc primers, perform other functions, which will be discussed in
subsequent Bulletins.
There are a few common forms of corrosion that a painter will see regularly: general corrosion, galvanic corrosion, pitting corrosion,
and crevice corrosion. General corrosion takes place fairly evenly over the metal. Usually, it begins as spots or freckles and
becomes progressively worse.
Galvanic corrosion occurs when dissimilar metals are in contact. The more active metal (the anode) corrodes to protect the less
active metal (the cathode). For example, if a brass valve were connected to a steel pipe, the steel would corrode to protect the
brass. The steel at the fitting would be consumed rather quickly, first appearing as a thinning of the metal and ultimately resulting in
penetration. Another example of galvanic corrosion is mill scale on steel. Steel is more active than mill scale, so when corrosion
conditions are present, the steel will corrode to protect the mill scale.
Pitting corrosion occurs when the corrosion forces are concentrated in a small area. Metal loss is into the steel rather than over the
surface. The rust pits that form have serious consequences because the pits represent metal section loss. This can result in
perforation if the structure is a tank or a vessel, and loss of structural integrity no matter what the structure is.
Crevice corrosion (Fig. 3) is another common form seen on structures, and occurs when there is a small space between structural
elements, be they metal-to-metal or metal-to-non-metal. Examples of places where crevice corrosion can occur are back-to-back
angles, where steel plates overlap, around rivets and bolts, near tack welds, and any other place where a small opening is present.
What happens is that moisture gets into the crack and completes the corrosion circuit. The moisture gets trapped in the crevice and
accelerates the corrosion compared to the surrounding area. The corrosion reactions are greatest at the bottom of the crevice, so
metal loss is concentrated in that area.
Fig. 3:
Severe
corrosion
is seen at
a weld
seam.
Courtesy
of KTA-
Tator
There are many other forms of corrosion that a painter may see, including microbiologically influenced corrosion (deep isolated
pitting as shown in Fig. 4), cavitation corrosion, or erosion corrosion, to name a few. In most of these cases, the corrosion reaction is
accelerated by another factor beyond the general corrosion reaction explained above.
Fig. 4:
Microbiolo
gically
influenced
corrosion
on piece of
steel pipe
Courtesy
of the
author
To stop corrosion, all that is needed is to eliminate one of the factors that produce the reaction. It is impossible to eliminate the
environment, and it is cost-prohibitive to make steels that corrode at a slow rate. Therefore, coatings are often used to prevent
corrosion by eliminating contact between the environment (electrolyte) and the steel substrate. Coatings are therefore a barrier
material.
A coating may also be applied to enhance appearance. However, to protect against corrosion for a period of time, it is necessary for
coatings to possess features that make them effective barriers.
By isolating steel from the electrolyte, a good protective coating can prevent corrosion for extended periods of time. The better the
application, the longer the coating will serve its useful purpose.
On the other hand, a poor coating job may lead to the expense of premature failure, which requires reblasting and recoating. On
large projects, such premature failure can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Good coating work can also save steel
structures from unnecessary and costly deterioration. It is estimated that the cost of corrosion in the U.S. each year runs in the
billions of dollars. Your work as an applicator can help significantly to reduce these losses.
Upcoming Applicator Training Bulletins

The following are among the upcoming Applicator Training Bulletins.
Basics of Corrosion and Coatings

 How Coatings Protect Steel
 Basics of Concrete Deterioration for Applicators
 How Coatings Protect Concrete
Surface Preparation
 Why Surface Preparation Is Important
 Introduction to Surface Preparation of Concrete
 Mechanical Methods of Preparing Concrete
 Chemical Cleaning of Concrete
 Power Tool Cleaning for Steel
 Using Paint Strippers on Steel and Concrete
 Setting Up Air Abrasive Blasting Systems
 Techniques of Air Abrasive Blasting
 Containing Dust and Debris during Air Abrasive Blasting
 Setting Up and Operating Wet Blasting Equipment
 Using High Pressure Waterjetting
Application
 Product and Application Data Sheets
 Mixing and Thinning Paint
 Basic Training in Brush and Roller Application
 The Basics of Conventional Air Spraying
 Using High Volume, Low Pressure Spray Equipment
 Using Airless Spray Equipment
 Introduction to Plural Component Spraying
 Applying Two-Pack Epoxies and Polyurethanes
 Applying Zinc-Rich Coatings
 Applying Water-Borne Coatings
 Applying High Solids Coatings
 Applying Polyureas
 Applying Floor Coatings and Toppings
 Special Concerns about Applying Coatings in the Shop
Quality Control
 The Effects of Weather on Cleaning and Coating Work
 Conforming with Job Requirements

 Records of Work and Working Conditions
 Why Good Housekeeping Is Important
 Assessing Surface Cleanliness and Profile
 Assuring Quality during Abrasive Blasting
 Assessing Quality of Wet Methods of Surface Preparation
 Computing Film Thickness and Coverage
 Measuring Dry Film Thickness
 Measuring Adhesion of Coatings
 Recognizing and Correcting Paint Application Deficiencies
 Quality Control in Coating Concrete
Safety and Health

 Safety Considerations for Abrasive Blasting
 Anticipating Job Hazards
 Respiratory Protection: Hazards and Equipment
 Fit Testing Procedures for Respirators
 Job Hazards during Climbing and High Work
 An Introduction to Confined Spaces
 Identifying and Controlling Job Hazards When Working around High Voltage
 Using Lighting Safely
 Protection against Worker Exposures during Hazardous Paint Removal
 Safety for Applicators Working near Process Equipment
 Safety with Solvents and Paint Strippers
 Where To Get Help in Safety and Health
Editor’s Note: This article marks the return of JPCL’s Applicator Training Bulletin, a series first published from 1988 to 1992. The
series was intended to help industrial contractor firms train blasters and painters. The original series was developed and written by
the Coatings Society of the Houston Area in collaboration with SSPC, and Lloyd Smith edited it. The series was subsequently
collected in one volume. From 1992 to 1993, a separate series on safety was developed and written under the direction of KTA-
Tator. In 1997, the series was updated and expanded. Beginning this month, the series will again cover the basics of corrosion,
surface preparation, application, quality control, and safety. The series will be updated and expanded where necessary. Because
the basic theory of corrosion, how coatings protect steel, and the importance of surface preparation have changed little since 1988,
some of the original articles will also appear with minor revisions, including this first one on what applicators need to know about
corrosion. Written by Joe Pikas, with Transco Corporation at the time, the article was first published in the July 1988 JPCL, then
updated and re-published in the April 1997 JPCL.
8. Can in-process QC prevent premature coating failures?
defines quality control as the inspection of work. Inspection includes but is not limited to confirming that procedures are met; workers
are properly qualified; equipment is appropriate and in acceptable working order; and the proper materials are used and are in
compliance with inspection criteria.
Let’s take a look at a few case studies to see whether implementation of a quality control program using trained, properly equipped
inspectors makes a difference.
Case Study No. 1: Mirror, Mirror…

Background: A contract was awarded to remove and replace the existing coating system on a large riveted structure. The
specification required abrasive blast cleaning to achieve a Near-White blast (SSPC-SP 10/NACE 2), followed by two coats of a
polyamide epoxy (standard gray) and one coat of polyurethane topcoat. Six months after the contract was completed, corrosion was
observed (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2:
Corrosion
products
on the
back sides
of the
rivets and
edges
after six
months’
service
Cause: Corrosion products remained on the back side of the rivets that were not subjected to direct impact by the abrasive stream
during blast cleaning. The coating was also applied from one direction, causing thin areas of coating on the back side of the rivets
and the adjacent flat areas of the steel plate. Inadequate attention was given to the coating along the edges.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? The QC inspector should have carefully examined the “difficult access” areas
after surface preparation and application of each coating layer. As a general rule, if the quality control inspector has difficulty
accessing the areas, then the coating applicators likely had difficulty as well. Verifying coverage on an abrasive blast-cleaned
surface with a gray coating can be challenging. Good lighting and the use of an inspection mirror would likely have revealed the
missed areas. The specifier could have selected a contrasting color for the primer and may have required stripe coating in these
areas (in accordance with SSPC-Guide 11) to help protect the edges.
Case Study No. 2: The Fix is in, and That’s the Problem!
Background: The project specification required abrasive blast cleaning to achieve a Near-White blast (SSPC-SP 10/NACE 2), and
the application of a single coat of an inorganic zinc primer to piping. Surface preparation and coating application were performed in
the shop. Once the piping was installed in the field, damaged areas (caused by the installation) were abrasive blast cleaned and
touched up with an organic (epoxy) zinc-rich primer. All of the touch-up areas performed well. However, within one year, portions of
the piping showed extensive pinpoint rusting and rust-through.
A closer examination of the pipe (Fig. 3) shows one of the rusted areas, with the edge of a repair area also shown (left portion
of Fig. 3). As illustrated, the repair area is performing well, but the surrounding area is exhibiting rusting.
Cause: When repairing damaged areas, the blaster failed to start and stop the flow of abrasive from the blast nozzle when moving
from one damaged area to another. Instead, the blast nozzle was moved to the next location while the abrasive was still flowing at
maximum pressure, which caused considerable damage to the coating. This is apparent in Fig. 3, where a round patch of coating
had been effectively removed by the abrasive impact, with the surrounding area nicked by the abrasive.
Fig. 3:
Close-up
of rusted
area, with
the edge
of a repair
area also
shown on
above
Because the zinc primer is essentially the same color as the steel, the damage went unnoticed until the electrolyte (water) contacted
the surface and caused the formation of corrosion.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Many would point to a misplaced repair procedure as the culprit in this case;
and perhaps, even with diligence, the overblast damage may have been unavoidable. However, during the start-up of the repair
procedures, the QC inspector should have observed the abrasive blast cleaning operations, recognized the potential for overblast
damage, and discussed the issue with the owner/specifier before work continued. The owner and inspector could have discussed
alternative methods of preparation. Anticipating potential problems and proposing resolutions before a widespread problem occurs
are intangible values that quality control inspection can bring to a project.
Case Study No. 3: You Know What They Say: Dry Heat Is More Comfortable
Background: The project specification required abrasive blast cleaning to achieve an SSPC-SP 10/NACE 2 Near-White blast and
the application of an inorganic zinc primer to structural steel components in the fabrication shop. Application of the intermediate coat
was also performed in the shop, while the topcoat was scheduled for application in the field after erection and bolting of the steel.
The work was done in the winter, and the shop was heated. The fabricator’s quality control specialist kept documentation revealing
that the shop coating had conformed to the thickness and recoat times recommended by the coating manufacturer’s technical
representative, who visited the shop during coating application. The steel was loaded onto trucks and shipped to the site. When the
coated steel arrived at the construction site, spontaneous cracking of the coating along the fillet weld (where the web and flange are
joined) was discovered (Fig. 4). Figure 5 illustrates the spontaneous cracking and lifting along the fillet, and the poor adhesion of the
coating system on the top of the bottom flange. Examination of a disbonded coating chip revealed the presence of zinc primer on
the back side of the chip and on the steel surface, indicating that the location of break was cohesive within the zinc primer.
Fig. 4:
Spontaneo
us
cracking
of the
coating
along the
fillet weld
Fig. 5:
Poor
adhesion
of the
coating on
the top of
the bottom
flange
Cause: Ethyl silicate inorganic zinc-rich primers require moisture to cure. In this case, insufficient time was allowed before the
application of the epoxy midcoat. Once the epoxy was applied, no more moisture could react with the primer because the epoxy
sealed off the primer. The zinc primer remained in a dry but uncured (and weakened state). The solvents from the epoxy midcoat
penetrated the uncured primer, and the contractive curing stresses imparted by the epoxy caused the zinc primer to cohesively split.
Because a web and flange are adjacent to one another, the thickness of the epoxy was slightly higher along the fillet weld area. The
higher thickness exacerbated the problem and resulted in the cracking and detachment. When other areas were evaluated, it
became evident that the entire system was at risk for failure.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Inorganic zinc-rich primers dry very quickly (especially in a heated
environment); however, they may not cure for many hours or even days if the humidity is too low within the prevailing environment.
The key is to verify that temperature and humidity (listed on the product data sheets) are present in the shop before application and
to verify the cure has been achieved, rather than relying on cure time tables provided by the coating manufacturer, or assuming that
drying and curing are synonomous. Quality control inspection by the fabricator should have included a curing test. In fact, there is
one specifically designed for the primer in this case study (ASTM D4752, Measuring MEK Resistance of Ethyl Silicate (inorganic)
Zinc-Rich Primers by Solvent Rub). Once a resistance rating of “4 or 5” is achieved (after 50 double rubs), the zinc-rich primer can
be considered cured and ready for recoating. Some manufacturers rely on pencil hardness data instead of solvent resistance to
assess cure. Either way, a competent QC Inspector knows how specific coating types cure, the conditions necessary for the
reactions to occur, and the tests available to verify coating film properties before applying the next coating.
Case Study No. 4: A Picture’s Worth Thousands of $$$

Background: The project specification required abrasive blast cleaning to achieve a Commercial Blast (SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3)
and the application of a single coat of alkyd primer in the joist fabrication shop. The joists were shipped to the project site, where
they were stored outdoors (on the ground) for six months. Corrosion was visible within six months (Fig. 6).
Cause: SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 requires removal of all mill scale. The surfaces may have staining from mill scale (provided it does
not exceed 33% of each 9 square inches). In this case, the “pock marks” in Fig. 6 clearly indicate that mill scale was left on the
surface and coated over. The “hollow” areas represent those locations where the mill scale was removed, while the surrounding
areas contain mill scale. The areas containing mill scale exhibit corrosion products. In a mild environment (and with the proper
thickness), this system should have lasted longer than six months. However, the application of a thin (3- to 5-mil) film alkyd primer
combined with damp storage conditions led to water permeation of the alkyd. The result was the formation of a corrosion cell at the
mill scale/steel interface. Mill scale is cathodic to steel, which means that the base steel becomes the anode in the corrosion cell
and begins to deplete, generating the corrosion products. Ironically, had the joists been stored indoors (or installed upon receipt),
the lack of quality may have never been revealed, because it is unlikely that corrosion would have occurred due to the lack of
electrolyte.
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Careful visual inspection of the steel surfaces by the quality control inspector
after surface preparation (including the use of SSPC-VIS 1) would have revealed the presence of mill scale, which is not permitted
by the specified cleanliness standard. That is, quality control personnel need to know industry standards and need to use tools (in
this case, visual guides) for help in making intelligent decisions. While additional surface preparation before application of the primer
would have required additional labor and more abrasive, it would have been done at a significantly lower cost than the cumulative
costs associated with the failure investigation, transportation of the joists back to the fabrication shop (and then back to the project
site once the rework was done), the material and labor costs associated with re-application of the primer, and potential for liquidated
damages due to project schedule delays.
Fig. 6:
Corrosion
of steel
beneath
alkyd
primer
evident
within six
months
Case Study No. 5: Hey! I Followed the Spec; It Wasn’t My Fault.

Background: The underside of a viaduct containing an aged lead alkyd coating was brush-off abrasive blast cleaned to remove
loosely adhering corrosion and paint (SSPCSP 7/NACE No. 4), followed by the application of an epoxy mastic overcoat. Figure
7 illustrates the condition of the coating prior to abrasive blast cleaning. Figure 8 illustrates lifting of the old alkyd by the epoxy
mastic overcoat. The number “10” written on the coating in Fig. 8 is in an area where the epoxy mastic was applied directly to the
steel, rather than the aged lead alkyd. Directly beneath that area is an area where the mastic had lifted the alkyd, and was removed
by scraping during the failure investigation. The area beneath the hand in the same photo represents epoxy mastic applied over the
aged lead alkyd. This area was not probed during the investigation.
Fig. 7:
Condition
of the
coating on
the
underside
of the
viaduct
before
brush-off
blast
cleaning
Cause: The aged lead alkyd coating was in poor condition, as illustrated by Fig. 8. While brush-off abrasive blast cleaning removed
the loosely adhering materials, the impact of the abrasive on the “intact” alkyd weakened (fractured) it, but did not affect it enough to
consider it “loose” by the dull putty knife test. Application of the epoxy mastic imparted curing stresses that weakened the cohesive
strength of the aged lead alkyd, causing it to lift and disbond from the surface.
Fig. 8:
Area
where
epoxy
mastic
was
applied
directly to
the steel
rather than
the aged
alkyd
Avoidance Through Quality Control Inspection? Because the QC inspector does not have the authority to change the
specification, this project was doomed from the minute the work was awarded. Even though the QC inspector may have questioned
the specification, it is doubtful that that owner would have altered the spec unless the fracturing of the aged lead alkyd had been
visible to the unaided eye and the inspector had informed the owner of the damaged coating. Inspection personnel cannot use
magnification (according to the SSPC Surface Preparation Standards).
So while it appears that controlling quality as the work is performed reduces the opportunity for coating failure, quality control cannot
be a substitute for a well-written specification, quality coating materials, and quality workmanship.
1. THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2013 Technology Publishing Company
9.New SSPC Standard Helps Determine Compliance with Profile

Requirements
From JPCL, December 2012
Aimée Beggs
SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings
Aimée Beggs is SSPC’s standards development specialist as well as SSPC’s technical committee liaison. She has worked for SSPC for 32 years. She
has written and co-written articles for JPCL on SSPC surface preparation and visual standards. Aimée was the recipient of the SSPC Executive
Director’s award in 2010.
Heather Stiner
SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings
Heather Stiner is the staff technical expert on protective coatings at SSPC. She also performs technical writing, contributes articles to the JPCL,
responds to scientific inquiries, and acts as a technical resource for SSPC members. Heather is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh, and is a
member of the American Chemical Society, ASTM, and NACE.
Steel surface profile, sometimes referred to as “anchor pattern,” is the textured surface (resembling a series of peaks
and valleys when viewed under magnification) that results from abrasive blast cleaning or power tool cleaning to bare
metal. The peaks and valleys of the profile provide additional surface area to enable a protective coating to
mechanically bond to the substrate. To enable the coating to adhere to the substrate as well as provide a continuous
protective film, the depth between peaks and valleys, along with the number of peaks in a given area, must be carefully
controlled. Most coating manufacturers provide a recommended surface profile range on their product data sheets.
Project specifications may also contain these requirements, or reference those provided by the coating manufacturer.
A recently issued (September 2012) SSPC standard, SSPC-PA 17, “Procedure for determining conformance to Steel
Profile/Rough Roughness/Peak Count Requirements,” complements existing ASTM standards for measuring surface
profile and roughness. SSPC-PA 17 does not replace the existing ASTM standards. This article will review current
standards for measuring surface profile features and describe the development as well as the use of SSPC-PA 17 to
Heather determine compliance with project specifications.
Stiner
ASTM Standards for Measuring Steel Surface Profile or Surface Roughness
Over the years, a number of instruments have been developed to measure surface profile. ASTM Committee D01 has issued two
standard test methods describing instruments and their proper use to measure steel profile.
Courtesy
of KTA-
Tator
 ASTM D 4417, Standard Test Methods for Field Measurement of Surface Profile of Blast Cleaned Steel, describes 3
methods and provides procedures for use of each.
 Method A describes the use of a profile comparator, a metal replica containing several segments representing degrees of
roughness that can be visually or tactilely compared with the surface being evaluated. This method requires reporting the
range of results from an unspecified number of locations on the surface as the surface profile.
 Method B describes the use of a depth micrometer, a gage that contains a pointed probe to measure the distance
between a single valley and the peaks of the profile. The mean of ten gage readings is recorded. The mean of all
locations (number is unspecified) measured on the surface is reported as the profile of the surface.
 Method C describes use of a special tape containing a compressible foam attached to a non-compressible uniform plastic
film. The tape is pressed onto the steel surface to create a negative impression of the surface. The impression is then
measured with a specially designed micrometer. One gage reading is taken on each of three pieces of tape, and the
mean of the three readings is determined for that location. The mean for all locations measured (number is unspecified) is
reported as the surface profile.
 ASTM D 7127, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned Metal Surfaces
Using a Portable Stylus Instrument, describes the use of a portable stylus instrument (often referred to as a
“profilometer”). The stylus is used to determine the number of peak and valley pairs, as well as the distance between the
highest peak and the lowest valley encountered during each of five traces over the surface being assessed. Averages of
each measurement parameter are reported, but the standard does not contain requirements for reporting surface profile
measurement.
Rationale for Development of the SSPC Standard

Although both of the above ASTM standards provide recommendations for the number of instrument readings required to
characterize the surface profile, neither standard provides acceptance criteria to determine whether the profile over the entire
prepared surface is within the specified range. The frequency, location, and number of measurements to determine compliance, as
well as the method of profile measurement, are left to the specifier.
In 2008, SSPC formed a technical committee, chaired by Heather Stiner, SSPC Protective Coatings Professional, to develop a
standard that defined a procedure for determining compliance with specified profile ranges and that complemented the information
in the ASTM D4417 and D7127 standards. The SSPC committee consisted of representatives of coating manufacturers, painting
contractors, manufacturers of profile measurement gages and equipment, facility owners, inspectors, and protective coating
consultants. Members of the ASTM committees that developed D4417 and D7127 also participated.
Options for Determining Compliance

The “Process Control” Method
The committee recognized that many production factors contribute to the size and angularity of surface profile, including: equipment
used; size, hardness, and shape of abrasive media; type of steel; and accessibility of the surface, among others. Because any of
these variables can change frequently during the production process, the first drafts of the proposed standard were based on
“process control” requirements. The process control requirements call for the contractor
 to produce a four-foot square “field standard” that meets the project specification,
 to measure the profile of the field standard, and
 to verify compliance of the field standard with project requirements.
Example
of portable
stylus
instrument
that
measures
surface
roughness
and peak
count as
described
in ASTM
D7127.
Courtesy
of KTA-
Tator.
Following the owner’s acceptance of the “field standard,” the contractor must verify continued compliance with project requirements
by taking an additional profile measurement each time any of a number of specified processes changes occurs during the project. A
final profile measurement is taken following completion of production to verify compliance.
work shift (12 hours or less) be verified in three locations, regardless of the size of the area prepared.
Electronic
depth
micromete
r as
described
in ASTM
D4417
Method B.
Courtesy
of
Elcometer.
The PA 17 standard requires averaging individual instrument readings within each of three randomly selected 6x6-inch locations on
the prepared surface to generate a “location average” for that location. PA 17 requires reporting the highest and lowest location
averages, and the average of the three location averages. Each location average must fall within the specified profile range.
Electronic
depth
micromete
r as
described
in ASTM
D4417
Method B,
showing
probe.
Courtesy
of KTA-
Tator.
Using PA 17 to Determ ine Compliance with Specified Profile

Step 1: Identify the method used to take readings from the surface. This could be any of the three methods in ASTM D 4417, or
ASTM D 7127 could be specified. ASTM D 4417 Method C (tape) will be used for this example, as it is one of the most frequently
specified methods.
Step 2: Identify the pieces of equipment used to prepare the surface during a particular shift. If nozzles from Blast Pot A and Blast
Pot B were used to prepare the majority of the surface, and a power wire brush was used to clean several areas that could not be
reached by nozzle blasting, verification of the profile in areas prepared by Blast Pot A, Blast Pot B, and the power wire brush must
be performed separately.
Step 3: Select three 6x6-inch locations (L1, L2 and L3) on an area prepared by Blast Pot 1 during the work shift.
Step 4: Within each location, prepare and read 3 tapes in accordance with ASTM D 4417 Method C.
Step 5: Add the readings from Tapes 1, 2, and 3 and divide the result by 3 to generate the “location average” for L1. The “location
average” for L1 must be within the specified profile range.
Step 6: Perform Steps 3 through 5 in locations L2 and L3 within the area prepared by Blast Pot 1.
If the L2 and L3 location averages are also within the specified profile range, the area prepared by Blast Pot 1 is compliant.
Step 7: Report the highest and lowest location average, as well as the “measurement” (the average of L1, L2 and L3 values) for the
area prepared by Blast Pot 1.
Step 8: Perform Steps 3 through 6 in the area prepared by Blast Pot 2, and again in the area prepared by the power wire brush to
verify the areas prepared by each piece of equipment are also in compliance with the specified profile range.
Steps 1 through 8 are performed at a minimum of once per work shift. This frequency is intended to minimize work stoppages while
at the same time periodically verifying conformity with project requirements during the course of production.
Identifying Non-Conforming Areas

If any “location average” is outside the specified profile range, you must select four additional locations equidistant from each other
and 5 feet away from the non-compliant location, and obtain “location averages” for each of the four locations. Each of these four
location averages must comply with the specified profile range, or the process of selecting additional locations at five-foot distances
from the non-compliant location must repeat. If there is no room to take a measurement in a given direction, no measurement is
required. You must mark and report any non-compliant locations.
Summary
SSPC-PA 17 was developed to provide specifiers, inspectors, and contractors with a standard set of acceptance criteria to
determine compliance with steel profile requirements in industry project specifications. In many ways it is similar to the SSPC-PA 2
standard, which has been widely specified since its initial publication in 1996. As with all SSPC standards, PA 17 is subject to
periodic reapproval or revision at least every five years. Revisions may be made within that period if the committee agrees that they
are necessary. The committee anticipates that refinements will be proposed as the PA 17 standard becomes more generally
specified and used, and welcomes suggestions to improve the usefulness and clarity of this, and all other SSPC standards.
10.Temperature and Humidity Monitoring for Industrial Coating Application
From JPCL, November 2012
Don Schnell DRYCO
Don Schnell is the national strategic accounts manager for DRYCO, which is based in Downers Grove, IL. He has worked in the protective coatings
industry since 1977 and has more than 20 years of experience with dehumidification and temporary climate control. He has had an important role in
the development and expansion of climate-control innovations used in the protective coatings industry.
It has long been known that temperature and humidity have a significant impact on proper surface preparation and
application of liquid-applied coatings. High humidity near the surface of dry abrasive--blasted steel increases corrosion
rates and therefore causes flash rusting before the prime coat can be applied. Surface temperatures impact the rate of
polymerization and the evaporation rate of solvents in the coatings as they are applied and cured. A quality coatings
application can occur only when these conditions are within the tolerance of the product being applied.
To assure that these conditions are maintained, the contractor and the inspector must employ good practices to
measure, monitor, and record these conditions. This attention to climatic conditions is important on interior and exterior
applications and with or without climate control measures. The accuracy and completeness of this measurement and
documentation not only assures a quality application, but also protects all parties from culpability should a premature
coating failure occur. This article reviews good practices for measuring, monitoring, and recording ambient conditions
during coating operations.
Don
Schnell,
DRYCO
The most accurate reading is the lowest wet bulb reading the user reads. The wet bulb reading should be monitored as it drops and
then begins to rise again while the wick begins to dry out, with the lowest observed reading recorded. It may take five or more tries
to reach the lowest possible reading.
Magnetic surface temperature thermometers get the job done but can lose accuracy with use. It is not uncommon to see these
devices in use with cracked lenses, damage from falling to the floor of the tank, or paint overspray or steel grit caked on them.
Today, it is much more common to see electronic measurement instruments on the coating jobsite. These include instruments that
measure dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, and surface temperature while calculating and displaying the dew point
temperature. With on-board logging features, these devices are capable of logging the data collected with time stamps to later
download to spread sheets or other formats. These instruments are very convenient and can allow the user to take many readings
rapidly (Fig. 3). It is important to calibrate these devices regularly, particularly when exposed to extreme conditions.
Fig. 3:
Electronic
dewpoint
meter
Courtesy
of
Elcometer
Data Logging
Another approach to monitoring and recording conditions is to use some kind of electronic device that automatically takes readings
and records them on paper or in digital format (Fig. 4). Simple chart recorders have been around for decades and have been used
successfully on painting jobs. This mechanical technology uses a bundle of human hair or a polymer strand that expands and
contracts with humidity to move a pen on a revolving disk or drum chart. Another pen will record the air temperature simultaneously.
These devices must be calibrated every 6 to 12 months and are very susceptible to dust and physical damage that is quite likely on
a blast cleaning and painting site. (See the sidebar, “Calibration.”)
Calibration
It is important that all instruments be calibrated properly and at regular intervals. This can be done by comparing the device to an
electronic condensation-based hygrometer. These hygrometers use a chilled mirror to make a very accurate determination of
exactly what temperature moisture begins to condense in an air sample. Quick field calibration can be done with an aspirated
coatings industry at the inspector level.
At a recent conciliation between a painting contractor and a bridge owner who hired an ‘independent’ coating inspector, the
conciliator concluded: “The coatings inspector can make or break a job.” Unfortunately, in this particular case, the conciliator was
correct, and the painting contractor was awarded many thousands of Euros for the instructions given by the coatings inspector that
breached the terms of the contract. Unfortunately, some inspectors can be overzealous, difficult, or both.
There are many examples where the coating inspector has created problems on a contract through lack of experience, lack of
knowledge, or an intention to build a reputation for the wrong reasons. Common problems created include the following:
 imposing particular tests that are not specified;
 increasing levels of quality above those required in the specification and not being pragmatic, resulting in an increase in
the length of a contract and a corresponding increase in personal remuneration; and
 creating a poor working relationship with the contractors, such as the ‘us vs. them’ approach.
There are also a few coating inspectors who are ‘frustrated’ contract managers and believe they could manage the contract better.
In most cases, the coating inspector has been trained in quality issues but has little concept of planning, costs, practicalities, and
completing a project on schedule.
Coating inspectors have limited legal obligations within a contract and will not generally have professional indemnity insurance. That
said, inspectors should recognize the financial impact of recommendations and advice, and limit their recommendations to areas
within their field of experience and qualifications. More importantly, coating inspectors should recognize that they provide
recommendations, and not direction. Generally, the client should make the decisions, choosing whether or not to follow the
inspector’s recommendations.
There are also many examples in which a coating inspector has passed on his or her wealth of experience and knowledge during a
contract and, by so doing, has benefited all parties, including the painting contractor. An engineer once said, “a good coatings
inspector is worth his [her] weight in gold.”
Coating systems may have been designed and tested for certain hostile locations, and, without the correct level of quality control,
premature coating failure is always a possibility. There are generally good reasons why high-performance systems are specified.
The coating inspector should make himself or herself fully familiar with any specified product. Product training may also be a
requirement.
Industry Qualification Schemes

Various credible coating inspection qualification training schemes are used globally.
• Institute of Corrosion (ICorr; UK)
The Institute of Corrosion is a professional body in the UK and has an established training scheme for paint and coating inspectors.
The scheme also has training and qualifications for inspecting metallic coatings, pipeline coatings, cathodic protection, and thermal
insulation.
The paint and coating inspector scheme has three Levels: 1, 2, and 3. There is no pre-requisite for attending Level 1; however,
qualifications and experience are required for Levels 2 and 3.
Closed book specific and general examinations are conducted for all levels along with practical essays for Levels 2 and 3. Practical
assessments are also conducted.
The scheme is conducted and governed in accordance with the Institute of Corrosion Document ICORR REQ DOC.
• SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings
The SSPC is based in the U.S. and is a non-profit organization focused on the protection and preservation of concrete, steel, and
other industrial and marine structures and surfaces through the use of high-performance protective, marine, and industrial coatings.
The SSPC has a Protective Coating Inspector scheme (PCI) with three levels, similar to the Institute of Corrosion’s scheme. There
are no pre-requisites for the entry level, but qualifications and experience are necessary for Levels 2 and 3. Level 3 consists of a
four-part examination that includes creating an inspection test plan based on a coating specification. The training program is well
established and specified globally. SSPC provides many other courses aimed at painting applicator skills, supervisor training, and
other aspects of protective coating work.
• NACE International
NACE International is a professional organization for the corrosion control industry and has a large membership in over 100
countries.
NACE has an established coatings inspector program (CIP) that has gained worldwide recognition; it has been available for over 25
years and has some 19,000 certified Inspectors.
The CIP course consists of three levels. The first two levels are similar to other training schemes for coating inspectors; however,
the third level is a Peer Review. The Peer Review consists of a two-hour verbal examination in front of three experienced coating
experts who have many years of coating inspection experience as well as being NACE-qualified coating inspectors. As with other
training schemes, there is no entry pre-requisite for the course entry level.
• FROSIO
The Norwegian Professional Council for Education and Certification of Inspectors for Surface Treatment (FROSIO) acts through
formulation of quality demands for surface treatment in accordance with the Norwegian Standard NS476.
FROSIO deals only with examination and certification, not training. A number of training bodies are used to deliver the training,
which consists of 80 hours of theoretical and practical training in accordance with NS476 as the syllabus.
There are three levels of qualification, with no experience required for Level 1 (white certificate). Level 2 (green certificate)
candidates must have two years of experience, and Level 3 (red certificate) candidates must have five years of experience, two of
which are to be documented inspection practice. Certification at Level 1 and 2 is achieved by examination. Level 3 is achieved by
Level 2 plus documented evidence.
• TWI CSWIP & BGAS
The Welding Institute (TWI) is a worldwide organization and a reputable expert in welding techniques, training, testing, investigation,
and related areas. TWI has a Painting Inspector training scheme that consists of three levels, Grades 3, 2, and 1. No pre-requisites
are required for Grade 3, and candidates must have obtained Grades 3 and 2 to attempt Grade 1. Grade 1 is an advanced
qualification that specifically deals with offshore practices. The scheme was initially developed for personnel wanting to work for
British Gas only and, thereafter, other clients and locations as well.
Table 1 represents the various levels between the main global training schemes for coating inspectors. The writer recommends that
a light Internet reading on the various schemes and levels should be conducted before specifying one or all.
TABLE 1
Levels in Main Global Training Screens
ICorr SSPC NACE FROSIO TWI CSWIP & BGAS
Level 1 Level 1-Basic Level 1 Level 1-White Grade 3
Level 2 Level 2-Certified Level 2 Level 2-Green Grade 2
Level 3 Level 3-Certified Level 3 Level 3-Red Grade 1

Peer Review
All of the above training schemes have one thing in common—no experience is required for a candidate to attempt the first level of
the scheme. One scheme provider states, “No formal entry qualifications required, but knowledge of dry abrasive blast cleaning or
industrial paint application techniques would be advantageous.” Some of the above schemes do not issue ‘certification’ for the entry
Level, so it is worth checking on the specific scheme and type of certification. It is important to specify the scheme along with the
required Level, e.g., NACE CIP Level 2, not just NACE CIP.
Unless specifically requested, the trained coating inspector, regardless of the training scheme, should:
 observe the work,
 assess the work,
 document the work, and
 report the work.
All of the above tasks should be conducted in accordance with the contract Inspection Test Plan.
This author is not averse to new recruits entering the coatings industry. However, in the age of new and sophisticated coatings,
high-risk projects, and customer reliance on technical advice from the ‘coatings inspector,’ the question arises about whether a
newly trained and qualified coatings inspector, who has possibly never been involved in the protective coatings industry, is a
suitable choice, given the potential exposure to extreme environments and the probability of working with contractors who have vast
experience in most types of surface treatments and protective coatings.
It is clear that there is a difference between highly experienced individuals who are acting almost as consultants to their customers,
and trained but inexperienced inspectors who should be regarded as quality control technicians and perhaps no more. Customers
should be, and are often not, aware that the provision of detailed technical advice is not appropriate for novice inspectors.
The question of comparing qualification levels from scheme to scheme is often raised and debated. It would not be politically correct
for this writer to give views on the schemes and what the equivalence between levels is. However, this writer would recommend that
the specifier review the syllabuses of the different schemes, the recommended experience required per level, and the type of
examinations to select the scheme best suited to a particular contract.
ISO Standard
An ISO standard for the qualification or certification for inspectors is under review. Certain European countries have expressed a
desire to certify inspectors who could then work in other countries, with that certificate being accepted by all other countries. What
the standard should be has not been defined, e.g., guidelines, qualifications, certification, or minimum course requirements.
Because no agreement could be reached at the initial meeting and in order to report back to TC35/SC14, it was agreed to send out
a questionnaire to national mirror committees for their views. The discussions were planned to continue when the questionnaires
were complete; however, it may be some time before an agreement is reached on what the ISO standard should address.
Online Training
A recent change in the training of coating inspectors is with the use of online training through the Internet (Fig. 1). There are
potential advantages and disadvantages with online training.
Fig. 1:
Typical
page in a
web-based
training
program.
Courtesy
of the
author
Here are three significant advantages:
 training can be conducted at any time to suit the student;
 training is conducted at home or work, so there are no hotel bills or expenses; and
 the training is updated easily and can be used as an ongoing source of information.
Here are two significant disadvantages:
 the instructor has no direct interface with the student; and
 a practical session is still required to cover the use of inspection equipment, etc.
Some of the schemes currently use the Internet for online training, and this approach to training is expected to increase dramatically
over the next few years. One paint company is using online training to educate and qualify over 600 staff.
There is no doubt the use of online training will increase. A balance of online training and practical training before examinations is
the recommended process. This will ensure that students are able to train with and demonstrate on the inspection equipment.
Minimal industrial experience is essential for the online training. Online use for general corrosion education is also set to significantly
increase in the coming years.
Ongoing Technology
Technology is forever changing in the coatings Industry. Standards are amended and updated at specific anniversaries (Fig. 2). Re-
certification of coating Inspectors usually consists of a CV, a possible questionnaire, and fees. The writer believes that coating
inspectors should
12. ISO’s Standard for Field Joint Coating: Understanding and Using ISO 21809-3
From JPCL, July 2012
Marcel Roche
Marcel Roche, recently retired from Total in France, is the Project Leader of the ISO Task Group for Pipeline Field Joint Coatings. He has written
for JPCL and other publications, and he has presented papers at industry conferences.
Quality-
control
measurem
ents can
play a key
role in
ensuring
proper
surface
preparatio
n,
substrate
moisture,
environme
ntal
conditions
, and
coating
thickness
and
adhesion.
Restoratio
n of the
exterior of
Frank
Lloyd
Wright’s
Solomon
R.
Guggenhei
m
Museum,
shown
here, was
a subject
of a
feature
story in
Journal of
Architectu
ral
Coatings
(now D+D)
in 2009.
Photo by
David
Fig. 3:
Corrosive
loading
regimes
(drawing
modified
from IMO,
London).
SeeTable
1 for
detailed
description
Closer examination of the failed samples indicated that the coatings cracked at particular edge locations. These locations were not
identical to the locations with lowest DFT, as can be seen inFig. 2. It is, from this point of view, questionable to define a particular
DFT as a sole guarantee for a good edge protection performance of coating systems in water ballast tanks. It rather seems to be the
response of coating systems to stresses generated due to thermal, physical, or aqueous stresses. This preliminary result would
support the approach to develop reinforced organic coating systems for this application.3,4
Edge Protection Coating Deterioration—Local Corrosivity

As can be seen in Fig. 3, the corrosive stress on the samples in the IMO wave chamber will depend upon the exact location of the
samples. Results of anti-corrosion effect (AE)-assessments (see reference 1 for how to assess AE) are given in Fig. 4.
The results are also summarized in Table 1 in terms of arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the anticorrosive effect numbers
shown in Fig. 5 for the individual zones.
The average edge corrosion protection performance of the coatings was lowest in the cyclically immersed zone #4, followed by the
thermally and cyclically loaded zones #1 and #2. The best performance was noted for the cyclically splashed zone #3. This zone
also showed the least standard deviation among all four chamber locations. This result looks surprising because experience from
offshore structures has shown that the corrosivity in terms of mass loss on steel due to corrosion is most severe in the splash zone
of the structures.5
However, two notable differences should be considered. First, in the present study, coating deterioration—not steel corrosion—was
evaluated. Second, the immersion was performed cyclically in the present study, and thermal effects were added in the other two
zones. Worthy of note is the high standard deviation in the very corrosive zone #1. In this zone, performance was very sensitive to
the effect of edge preparation and coating application, while changes in treatment and paint material were much less influential in
zone #3. Regarding the treatment method, it can be shown that the effect on the coating performance also depended on the position
in the test tank. The use of a plasma beam for generating a 1-mm edge, for example, led to very good corrosion protection
performance of the “Edge” coating in zone #2, whereas the plasma-treated samples did not perform very well in zone #1.
The same finding can be applied to edge radius effects. The 1-mm edge, covered with a conventional water ballast tank coating, did
not provide good corrosion protection in zone #4 but gave good results in zone #1, confirming that position in the test chamber, i.e.,
corrosivity of the environment, was the governing factor.
Fig. 4:
Results of
the AE
assessme
nt
procedure
(circled
numbers
correspon
d toFig. 1).
a=①;b=
②;c=
④;d=
③;
“Conv” =
standard
BWT
coating
system;
“Edge” =
edge
retentive
coating
system
TABLE 1
Corrosive Loading Regimes
Situation / Loading regime Arithmetic Standard

(zone 1) mean AE deviation AE
① Heated for 12 hrs to 50°C 49 18

Cooled down for 12 hrs to 20°C
Cyclically splashed
② Temperature gradient of 20°C 52 13

Splashed
③ Cyclically splashed 61 9
④ Cyclically immersed 45 14
Discussion
The specific hypotheses raised at the start of the project are discussed below in light of the testing carried out.
Hypothesis (i)
The effect of the different edge radii (1 mm, 2 mm), either on the DFT or on the parameter EC (edge coverage), was not statistically
significant. A major reason was that the measurement of only one DFT value over the edge could not represent the entire edge
geometry. Values for DFT varied notably in either direction of the edge. Examples are shown in Fig. 2, where DFT values over an
edge length of 10 cm are presented. Edge radius may be considered a local geometry parameter, and it does not characterize the
real situation at the edge. The definition of a global edge radius criterion cannot guarantee a definite DFT.
Cracks and coating failures do not necessarily originate at locations with low DFT. This is verified in Fig. 2. Cracks are a result of
unfavorable internal stress conditions. Swelling due to water absorption may be one reason. If the crack, or the local failure,
develops, the coating starts to deteriorate, and substrate corrosion is introduced.
Hypothesis (ii)
Edge preparation method and coating system both had statistically significant effects on the DFT over edges. Therefore, for a given
coating system, DFT is more dependent on edge treatment method and not on edge radius. Edge radius effects were not relevant;
the statistical significances were very weak. Further, for a given edge radius, the coating system would determine DFT. However,
DFT is not the target parameter, but corrosion protection performance is the target parameter. A definite unique relationship
between DFT and corrosion protection performance could not be established.
Fig. 5:
Results of
DFT
measurem
ents along
edges (on
polished
cross
sections)
Upper
image:
cross
section (2
cm) with
measurem
ent
positions;
lower
graph:
Results
Hypothesis (iii)
Numerous features of the coating application process, such as temperature, stripe coat application, brush condition, spraying
process, and paint condition, affect the process and lead to variations. Surface preparation parameters, for example, cleanliness
and local roughness, will also affect both DFT and corrosion protection performance of the coating systems. Because the statistical
effects of the parameters varied in this study were not in general significant, it can be assumed that strong effects due to surface
preparation and coating application parameters mask the influence of other effects. This particular statement, however, needs to be
statistically verified.
Hypothesis (iv)
In terms of project time, three test cycles were carried out. The samples for the first test cycle were prepared with thermal tools that
were not optimized for edge rounding processes. The samples for the third test cycle, however, were prepared with optimized
thermal tools. The project partners responsible for the development improved the performance of these tools. Results of the
corrosion protection performance tests, based on the IMO wave tank tests, are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that CO2 laser
profiling was among the worst performing methods for the first test cycle, but, after optimization, became the best performing edge
treatment method for the last test cycle. These results clearly show that individual process parameters of the edge treatment
methods have notable effects on the corrosion protection performance of organic coating systems applied to edges.
TABLE 2
Results of IMO Wave Tank Tests (Ranking Based on AE Assessment)
Cycle First Third
Ranking 1. Plasma Milling 1. CO2 laser

(Best to worst)
2. Untreated 2. Plasma 3-pass grinding Milling Solid-state laser
3. CO2 laser Solid-state laser Grinding 3. Untreated
Summary
The prescription of a particular edge geometry parameter does not help to control the corrosion protection performance of organic
coatings under simulated water ballast tank conditions. Other effects—edge treatment method/tool and coating application—are
more important. It seems that DFT, or barrier resistance, is not a suitable parameter to control the deterioration of the coating
systems, nor does it control their corrosion protection capability. More complex processes, such as combined mechanical, physical,
and thermal loads, are responsible for the corrosion protection action of the systems.
Acknowledgements
The program was part of the national R D project “BEKAS.” This project was funded by the Federal Ministry of Economics and
Technology (BMWi), Germany. Project partners were the following institutions: Center of Maritime Technologies e.V., Fraunhofer
AGP Rostock, Fraunhofer IFAM Bremen, IMAWIS GmbH, and SLV Mecklenburg-Vorpommern GmbH. Associated partners involved
in the project included the following: DNV Germany GmbH, Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft mbH, Meyer Werft GmbH, Peene
Werft GmbH, TKMS Blohm+Voss Nordseewerke GmbH, and Wadan Yards. All photographs and drawings are courtesy of IFAM,
Bremen, and Muehlhan AG, Hamburg.
About the Authors

Dr. Andreas W. Momber is the head of research and development for Muehlhan AG in Hamburg Germany.
Editor’s Note: This article, by Dr. Andreas Momber and his strong team of co-authors, is part of the series of Top Thinker articles
appearing in JPCLthroughout 2012. Dr. Momber is one of 24 recipients of JPCL’s 2012 Top Thinkers: The Clive Hare Honors,
given for significant contributions to the protective coatings industry over the past decade. The award is named for Clive Hare, a
20-year contributor to JPCL who shared his encyclopedic knowledge of coatings in many forums. Professional profiles of all of the
award winners, as well as an article by Clive Hare, will appear in a special 13th issue of JPCL, to be published in August 2012.
This article is based on a paper from SSPC 2011, the onference of SSPC: The Society of Protective Coatings. The original
appears in the conference proceedings (www.sspc.org).
REFERENCES
1. S. Buchbach, P. Plagemann, A.W. Momber . “Laboratory investigations into the edge protection of organic

coatings,” PACE Conference and Exhibition 2010, Phoenix, AZ, USA, January 2010.
2. M. Anders, K.H. Henkel, M.C. Wanner M.-C . “Untersuchung zur Kantenbearbeitung an Schiffbaustahl mittels
Plasmaverfahren,” DVS-Berichte, Bd. 250, Düsseldorf, pp. 384-390, 2008.
3. T.L. Pedersen, C.K. Jensen . “Fiber reinforced crack resistant coatings for ballast tanks,” Paper No. 06038,
NACE Corrosion 2006, San Diego, CA, USA, March 2006.
15.SSPC Gives Guidance on Protective Coating Specifications

For many decades, some owners and engineers have considered protective coatings as “incidental” work not requiring any
specialized expertise. With the changes that have occurred in protective coatings in the past 60+ years, treating coatings as
incidental work can produce costly errors.
Up until the designation of hazardous materials in paint, it was common for owners to allow contractors to scrape these materials
and paint with primers. The replacement coatings are much more complicated, and there is less room for error in using high-
performance industrial coatings today.
The purpose of the report is to describe some best practices for preparing and administering a quality specification for application of
high-performance protective coatings and linings to industrial structures. The report focuses on developing an appropriate set of
requirements for applying coatings and linings.
All parties involved in coating contracts can benefit from the information presented in the report, but the primary audience includes
public and private facility owners, coating program managers and engineers, and architecture-engineering firms responsible for
preparing coatings specifications for clients.
The report does not cover the formatting of the specification document or contract language intended to manage risk. Also, the
document does not provide legal advice.
Part 1: The Contracting Environment

Part I describes the contract environment and outlines tools that the specification developer (designer) can use to develop
specifications.
Types of Coating and Lining Contracts

A coating specification is the part of a coating contract that details the qualitative and quantitative requirements of the process and
finished product. There are many types and variations of contracts used in the construction industry. The report focuses on the
specifications for competitively bid contracts, or “low bid” contracts. The report is also applicable to other contracts, but some
tailoring of the requirements discussed may be necessary.
Creating a Level Playing Field

The competitive bidding process is generally thought by public agencies to be the most equitable way to distribute public contracting
funds. Competitive bidding is only competitive, however, when the entire process is fair to all potential bidders. Designing a good
specification can help work toward achieving a more equitable contracting environment. A level playing field encourages contractors
to be more efficient in all aspects of planning and executing work.
SSPC
holds
classes
around the
world on
good
practice in
all aspects
of
coatings
projects.
Photos on
pp. 63 and
64 are
from
recently
held
courses.
Photos
courtesy
of SSPC.
Identifying and addressing the root causes of competitive bidding problems and writing a specification to close gaps and potential
loopholes will most likely enhance project success as well as restore confidence in the competitive bidding process.
Roles of the Contracting Parties
The agreement between the facility owner and the contractor is typically one in which the contractor will perform the specified
requirements, and the owner will pay the contract price.
The Owner: The owner should develop a complete and unambiguous description of the work, enforce and manage the project
requirements, and coordinate actions. The design must be accurate and complete so that contractors can properly estimate the cost
of full contract conformance. Developing a good specification reduces the chance of getting wildly low bids.
The designer’s chief responsibility is to establish and convey project requirements in the specification. With a well-written and
executed specification, the owner is much more likely to receive the desired product. However, if the specification is weak, vague,
ambiguous or incomplete, the owner may encounter problems such as unrealistically high or low bids, bids from unqualified
contractors, costly change orders for additional work, costly delays resulting from disputes, costly litigation, and defaulted contracts.
SSPC supports owners hiring qualified coating specialists or having persons become qualified through SSPC, NACE, and other
industry programs. More information about the SSPC Protective Coatings Specialist (PCS) Program can be found
here: www.sspc.org/Protective-Coatings-Specialist-PCSProgram/. In addition, JPCL/PaintSquare maintains a list of coating industry
consultants.
The Contractor and Subcontractors: The contractor is responsible for planning, scheduling, and producing work that conforms to
all contract requirements. The contractor is also required to provide objective evidence of conformity (documentation) of completed
work to project requirements.
When a subcontractor is used for specialized work such as coating, the prime contractor must provide documentation that the
qualifications of the coating subcontractor are equal to those of the prime contractor, or as specified.
The full report discusses steps that the contractor can take to clarify any vagueness in requirements.
The Inspector: The owner may or may not specify qualifications for the contractor’s inspectors and may or may not hire Quality
Assurance (QA) inspectors to monitor the contractor’s Quality Control (QC)/QA inspection and documentation.
Inspectors must verify that the work meets all specification requirements. Inspectors are expected to provide honest, unbiased data
in reporting of tests and observations that are specified for determining conformance of the work.
Legal Concerns in Coating Contracts

Because coating contracts are legal documents, it is important to consider various legal concerns when writing the specification and
drawing up the contract. The full report provides a suggested list of items that a contracts attorney should pay special attention to
when reviewing the final contract.
A well-written specification should eliminate or minimize issues such as contract deviations (often called variances), differing site
conditions (site variations), and nonconformities.
The owner should have expectations from the contractor concerning the work to be accomplished. The most important expectation
is that only work conforming to the specification will be tendered. The report provides more specific expectations of contractors
obligated to a QMS.
Part II: Items Commonly Required in Coating Specifications

Part II lists key elements of the specification and describes their functions.
Coordination Requirements
To be fully effective, the technical specifications must be coordinated with the owner’s “front-end” documents, as well as the general
requirements for each project. The front-end documents (e.g., General Conditions, Additional General Conditions, Special
Conditions, etc.) establish the legal contracting environment.
Foundation of the Specification

Coating specifications can be very complex documents, even without considering the thousands of seemingly mundane issues that
are encountered on every project. The coating industry has covered many of these issues for coating of industrial steel structures in
SSPC-PA 1, “Shop, Field, and Maintenance Printing of Steel.” Each coating specification for steel structures should start with SSPC
PA 1 as the foundation and be modified as needed to create a complete specification that gives both the contract administrator and
the contractor a complete description of requirements. SSPC-PA 7 should be used for concrete structures.
Key Elements
Scope of Project: Specifications should have introductions that describe the general scope of the project to prospective bidders.
Enough information should be presented in the scope section to permit potential bidders to determine whether they are interested in
investigating the proposed project further.
The specification must define all of the areas that are to be coated and all of the areas that are not to be coated.
The Site: The owner must provide contractor personnel with access to the work site. Sufficient area should be provided for the
contractor to store required equipment and materials.
Bidders should identify discrepancies they find prior to submitting bids, but a reasonable alternative is to require the contractor to
advise the contract administrator of any discrepancies within a reasonable time after contract award. The project site condition
should be fully described including any environmental limitations or other conditions that might affect project work.
References/Applicable Documents: A reference section of the specification should provide a listing of all documents cited in the
specification and no others. There should be a section detailing the precedence of documents in the event of a conflict. In addition to
SSPC, technical organizations that provide standards and other guidance relevant to coating projects include ASTM, API, AWWA,
FHWA, NACE, and NSF.
A section should include definitions of all words and terms used in the specification that are not universally understood. Because
they are more widely used in the coatings industry, industry standard definitions such as those in SSPC’s Protective Coatings
Glossary are normally preferred to those of governmental organizations.
Submittals: Submittals are the required documents, information, or products (samples) for owner or designer review to assure
conformity with the specification. Paint submittals are typically required to ensure the contractor is intending to use the specified
products in accord with the manufacturer’s recommendations and the specifications.
A submittal section requires the contractor to regulate the timely flow of materials and documents used on the project and ensure
their compliance with specification requirements.
Safety and Health Plans: SSPC-PA Guide 10, “Guide to Safety and Health Requirements for Industrial Painting Projects,” provides
guidance for specifying safety and health requirements for contractors. SSPC-Guide 17, “Guide to Developing a Corporate Safety
Program for Industrial Painting and Coating Contractors,” is also usable by owners to evaluate contractors’ safety programs.
Work Plan, Process Control Procedures (PCPs), etc.: A Work Plan is a written document containing a list of all actions and
procedures, assembled to describe all steps necessary for the contractor to produce a finished product conforming to all
specification requirements. The Work Plan requirements of the specification into a series of steps for field implementation.
Quality Assurance: A quality assurance section of the specification includes prerequisites, standards, limitations, and criteria that
define the quality for products and work.
Qualifications and certification statements may be requested to establish the capabilities of the contractor and those employed or
utilized by the contractor. SSPC-QP 1 can help assess a contractor’s ability to complete the project work in a satisfactory and timely
manner. Additional certifications (e.g., SSPC-QP 2) may be required for special projects, and SSPC offers additional industry-
specific contractor Quality Management Certifications for specialty applications such as Shop Coating (QP 3), Metallizing (QP 6),
and Coating of Concrete (QP 8).
The coatings industry has multiple certification programs for coating inspection personnel and coating inspection companies. It is
recommended that these certifications be used on coating projects (e.g., NACE CIP or SSPC equivalent for inspectors or SSPC-QP
5 for coating inspection companies).
Delivery and Storage of Materials and Equipment: The specification should contain a section with special requirements for
packing and shipping products, equipment, and their components, along with special storage, handling, and disposal requirements.
An emergency action plan should be in place to respond to accidents involving hazardous materials as well as an OSHA-approved
plan for collecting, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste.
Specified Type and Size Range of Abrasives: The specified abrasives should be tested by the referenced test methods, e.g.,
SSPC-AB 1, for conformance to specification before use.
Kits and Equipment for Testing: Equipment necessary for testing for surface cleanliness, profile, and coating thickness must be
available at the work site. The specific parameters and test requirements must be included in the specification if the owner/designer
expects those tests to be performed.
Specified Types of Coating Materials: A materials section of the specification lists the coating materials to be used on the project.
Occasionally, public works projects require the allowance of an “or equal” clause if a particular product or manufacturer is
referenced. Criteria should be specified for determining acceptability of “or equal” submissions. There are specific legal
requirements to be met if public owners want to try to “sole source” or limit the paint products.
The VOC content of coating materials is controlled in most U.S. locations. If commercial products are specified, their colors should
be selected from the manufacturer’s list of available colors. Upon delivery, the coating materials must be identified as those
specified and as having sufficient shelf life to complete the project.
Acceptable Ambient Conditions: A section of the specification should list acceptable ambient conditions for surface preparation
and coating application and curing or at least require the products to be applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations (as prescribed in SSPC Technical Insight Report on “Monitoring and Controlling Ambient Conditions During
Coating Operations”).
Cleaning Surfaces: The report describes the required pre-cleaning actions (e.g., grinding of welds and sharp edges) before the
actual surface preparation for coating. It also describes the required levels of pre-cleaning.
Abrasive blast cleaning is the most commonly specified surface preparation method for cleaning industrial steel surfaces for coating.
Any required special equipment or procedures should be specified along with the required level of cleaning and profiling.
Coating Application: An application section of the specification specifies acceptable methods that may be used to apply the
specified materials. Manufacturers’ product or technical data sheets are commonly required to provide recommended procedures for
application for specific coatings. Application concerns are listed in the document.
Inspection and Documentation Requirements: Project documentation, including inspection and testing records, should be used
to determine the contractor’s compliance with specification requirements and approved procedures.
A list of action items needing completion is prepared before a final inspection to ensure that all work is complete and ready for the
final acceptance by the owner.
Warranty: The warranty section of the specification requires that the materials and equipment be new and of good quality, the work
be free from defects, and the work conforms to all contract documents. Warranties for coating work are typically for one year after
acceptance of the work.
Editor’s Note: The following is a summary of an SSPC report on Preparing and Using Protective Coating Specifications.
The article attempts to highlight the main points of the report but does not represent all information that SSPC has
provided to write a coating specification. The total report consists of two parts, which are summarized here, and four
appendices, which are not summarized. The subject of this article, “Preparing and Using Protective Coating
Specifications,” is available at no charge to SSPC members and facility owners. SSPC members can go
towww.sspc.org/market-place/technical-insight-reports to download the report. Non-member facility owners can request a
copy from Michael Damiano,damiano@sspc.org.
16. On the cleanliness of stainless steel
How can I determine the cleanliness of stainless steel for painting after blast cleaning?
From David Lemke
Team Industries
Because we are discussing only a stainless steel substrate, I will refer to only the relevant portion of SSPC-SP 16, “Brush-Off Blast
Cleaning of Coated and Uncoated Galvanized Steel, Stainless Steels, and Non-Ferrous Metals.”
The stainless substrate should be tested for chlorides first (if suspected or if the specification requires the testing) to determine the
type of SSPC-SP 1 to perform. Solvent and alkaline cleaners are covered in SP 1, but chlorinated solvents cannot be used for
solvent cleaning on stainless steel. Also, solvents won’t remove any chloride.
Once the substrate is cleaned, and rinsed if detergents were used, the substrate is ready to be abrasive-blasted. SSPC-SP 16 does
not cover what type of abrasive to use, but if something is made of stainless steel, I wouldn’t think you would want to use steel grit
and risk problems with steel embedded in stainless. (Steel embedded in stainless creates a bi-metallic corrosion cell. When the
stainless is coated, the corrosion cell becomes a point of weakness, leading to poor adhesion.)
We have used garnet, which seems to be the preferred choice; however, aluminum oxide, glass beads, or stainless steel grit can
also be considered. But if the possibility of having carbon steel residue deposits embedded in your stainless steel isn’t an issue, you
could use steel grit.
SSPC-SP 16 does state that a minimum profile of 0.75 mil has to be achieved. After removing the dust from blasting, you could do
an ISO 8502-3 Dust Assessment (tape test) to determine the cleanliness of the substrate. Magnification at 10X is associated with
ISO 8502-3, but the SSPC abrasive specification calls for the surface to be free of contaminants without the use of magnification. So
do the tape test, and if you cannot see debris without magnification, the stainless steel should be ready to coat.
From Dwie Hermanto

IPI
I think the best first step is SSPC-SP 1, Solvent Cleaning, and high-pressure, fresh water washing or steam to remove all
contamination. Then, the surface should be abraded, followed by fresh water wash or steam cleaning. Finally, the chloride levels
should be checked. If they are acceptable, proceed to painting.
From Trevor Neale

Blastech Corporation
I submit that the current SSPC surface preparation specifications do not adequately address preparing stainless steel. Following
specification of the essential thorough cleaning, the blast media and profile should be specified in detail. Generally, it is preferable to
use only extremely hard mineral abrasives such as aluminum oxide or garnet of suitable particle size to achieve the required profile
and density for the coating system being applied.
From R.K. Singh

Chemdale Coatings Pvt Ltd.
Blasting stainless steel should be avoided. Cleaning with chloride-free solvents, pickling, and passivation with chromic or phosphoric
acid will form a thin adhesive layer for paint to adhere.
Editor’s Note: The above Problem Solving Forum (PSF) question was posted on the free daily electronic newsletter,
PaintSquare News (PSN), on behalf of JPCL. PSF responses submitted through PSN as well as those sent directly
to JPCL are selected and edited to conform to JPCL style and space limitations. Send questions and answers to Karen
Kapsanis, editor, JPCL, kkapsanis@protectiveco
17.When specifications and product data sheets conflict

From JPCL, October 2011
When Specifications and Product Data Sheets Conflict
How should a conflict between requirements, such as film thickness, on a product data sheet and the
specification be resolved?
From Simon Hope
BIS Salamis (M&I)
This is an eternal debate! For a contractor, it is always difficult to know which way to go to resolve the problem. However, because
warranties will be involved, it is advisable to resolve any discrepancies at the bidding stage of the contract.
If there is a major and obvious error in the specification, the error should be brought up as a “Technical Query” to the client, and, if
possible, supported by evidence from the coating manufacturer so that all parties are aware of the discrepancy. At the end of the
day, both the coating manufacturer and the contractor will be expected to hold some form of warranty on the job done, so it is
essential that the work is done in line with the manufacturer’s guidelines on its technical data sheet.
Divergence from the technical data sheet should be done only with the manufacturer’s express permission in writing and verification
that the warranty terms will not be compromised. A properly conducted bidding process, in which both commercial and technical
personnel are involved, should not, on the whole, allow these discrepanies to occur. But at the end of the day, should a discrepancy
occur, there should first be discussions between all three parties to iron out an agreement that satisfies all requirements. Usually,
this agreement involves the warranty, which is invariably dictated by the coating manufacturer and its product data sheets.
Manufactuers will walk away from a failure if there has been any unauthorized deviation.
William Slama
International Paint/Ceilcote Products
We have seen instances in which the specifying engineer has included coating or lining thicknesses that were not consistent with
the manufacturer’s most recent specifications. This inconsistency has resulted from the use of obsolete information or “casual”
information from other documents. It should be understood that the manufacturer’s latest specifications, product data sheets, and
product installation procedure documents should be accepted for spec revision. Aside from the technical correctness of the
manufacturer’s most current documents, warranty issues may also result from incorrect thickness specifications.
Sometimes articles or promotional literature may list nominal or “typical” thicknesses, whereas manufacturers carefully establish
specified thickness ranges and targets so that the thicknesses can reasonably be attained by paint crews who have adequate
training and experience with applying the product type. This is especially significant for application methods other than spray, such
as trowel, squeege, etc. The basic premise is that the manufacturer has established the thickness ranges for the best coating or
lining performance and practicality of application.
From Joseph Brandon

QualityFirst Consultants LLC
There are many reasons how and why a coating specification may conflict with manufacturer recommendations, best practices, and
related issues. Such conflicts need to be resolved by the owner’s engineer at the earliest feasible time to prevent an adverse impact
on planning, production, or both. A discrepancy in dft and any other detected conflicts should be communicated to the owner using a
Request for Information (RFI) or other established process.
From Lee Edelman

Consultant
During the pre-job meeting, these conflicts should be resolved. All parties should attend the pre-job meeting. At the meeting, the
owner and coating manufacturer should decide on the correct film thickness for the specification. The owner’s specification
supercedes the manufacturer’s data, but this does not mean the specification is always right. The manufacturer’s data tells the
minimum and maximum coating thicknesses. This information should not be overlooked.
All parties should review the steps for surface prep, anchor profile, and coating selection to make sure all elements of the system
are compatible before the project starts. Always request a pre-job meeting.
Editor’s Note: The above Problem Solving Forum (PSF) question was posted on the free daily electronic newsletter,
PaintSquare News (PSN), on behalf of JPCL. PSF responses submitted through PSN as well as those sent directly
to JPCL are selected and edited to conform to JPCL style and space limitations. JPCL invites additional responses to the
question; you may send your answer directly to Karen Kapsanis, editor, JPCL, kkapsanis@protectivecoatings.com.
18.On measuring WFT to predict DFT

From JPCL, May 2011
James Prevatt
Asset Preservation Partners
Zinc-rich coatings, both organic and inorganic, have larger particle sizes and will not shrink like conventional coatings. The amount
of shrinkage will vary with the change of particle size of zinc. Apply a gallon to the prescribed sq. ft. area (e.g., 200 sq. ft. per
gallon), carefully noting the WFT. Once dry, measure the DFT, and you can estimate the true shrink of the coating from solvent
evaporation. It should be around 60-80% of a normal shrinkage. It is best to know in a shop situation to be sure on your estimate
of usage.
Tom Swan
M-TEST
The best way to measure the thickness of a zinc-rich coating before it dries completely is to put a shim of known thickness on the
zinc coating, and use a DFT gauge to measure the thickness of the coating. Then, subtract the thickness of the shim, and you
should have a pretty good estimate of the thickness of the coating. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best you will do. I haven’t
tried it with organic zinc coatings, but it works reasonably well with inorganic zincs.
Lee Edelman
CW Technical Service
Organic zinc-rich primers are designed for ferrous metals and are formulated to dry fast. The spread rate is based upon volume of
solids. Most organic zinc-rich primers have product data sheets that recommend WFT be checked, but the accuracy of WFT
testing of these materials is questionable. Care should be taken not to apply heavy film build during the application process. Take
several WFT measurements to get an overall average. Organic zinc-rich primers are porous.
Richard D. Souza
Stoncor Middle East LLC
Shop-applied organic zinc primers dry too quickly to take meaningful WFT measurements; therefore, it is always advisable to
prepare different sample plates with a varying number of passes and to take DFT readings on the plates once the coating is fully
cured or on overnight curing. This way, the operator knows how many passes he should spray to achieve the desired DFT. The
thinning percentage and tip size should remain the same, and best practice is to carry out such test panels with different sprayers
and spray stations to keep variable to a minimum.
Guru Sankar
Sathya Hitec Solutions
By using the conventional WFT gauge, we can arrive at two calibration graphs. In the first one, we can maintain the same blast
profile, and by varying the coverage of the organic zinc rich coating, we can get the first graph. In the second one, we can maintain
that the coverage is the same, and by varying the blast profile, we can get a second graph. Through experience in correlating
these two graphs, we can predict the DFT from the WFT measurements.
Larry Muzia
Exceletech LLC
The difficulty in obtaining accurate wet film readings with zinc-filled coatings is that the metallic zinc particles can pack under the
outer edges of the gage and create a false bottom, so to speak. Remember, we have a metal-filled product, which will not always
move out from under the wet film gage edges, thereby not allowing the gage to properly seat on the steel member. Rapid drying is
another issue to consider, especially with inorganic zincs. Taking several immediate wet film readings and the application by a
professional applicator can help achieve a responsible procedure to achieve the necessary results. Although organic zincs are
more tolerant of excessive DFT than iozincs, more is not always better. Also, remember to account for magnetic base plane when
verifying the DFT gage.
John Fletcher
Elcometer Limited
The measurement of wet film is a very simple process that is described in ASTM D4414 Method A and ISO 2808-1A.
The principle of the measurement is that a series of notches are cut into the side or edge of the comb to form a series of teeth that
have known distances from the reference shoulders formed at either end of the notches. The notches are pushed into the freshly
applied, and still wet, coating until the shoulders are against the substrate. The WFT will be between the thickness value of the
highest tooth coated with the film and the lowest tooth that is left uncoated.
The DFT is calculated from the wet to dry ratio for the paint, which is normally quoted in the paint manufacturer’s data sheet, as a
percentage solids value.
DFT=WFT x Percentage solids for the coating
For example, if the coating has a wet to dry ratio of 2:1, this means that the volume solids will be 50%, and for a WFT of 120 μm
the DFT will be 50% or 60 μm.
There are three reasons why the wet film comb does not allow the DFT to be calculated accurately: the wet film comb is damaged;
the wet film comb is not being used correctly; or the paint has additional (unmeasured) thinners added, which are not reflected in
the wet to dry ratio quoted for the paint. It should be possible to determine if the wet film comb is damaged by inspection.
ASTM D 4414 gives some guidance on the possible misuse of the wet film comb. The document recommends that the
assessment of the WFT is determined at three locations on the item being coated, and the average value used for the DFT
calculation and the range of the readings is noted for the report. Some coatings may not wet the comb; however, the film on the
item will show which teeth contacted the film and which did not. The wet film comb may slip on the surface, and such readings
should be ignored. The surface being measured may not be flat, and this may cause false readings on the comb.
If wet film measurement with more resolution is required, then the wet film wheel should be considered. The method for the use of
the wet film wheel is described in ASTM D 1212 Method A and in ISO 2808-1B.
The wet film wheel consist of three rims, two concentric outer rims, one of which carries the scale, and an eccentric inner rim
ground to follow the distances marked on the outer rim. The wheel is rolled through the wet film for a complete revolution and the
WFT read off where the film finishes on the inner rim. The DFT is calculated in the same way as for the wet film comb.
The advantage of the wet film wheel is that the scale is continuous, by comparison with the wet film comb, and by rolling the wheel
for one complete revolution, any surface tension effect can be averaged out by calculating the average of the two readings.
Antonio Tolotto
Boat S.P.A.
Zinc silicate shop primers are inorganic, rust preventive coatings used mainly in the shipbuilding industry. These products must
have excellent welding and cutting properties and are required to present no health hazard to the welder. They must be in
accordance with IMO Resolution MSC.215(82) and have to be approved by the IACS Classification Societies that fix the
acceptable thickness at which they can be applied without interfering with welding performances.
According to the technical data sheets of the main producers, zinc silicate shop primers are currently applied at 15 microns DFT,
with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 25-30 microns DFT. The roughness of a shot blasted surface is recommended from 30-
75 microns (Rz). The recommended application method is airless spray in automatic plants. It is impossible to check the right
thickness (wet or dry) of the shop primer with traditional methods.
The roughness of the plate plays a dominant role, because surface profile will affect the coating thickness value displayed by the
testing gauge. Roughness will vary from part to part and cause the instrument to overstate the true thickness of the coating.
Additionally, shop primers are typically coatings that dry quickly, following the surface profile, because they must also protect the
peaks of the shot-blasted surface (15 microns DFT must protect 75 microns!).
By the way, there is a method to check the exact thickness of the paint applied. This method uses a perfectly flat plate (10×50 cm)
of steel fixed to a shot-blasted surface just before the plate enters the painting plant. After the plate dries in a few minutes, collect
the plate and check. The right thickness is the average of 10 measures on the 50 cm length. You obtain a number (for example,
28). This is NOT the real thickness of the paint applied on the shot-blasted plate. This number must be decreased by 30%: 28–
6=22 microns. Twenty-two microns is the right thickness applied on peaks and valleys of the shot-blasted plate. The reason is that
when a flat surface is abrasive blasted, the surface typically increases about 30%.
Editor’s Note: This question was posted on the daily electronic newsletter, PaintSquare News (PSN), on behalf
of JPCL. Responses, including most of the ones here, were received from PSN readers. All answers have been selected and
edited to conform to JPCL’s style and space limitations. To read other Forum questions and responses, click the JPCLProblem
Solving Forum of any issue of PSN. If you would like to receive PSN, visitwww.paintsquare.com.

19.On overcoating existing tank linings
From JPCL, February 2014
When performing maintenance painting of tank linings, what are the pros and cons of overcoating an existing lining that
appears to be in good condition?
From Christian Favennec, DCNS
In my opinion, it is not recommended to apply a new full coat over an old one in a tank, even if it is assumed that the old one is in
good condition.
The only result you will have is to generate new risks of premature failure, including the risk of premature adhesion failure between
the old coats and the new one, and the risk of damaging the old coat by generating mechanical stress during surface preparation,
with the stress generated by the new coat.
In a tank, the only need for application of a new full coat over an old coating assumed to be in good condition is for cosmetic
reasons, generally based on the asking of the customer, and not for technical reasons. If you can assume that the old coating is in
good condition, there is no need to apply a new coat.
Some of the methods to define if the old coating is in good condition include visual inspection for blistering, cracking, flaking, etc.,
and repartition of these defects (localized or scattered); adhesion pull-off tests; thickness testing; and holiday detection.
Generally, on an old coating in a tank, you can detect the porosity by visual inspection. You can also damage the old coat if you use
too high a voltage during holiday detection. If you only have localized defects or less than 10–15% scattered defective areas, it’s
generally better, both technically and economically, to only perform touch-up. If you have more than 15% of scattered defective
areas, I generally suggest completely blasting the old coating and reapplying a new one.
From Tom Selby, Rodda Paint Corporation
The pros, of course, are the savings in time and money from not having to remove and dispose of the existing coatings. The con is
whether or not there is enough adhesion to the substrate and the soundness of all existing coatings on the surface. Prior to making
a decision, adhesion tests should be done. If a sweep blast is done per SSPC-SP 7, then adhesion tests should be done after the
sweep blast to check and see if the adhesion of the old coating system has been compromised in any way.
From William Slama, International Paint/Ceilcote Products
This answer is in regards to internal tank linings and particularly thick, reinforced thermosetting systems. First, one must focus on
the functional challenges to the lining system, simplified here as permeation, direct chemical attack, and mechanical (i.e., abrasion,
etc.) Next, the percentage of intact film area must make the “repair and over-coating” approach worthwhile, as opposed to removal
and reapplication of the same or a different lining system.
Basically, the existing lining system must be judged to have given and to be able to provide good protection in the tank environment
(primarily chemistry and temperature). In those cases, the existing lining damage could be due to application variables or localized
challenges due to cold wall areas or abrasion. The intact lining areas should be assessed for remaining thickness and for through-
adhesion with emphasis on evaluation of underfilm condition of the (steel) surface. If tensile adhesion strength through the film is
acceptable (generally more than 1/3 of a new film), and underfilm corrosion is slight or none, overcoating is a good prospect. We
have seen this in many high-build, reinforced linings that can be expected to have a protective life of 10 to 25 years. In some cases,
localized areas have been compromised and/or the surface layer (top coat) has been severely degraded over many years, but the
underlying lining is still strong and well-bonded. The result has been that localized repair and reapplication of the top coat after
abrasive blasting has resulted in 20-plus years of service without the much higher cost and down time of removal and relining.
Problem Solving Forum questions and answers are published in JPCL and JPCL’s sister publication, PaintSquare News, a
daily electronic newsletter. To subscribe, go topaintsquare.com. Occasionally, PSF questions and answers are republished,
and participants’ company affiliations are listed as they were when the answers were initially submitted.
20.Assuring the quality of abrasives

From JPCL, November 2013
When you clean steel by abrasive blasting, you need to produce a finish that will allow maximum adhesion of the coating.
Thus, you need to create the specified profile and the specified degree of cleanliness, such as SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2, Near-
White, or Sa ½, Very Thorough (ISO 8501-1).
The abrasive itself will affect both the profile and the degree of cleanliness of the steel. To achieve the appropriate profile, you must
use the right size abrasive, and to achieve the specified cleanliness, you must use abrasive that will effectively cut away rust, scale,
old paint, and other contaminants that may be on the surface. You also must be sure that the abrasive is clean, so that it does not
recontaminate the surface. This bulletin deals with assuring the quality of the abrasive you are using. It will explain how to check for
cleanliness, size, and if you are recycling the abrasive, the proper operating mix.
Documents from the Supplier

Your abrasive supplier will have processed the abrasive before selling it to you. This process normally involves cleaning the
abrasive, testing it for chemical content, grading and separating it according to size, drying it, and preparing it for shipment in bags
or bulk units. ISO standard specifications exist for abrasives: the 11124 series covers metallic abrasives, and the 11126 series
covers non-metallic abrasives.
Courtesy
of David
Dorrow,
President,
Mineral
Aggregate
s
When you purchase the abrasive, you will receive a safety data sheet (SDS) describing its chemical makeup and the precautions
you need to take when using it. You can also request documents on sieve analysis and detailed chemical content from a laboratory
analysis. In addition to these assurances from the supplier that the abrasive meets your requirements, there are some simple tests
you can conduct to verify that the abrasive is what you ordered and is acceptable for use.
Abrasive Cleanliness
Abrasive needs to be clean; otherwise, the contaminants on the abrasive will be transferred to the surface being blasted. The most
detrimental contaminants on abrasive are water, oil, grease, and soluble salt levels higher than those allowed. Any of these
contaminants, once transferred to the steel, can cause failure of the coatings applied over them.
One simple way to detect oil and grease is to place a handful of abrasive in a clean glass jar containing clean water. Place a lid on
the jar and shake it vigorously. If a film of oil appears on the surface of the water, then the abrasive is not clean enough to use. This
test is also described in ASTM D7393, Standard Practice for Indicating Oil in Abrasives.
Checking for oil and grease contamination is especially important when you are recycling the abrasive. In this situation, oil and
grease can easily be picked up from the steel surface or from faulty equipment, so it is useful to check for oil and grease at regular
intervals during the blasting-recycling process. ASTM D7393 provides recommended testing frequencies.
This test of abrasive with water in a jar will also let you see how much dust or dirt is in the abrasive. If the water gets very cloudy or if
dust rises to the surface of the water, then the overall cleanliness of the abrasive should be questioned. Excessive dust or fines in
the abrasive means more time cleaning the surface before painting.
Visual inspection should let you determine if the abrasive is dry. Alternatively, ISO 11125-7 gives a method for determining whether
there is moisture in metallic abrasives, and ISO 11127-5 gives the method for non-metallic abrasives. To keep your abrasive supply
dry, make sure that it is stored properly, off the ground, and under shelter. Avoid using abrasive that has been exposed to the
elements because of torn bags, improper storage, or other reasons. Damp or wet abrasive will clog up your blast equipment,
prevent efficient operation, and cause pinpoint rusting on a steel surface.
Detection of salt or other chemical contaminants on the abrasive can be done in the laboratory or with specialized equipment in the
field. If you suspect chemical contamination, you can check for contaminants with litmus paper. The abrasive should be nearly
neutral; that is, it should have a pH of 6–8. If the pH is higher or lower, the abrasive may be chemically contaminated, though a
higher or lower reading is not a definitive indicator.
You can do a conductimetric analysis to check for salt contamination with a minimum amount of equipment in the field. One such
method is described in ASTM D4940, Standard Test Method for Conductimetric Analysis of Water Soluble Ionic Contamination of
Blasting Abrasives. In this test, combine equal amounts by volume (300 ml) of pure water and abrasive, and after agitation, a waiting
period, and further agitation, filter the slurry, and check the water for conductivity with a conductivity meter. This test will let you
know if ionic contaminants (i.e., salts) are on the abrasive. According to ASTM D4940, a typical conductivity value for highly
contaminated abrasive is 500 μmhos/cm, while a typical conductivity value for a low level of contamination is 50 μmhos/cm.
The use of a conductivity meter to check for salts is mentioned in SSPC’s four abrasive specifications: SSPC-AB 1, Mineral and
Slag Abrasives; AB 2, Cleanliness of Recycled Ferrous Metallic Abrasives; AB 3, Ferrous Metallic Abrasive; and AB 4, Recyclable
Encapsulated Abrasive Media. The meter is also referenced in SSPC Guide 15, Field Methods for Retrieval and Analysis of Soluble
Salts on Steel and Other Nonporous Substrates, and ISO 11127-6 for non-metallic abrasives. ISO 11127-7 gives a method for the
detection of water-soluble chlorides with non-metallic abrasives.
Field test kits are also available for the rapid determination of chloride contamination of abrasives.
Abrasive Size
The size of abrasive you use will influence the speed of cleaning and profile created on the steel. The initial condition of the surface
will influence the choices that must be made. Larger particles are most effective for removing old paint, layers of rust, and mill scale.
However, they create a deeper anchor profile. Small particles are most effective for removing oxides. They are also needed if the
steel is pitted.
A typical slag abrasive mixture is a 10–40 gradation. These numbers mean that, typically, at least 90% or more of the abrasive will
pass through a#10 sieve (10 lines per inch) and be retained on a#40 sieve (40 lines per inch). Particles will be in the range of
approximately 0.1 to 0.025 in. (2.5 mm to 0.6 mm) in diameter. The larger particles provide more impact energy, and the smaller
particles provide optimum coverage. Steel abrasives are more dense and harder than slag abrasives. Therefore, finer particles are
used in making up the gradation.
The size and hardness of abrasives are two factors that will determine the profile and anchor pattern of the steel. So it will be
necessary to select abrasive that creates the profile range specified in contract documents.
Occasionally, the size of the abrasive will be specified for a cleaning job, but more often, only the profile size will be specified (and is
the preferred method). You can check abrasive size with sieve analysis as described in ISO 11125-2 and 11127-2 for metallic and
nonmetallic abrasives, respectively. Or you can check abrasive size using ASTM C136, Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and
Coarse Aggregates, which is referenced in SSPC-AB 1 and AB 3. The sieve analysis is conducted with screens readily available
from industrial supply houses.
You can check profile height per ASTM D4417, Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Surface Profile of Blast Cleaned
Steel, with replica tape, visual comparators, or digital profilometers to see that it conforms with specifications. If the profile height is
greater than the specified range, then use smaller abrasive. If the profile height is less than specified, then use larger abrasive.
SSPC-PA 17, Procedure for Determining Conformance to Steel Profile/Surface Roughness/Peak Count Requirements, provides
requirements for determining compliance with the specified profile range.
Operating Mix
When recycling abrasive in a centrifugal blast machine, a field-portable recycling system, or a vacuum blaster, abrasive will break
down. As the abrasive is used, it breaks up and is worn down as it impacts with the work surface. A separator in the recycling
system should remove abrasive “fines,” that is, particles that are too small to be useful for cleaning. Add fresh abrasive to the
system at regular intervals to account for the loss from breakdown and to maintain an operating mix of abrasive sizes that will
effectively clean the steel and create a consistent profile.
Quality Control
You can make sure that the abrasive you use will not have a detrimental effect on coatings performance by making a few routine
checks, such as testing for cleanliness in a jar of water, measuring abrasive size with a sieve analysis, and measuring profile with
replica tape.
More elaborate testing, such as conductimetric analysis or laboratory testing for salts, may be required in some instances.
Editor’s Note: This article is updated from the December 2005 version, which was based on the original, written in collaboration
with Ernestine McDaniel of the Coatings Society of the Houston Area.
On p. 16 of the September 2013 Applicator Training Bulletin, “Tools and Methods of Hand Tool Cleaning,” the following statement
should read as follows. “For example, if a bid specification calls for a steel surface to meet C ST2, it tells the applicator that the
initial condition of the steel is rusted and it must be hand tool cleaned and have a faint metallic sheen, as shown in the photo
depicting C ST2.” The original statement incorrectly references “C SA2.”
21.Testing adhesion of multi-coat systems

When should the adhesion of an applied coating or lining multi-coat system be tested?
From Karen Fischer Amstar of WNY

Adhesion testing should be performed for one of two basic reasons:
 if the specification calls for it as a qualifying test for acceptance of the coating system, or
 if there is a failure or suspected failure in the coating system (material and/or methods) that cannot be evaluated (or fully
evaluated) by non-destructive methods.
One must always keep in mind that an adhesion test is a destructive test, so the resulting test area now becomes a repair that
could, in itself, fail. This is especially important to keep in mind in the case of linings or any system that will be in immersion service,
mechanical service, or a chemical/harsh environmental service. Because it may be necessary to perform adhesion testing in
multiple areas (depending on the size of the suspected areas), there will be multiple repairs. Destructive testing should always be
the last method employed, not the first method, when evaluating a coating for suspected or obvious failure.
From James Albertoni CA Department of Water Resources

Some good instances where a multi-coat system should be tested for adhesion include if the re-coat window is missed, if the
topcoat is not specifically recommended by the manufacturer to be compatible with the basecoat, if the basecoat and topcoat are
from two different manufacturers, or if it is suspected one of the coats was mixed slightly off ratio. Most importantly, the system
should always be tested for adhesion if the spec calls for it.
From Daniel Liu APC

First, it will be up the specifier to decide if an adhesion test is required, and, if so, the specification should include not just the testing
requirement but also the acceptance criteria and tester type. From my experience in the field of tank coating, this test is normally not
required in the specification because it is a destructive method. Any repair area creates a weak point in the lining, so the more repair
areas you have, the more weak spots you have.
However, it is quite necessary to make a proper adhesion test recommended by the paint maker when application has or may have
deviated from the specification, such as by exceeding the recoat interval, not maintaining the proper level of humidity, or using the
wrong mixing ratio for plural-component coatings. Adhesion is quite important for tank coatings that are to be immersed in liquid. But
passing the adhesion test does not mean the whole coating system is conclusively qualified for service. The test is only a reference.
From Tom Swan M-TEST

It’s important to note that if an adhesion test is called for in the specification, the document should specify failure criteria as well as
the pull tester to be. All pull testers pull at different rates, and, when I discuss pull tests with most people, they have no idea what the
pass/fail criterion is or what adhesion tester to use.
If you want to use adhesion testing for pass/fail testing, the specifications should specify the minimum pull required and what test
instrument to use. Also note that if you stop the test before the coating fails, there is no guarantee that the pull fixture will not take off
the coating when you try to remove the fixture, nor does passing the test guarantee that the adhesion or coating integrity was not
affected by the pull.
From Manpreet Singh Spiecapag Australia PTY LTD

If the client’s specification calls for adhesion testing, the paint system should be simulated on a test specimen of the same material
class, 100 mm2 and 6 mm thick. ISO 4624 describes the method of performing the adhesion test. Acceptance criteria, unless
specified by the end user, shall be a minimum of 7 MPA at 23 C, and, at 65 C, no more than 40% decrease from pull-off at 23 C.
From Atanas Cholakov ACT

Adhesion should be tested after the complete cure of the coating system. Information on curing can be acquired from the paint
supplier’s technical representative. In the product data sheet, curing is highlighted in a table in accordance with different ambient
temperatures and other conditions.
From Trevor Neale TF Warren Group

Critical service specifications typically call for adhesion testing, so I assume this question relates to field painting where weather and
other delays are often unavoidable and formal adhesion testing is not part if the job/project specification. If there is any suspicion
that adhesion may be compromised, then the appropriate form of adhesion testing is recommended to ensure the complete system
integrity. This is simply a CYA procedure to avoid possible conflicts, or worse, premature failures.
From Bryant Chandler Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.

Adhesion testing on coatings must be done after the proper cure time at the correct temperature. This enables the coating to
develop the full physical properties. If the coating is tested prematurely, the results often will not meet the specified minimum
requirement. The test may or may not be destructive, depending on the thickness of the coating/substrate, and whether or not the
test is continued until coating disbondment.
As called for in ASTM D 7234 (adhesion testing of coatings on concrete), scoring around the dolly down to the substrate will require
a repair even if the test does not go to failure and stops at the minimum test value; a thick coating system (>30–40 mils) on a
metallic substrate may require scoring if called for in the specification. If the test can be stopped at the minimum value specified
without causing coating failure, than the dolly can be removed, often times by striking the dolly with a sharp blow from the side or
carefully inserting a sharp 5:1 tool (putty knife) at the glue line and shearing off the dolly. Repairing the top surface may be required
but is much better than having to repair the total coating system.
When testing thermal spray coatings, always perform the adhesion tests before application of the seal coat. Tests performed after
seal coat application will result in test values that are two to three times the value of virgin thermal sprayed coating.
22.The Crude Truth about Lining Tanks for Oil Transport

Clad, insulated, thermal spray aluminum with SSPC-SP 5 abrasive blast
(Lose small portion of TSA, small portion of wall thickness) 40 years; 25% re-do
Continuing the RBI Program
After the base plant (or unit) RBI survey has been done, and the risks and hazards have been agreed upon, quantified, and ranked
by plant personnel, then the actual annual (or otherwise recurrent) field surveys can be done by an outside survey firm that has
experienced, qualified inspectors, and follows the base survey. Many existing RBI programs actually combine electronic non-
destructive testing (NDT) with insulation and cladding removal and visual inspection of selected small areas. Both parts of the
survey may be done by the same firm, or NDT can be done by a specialist, and the results can be verified by a paint inspection
company.
The findings of these recurrent surveys are summarized in electronic format, incorporating electronic testing results, digital
photographs, and the field contract inspector’s “eyeball on the steel” evaluations. The plant’s corrosion engineer or maintenance
manager now can examine the corrosion state of his facility on a computer monitor in his or her office, at his or her convenience.
Management personnel can review the survey results, match them against expected results based on the initial RBI survey, and
decide on an appropriate course of action.
In simplified form, the recurrent RBI survey can have four possible results for a particular unit or piece of equipment.
 Less corrosion is found than was expected. This result is noted in the survey. If the result is found to repeat in the next
scheduled survey of this unit, the unit or piece of equipment may be re-evaluated for lower risk or less frequent inspection.
Some owners also use such a finding to re-evaluate related equipment, working on the sound theory that if one unit or
piece of equipment is rusting less than expected, something else related to the equipment may be acting as an anode and
rusting more than expected.
 Corrosion is as expected. The survey is submitted and repeated as scheduled.
 A small increase in corrosion is noted over expectation. Additional portions of the unit are inspected at the same time to
confirm the increase in corrosion. For CUI work, inspecting additional portions means removing additional small areas of
cladding and insulation. The unit or area is marked, and the next scheduled re-inspection will determine whether
unscheduled corrosion-preventive maintenance may be necessary.
 A large or unexpected increase in corrosion is noted. Additional portions of the unit are inspected at the same time to
confirm the increase in corrosion, and plant personnel are brought in to try to determine a cause. Budget and scheduling
are rearranged to give priority to corrosion-preventive maintenance on this unit or piece of equipment. The recurrent
survey schedule is rearranged to closely monitor this problem until corrosion-preventive maintenance is done, and then
afterward to determine whether the maintenance resolved the problem.
RBI programs for plants with large amounts of insulated piping and equipment require additional input during the initial set-up of the
program to assure that the spots selected for recurrent survey are actually representative of the “worst case” areas of each unit or
piece of equipment. The first few recurrent surveys done by a contract inspection or survey firm may actually include additional,
redundant spot inspection points, which can be phased out later if survey results are as expected. Where electronic testing or
thermal imaging produces reliable results and matches destructive spot testing over several recurrent survey cycles, the destructive
testing spots may be reduced, thereby reducing the overall survey costs without affecting reliability.
Figures 1-3 that accompany this article show an in-house RBI program in action at a petrochemical plant in South Louisiana. The
facility is an older plant, but equipment is meticulously maintained, and a very thorough RBI program is in place. Sections of
insulated piping, vessels, and equipment are inspected annually on a rotating basis, with a typical section being re-inspected every
three years on average. The plant uses a combination of organic coatings and thermal spray aluminum for CUI work; annual survey
results tend to confirm the plant’s RBI base surveys and the service life expectations for the systems used. Confidence is high that
the CUI-RBI program is working as it should.
A Houston-area industrial gas facility, which produces various gases by cryogenically refrigerating air and then separating its
components, has an entirely different approach to RBI for the company’s piping for transfer, storage, and loading. The facility
doesn’t do any RBI. Analysis of maintenance and operating records on these low-temperature piping systems in the plant has
shown that failures are always due to cracking of piping in cyclic service from cryogenic to ambient temperatures. A failed pipe is
quickly discovered through unexpected pressure loss; the insulation and cladding over the pipe act as an effective containment over
the ruptured pipe; and the only loss is of the product in the pipe, which, as a gas component of air, is inherently non-polluting.
The plant has been designed to allow effective isolation of failed pipe run sections, so when such a failure occurs, the affected pipe
run is shut in, insulation and cladding are removed, and the failed pipe section is replaced. Loss of product and loss of productivity
are minimal. The plant runs several parallel air separation trains, so the downtime required to replace a fractured length of pipe in
the transfer, storage, and loading piping produces only a small reduction in plant output and does not require other shutdowns.
Corporate management has determined that for these portions of the plant, this policy of neglect presents low enough risk and is
more cost effective than an intense RBI program.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, a great deal of corrosion-mitigation plant maintenance, both for CUI and for atmospheric corrosion damage, is done
reactively, rather than proactively. There is an “Oh Sh**” moment that comes in almost every unscheduled CUI inspection. That’s
when the plant corrosion engineer or maintenance manager looks at the large area of newly exposed corroding steel where
insulation and cladding were removed after serious corrosion was seen in a smaller exposed area, and the engineer says “Oh Sh**.
Fixing this is going to take my entire maintenance budget for the year.”
For these plants, CUI repair work is scheduled and done only after a serious problem is unexpectedly found. This work often
involves unscheduled shutdowns; loss of production; manufacturing bottlenecks or backlogs; and, occasionally, even fires,
explosions, or toxic product releases. This maintenance process is unnecessarily costly and can be easily improved. Improvement
requires only a small increase in budgets and no long-term increase in plant personnel, using RBI with an initial survey by plant
personnel and recurrent inspections by outside contract inspectors or surveyors.
Although commitment to a CUI-RBI program requires a substantial initial investment of time and effort, and a multi-year continuing
commitment, the relative security, peace of mind, and confidence in the plant corrosion state offer a positive return on investment
even before factoring in the cost savings of not having an unexpected event that might shut down the plant, pollute the
neighborhood, and irreparably injure the company’s reputation.
REFERENCES
1. George F, Hays P. E . “Now is the Time,” White Paper, World Corrosion Organization, Houston, TX,corrosion.org, 2007.
2. “Control of Corrosion Under Thermal Insulation and Fireproofing Materials, a Systems Approach,” NACE SP 0198-2010,
NACE International, Houston, TX, nace.org, 2010.
3. “Corrosion Under insulation and Fireproofing,” Currently circulating draft of API RP583, First Edition, First Ballot,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, api.org, 2012.
4. Keith E. McKinney, Fred J. M. Busch, Andre Blaauw, Andrea M. Etheridge . “Development of Risk Assessment and
Inspection Strategies For External Corrosion Management,” Paper No. 05557, NACE Corrosion 2005, NACE
International, Houston, TX, nace.org, 2005.
5. William C. McRae, Nalton Thompson . “CUI Project Development,” Bring on the Heat 2013, NACE International,
Houston, TX, nace.org, 2013.

25.Tools and methods of hand tool cleaning
Hand tool cleaning is one of the oldest methods of preparing steel surfaces. It is widely used for preparing small areas and for areas
that cannot be blast cleaned. A hand tool-cleaned surface is one that is free of loose rust, loose paint, and loose mill scale. Tight
rust, tight mill scale, and tight paint are allowed to remain on the surface. Before you start hand tool cleaning, remove dirt and
grease from the surface by solvent or detergent cleaning. A hand tool-cleaned surface is achieved with wire brushes, sanders,
chipping hammers, and other hand tools listed below.
Industry Standards
The SSPC specification for hand tool cleaning is SSPC-SP 2, defined as follows: “Hand tool cleaning removes all loose mill scale,
loose rust, loose paint, and other loose detrimental foreign matter. It is not intended that adherent mill scale, rust, and paint be
removed by this process. Mill scale, rust, and paint are considered adherent if they cannot be removed by lifting with a dull putty
knife.” However, SSPC-SP 2, Hand Tool Cleaning, requires you to remove all visible deposits of oil and grease in accordance with
SSPC-SP 1, Solvent Cleaning, before starting the process of hand tool cleaning.
Photographs that illustrate the appearance of an SSPC-SP 2 (Figs. 1 and 2) surface are found in the publication, SSPC-Vis 3.
These photographs were developed by SSPC. In Europe and other parts of the world, the industry standard is ISO 8501-1
(Preparation of Steel Substrates Before Application of Paints and Related Products—Visual Assessment of Surface Cleanliness—
Part 1: Rust Grades and Preparation of Uncoated Steel Substrates and of Steel Substrates After Overall Removal of Previous
Coatings), which uses photographs developed by the Swedish Standards Institute.
Fig. 1:
(Left)
Unpainted
steel,
pitted and
rusted.
(Right) The
same steel
specimen
after hand
tool
cleaning to
SSPC-SP
2.
Courtesy
of SSPC.
Note: Fig.
1 and Fig.
High-tech
equipment
like
robotic
units offer
many
advantage
s, but
surface
preparatio
n still
needs that
human
touch.
iStock
Equipment & Practices: 2009–Today

Robotics Revolution
One of the most visible trends in surface preparation equipment and practices is the automation of surface preparation processes
through the emergence of new robotic equipment. Debuted primarily during marine coating endeavors, robotics usage has
expanded across several different industries, and few technologies have had such far-reaching effects in these industries as
robotics. These new components have a wide range of benefits, helping contractors increase efficiency; reduce negative
environmental impacts; and, because robotics equipment can prepare dangerous or nearly inaccessible areas, often keep workers
out of harm’s way.
Over the past five years, we’ve seen a number of robotic waterjetting machines put to use for surface preparation jobs on vessels
and storage tanks. These machines include features such as increased coatings removal rates, mobile or radio-controlled operation,
magnetic attachment systems for horizontal or vertical surfaces, both vacuum effluent and vacuum-less containment systems, and
various safety devices.
Robotics aren’t just for waterjetting. Some new robotic gritblasting machines are designed to store blast process parameters for
different blasting operations, ensuring an even profile and consistent stand-off distances, nozzle angles, and surface speeds. In
addition to enhanced productivity, these features are intended to ensure quality control and consistency, as well.
Better Ways to Waterjet

JPCL’s 25th Anniversary review of surface preparation techniques was published as waterjetting started gaining ground as a
preferred technique. As contractors looked for alternative preparation methods for jobs in which dry abrasive blasting was not the
best option, ultra-high pressure (UHP) waterjetting emerged as a suitable substitute. The first waterjetting standard, published by
SSPC and NACE in 2002, was expanded a decade later to reflect the technical and practical changes and developments that took
place. (For more information on the revised waterjetting standard, take a look at the Surface Preparation Standards article, p. 44.)
To go hand-in-hand with the revised waterjetting standards, equipment and practices have been modified, with increased efficiency
and user ease taking the lead as the driving forces behind new innovation.
Some of the aforementioned robotic waterjetting machines have the ability to tackle a variety of surfaces and substrates. But a
thorough surface preparation job can’t be completed by robots alone—it needs that human touch, so to speak. Recent man-
powered waterblasting machines have been designed with a keen eye on ergonomic design and other considerations that could
help increase efficiency and productivity, as well as more portability and better access for usage across a variety of structures.
The past five years have seen several new versatile waterjetting components introduced, including water jet pumps that contain
multiple operating pressures and engines that run up to 1,000 hp. Others include new convertible waterjet units; new multi-gun
valves; new ergonomic equipment designed to make waterjetting easier; and revamped control gun handles, designed to be easier
to hold and operate, helping the worker complete the job in the most efficient manner possible.
Concrete
needs
surface
prep and
coating
application
tailored to
its unique
makeup.
iStock
Conquering Concrete
If you’ve ever picked up and read a copy of JPCL, chances are you don’t need to be reminded that concrete surfaces require
different methods of surface preparation than steel and other materials—but we’ll mention it, anyway, just to drive the point home
once more. Concrete demands a surface preparation and coatings application plan tailored for its unique composition, porosity, and
possible surface defects.
The 25th Anniversary JPCL described some early steps to establishing more tried-and-true concrete surface preparation methods,
including the establishment of and revamping of SSPC-SP 13/NACE No. 6, Surface Preparation of Concrete. With this
standardization as the foundation, surface preparation equipment and practices for concrete continue to develop.
Tracy Glew authored an article in the January 2013 JPCL, “Preparing Concrete Floors for Coatings,” which highlighted some of the
most common techniques for preparing concrete floors before coatings application. The methods Glew touched on include multi-
stripping, planing, grinding, and shotblasting—which Glew says is one of the most cost-effective methods of preparing concrete,
given proper conditions (p. 32).
Not surprisingly, there have been plenty of developments in the equipment aiding these processes, such as new self-propelled or
walk-behind shotblasting machines intended to strip previous coatings and compounded residues from concrete at high production
rates. Other developments include new multi-level grinding kits and upgraded pneumatic surface planers, designed for use in
marine and other industrial settings.
Going Green
Nowadays, it’s impossible to ignore the negative impacts that industry has had on the environment. Among pollution, depletion of
natural resources, and the negative health effects on humans, it has become increasingly obvious that every industry needs to
rededicate itself to making sure the harm to the environment and people is kept to an absolute minimum, and the coatings industry
is no exception.
Some of the aforementioned technological developments have environmentally friendly features, such as vacuum blasters, and so
on. Indeed, preparing surfaces that leave large quantities of blasting dust and residue, or removing existing lead-based paint,
always poses a risk to the environment and requires the use of containment and other measures to make sure these harmful
byproducts do not enter into the ecosystem.
Protecting
workers
and the
environme
nt during
surface
prep is as
important
as
properly
cleaning
and
profiling
the
substrate.
iStock
While water jetting to avoid abrasive dust and waste has become an increasingly popular method of avoiding said byproducts, dry
blasting hasn’t gone by the wayside. Instead, manufacturers have been hard at work developing more “green” abrasives that leave
behind less debris and pose considerably fewer threats to the environment.
In the October 2012 JPCL, David Dorrow answers the question, “What is a Green Abrasive?” Dorrow describes the different kinds of
recyclable abrasives, including steel, garnet, glass, and others. Dorrow says that these recycled, green abrasives can reduce the
overall waste generated by a project, and advises contractors not only to consider cost and convenience considerations when
selecting an abrasive material, but to also think about sustainability and effects on the environment. He also explains the ways of
producing abrasives from industrial byproducts, such as mineral aggregates (or “slags”), and post-consumer materials like recycled
household plastic and glass waste. The “green” abrasive products on the market today reflect Dorrow’s school of thought—putting
environmental considerations at the forefront of the selection process.
Abrasives aren’t the only surface preparation materials that have been modified for better sustainability and less environmental
impact. Machines that use heat to remove coatings have been around for many years and continue to be developed, with focuses
on features such as reduced environmental harm, improved portability, and ease of access. Paint strippers also continue to evolve.
Old solvent-based versions had put workers and the environment at risk. Today, paint strippers come to market in formulations free
of solvents and other hazardous compounds.
Application
 Product and Application Data Sheets

 Mixing and Thinning Paint
Quality Control
 The Effects of Weather on Cleaning and Coating Work

 Conforming with Job Requirements
Safety and Health
 Safety Considerations for Abrasive Blasting

 Anticipating Job Hazards
To make sure that a coating system will perform well as a barrier to prevent corrosion, you must roughen the steel surface for
mechanical adhesion and make sure that all debris is removed so that the coating contacts the entire surface of the steel. In
achieving these two conditions of cleanliness and profile, you will have assured that a proper foundation has been created for
application of a coating system. This good foundation should help to provide many years of service life for the coating.

29.Preparing Concrete Floors for Coatings
Tracey Glew
Group Managing Director, The Preparation Group, UK
The successful application and durability of resins, coatings, and screeds on concrete floors depends on a sound surface. The key
to success is in the preparation. When selecting the correct equipment and methods, consideration must be made for potential
problems such as uneven joints, high spots, contaminants, worn coatings, sticky residues, old tiles, and friable substrates, which all
need to be tackled to achieve a clean, profiled surface suitable for the application of the specified coating or covering.
There is a wide range of surface preparation machines and accessories on the market and a vast array of techniques that can be
employed, with each unit and technique producing a different result. The model, size, and power requirements of the machine,
together with the accessories selected and the type, thickness, and composition of the material to be removed, will determine
production rates achievable. Other important factors to consider are area size; location and accessibility; the power supply available;
and, critically, the profile required for the coating specified. It is important to note that surface preparation machines are also
designed to work with dust collection and filtration units to minimize the dust contamination common in the preparation of concrete
surfaces.
When concrete is not finished correctly, or if it has been broom finished/tamped (packed down and having a light rippled effect), the
surface may have a large degree of laitance. To achieve a sufficient bond for the specified material to be applied, this laitance must
be removed.
This article describes common techniques and equipment for preparing concrete before applying a coating or other system.
Multi-Stripping
The multi-stripping method is used to remove material from a surface or to clean it. Often, multi-stripping is selected when there are
no other effective options available.
There are 110-volt, hand-operated, walk-behind machines for clearing small areas, and large, ride-on, three-phase electrical or
propane-powered machines for clearing large areas.
Blades or picks are attached to the front of the machine and their type, weight, and position affects the removal of the designated
surface. A flat blade should be selected to scrape off tiles, latex, adhesives, and elastomeric systems, while a curved blade cuts
material into manageable lengths as it strips, so it is ideal to lift up membranes, carpet, and sheet vinyl. Picks are employed to break
up hard materials such as ceramics and terrazzo tiles.
The operator positions the machine to cut or lift the material as the machine drives forward. In this way, multi-strippers can remove
floor coverings such as waterproofing membranes, epoxies, polyurethanes, sticky residues, thermoplastic materials, asphalt,
bituminous materials, adhesives, and the various other coverings such as wood, vinyl, carpets, ceramic tiles, latex, and screeds.
Once the floor is stripped, additional techniques for floor preparation are often specified in order to provide a suitable surface for
application of the resin or screed, etc., such as the following.
Planing
You would select planing to remove materials in excess of 2 mm in thickness, when there are multiple layers of coatings, and when
a rippled profile is required. Applications include removing old screeds, asphalt, latex, and adhesives, and reducing tamped surfaces
and levels.
Machines range from small 110-volt, single-phase, to larger three-phase electrically powered petrol or diesel walk-behind models
and ride-on versions for large-scale projects and heavy-duty applications.
The planing operation is based on a drum rotating at high speed within the body of the machine. The profile or texture is created by
the accessories fitted to the drum known as flails (Fig. 1), or picks in the case of ride-on models (Fig. 2). Once contact is made with
the surface being treated, the flail configuration cuts with a downward rotary action.
Fig. 1:
Underside
of small
planing
machine
showing
milling flail
drum
Photos
courtesy
of the
author
Fig. 2:
Profile
created by
ride-on
planing
machine
fitted with
pick drum
There are different shapes and sizes of flails and picks available for specific tasks and they can be arranged on the drum for light
cleaning applications through to heavy-duty grooving. Generally, milling flails are for the removal of thermoplastic line markings (Fig.
3), bituminous materials, and rubber deposits; tungsten carbide-tipped flails are for cleaning, texturing, and roughening concrete;
and star flails and beam flails are for removing soft material compositions.
Fig. 3:
Walk-
behind
planing
machine
removing
thermopla
stic line
markings
Picks can remove and reduce materials in excess of 2 mm and up to 25 mm.
It is important to note that hard surfaces may be a problem for smaller planing machines because there is not enough weight to cut
into the surface. This can result in the machine malfunctioning and becoming a hazard to the operator.
Grinding
Grinding would be selected when a flat, level, and smooth concrete surface is required. It is used for removing surface
contaminants, adhesives, paint (Fig. 4), sealers, and coatings, and for cleaning.
Fig. 4:
Paint
removal by
a single-
head,
three-
phase
grinding
machine
Grinding models are available in single-phase or three-phase electric and in single-head, double-head, and multi-head versions.
There are also diesel- and petrol-powered alternatives and variable speed models that can be fitted with provisions for wet grinding
and polishing applications.
Grinding is achieved by diamond (Fig. 5), tungsten, or resin-bonded plates or discs that are secured to the single or multiple rotating
heads. There is a wide range of grades of diamond, resin-bonded, and PCD (Polycrystalline Diamond) shoes for removing
adhesives and coatings, and for grinding, smoothing, and polishing decorative screeds and concrete screeds.
Fig. 5:
Underside
of grinding
machine
showing
diamond
plate
As a general rule, hard composition surfaces will require a soft bond diamond segment or disc, and soft compositions will require a
hard bond. The correct diamond accessory is important because incorrect selection will either simply glaze over the surface without
creating the profile or wear out extremely quickly in the initial stages of the operation.
Grinding is not recommended if the surface is uneven or if the concrete has been tamped.
Shotblasting
In the correct conditions, shotblasting is one of the most cost-effective methods of preparation. It is often selected to clean and
profile power-floated concrete, to remove laitance (Fig. 6), coatings, and light surface contaminants. Surfaces to be shotblasted
must be sound and hard. Shotblasting is not suitable for removing or treating soft compositions or materials thicker than 2 mm.
Fig. 6:
Shotblasti
ng
machine
removing
surface
laitance
Shotblasting machines are available in walk-behind, 110-volt single-phase and three-phase electric and ride-on versions, and all
offer different operating widths.
The process involves propelling steel shot or abrasive at high velocity (by a rotating wheel contained in the body of the machine)
onto the surface to produce the desired profile. The debris removed is then collected in a dedicated vacuum/filtration unit for
disposal upon completion of the process, and the shot is recycled.
Many profiles can be achieved; each profile is determined by the size or grade of shot or abrasive selected and the speed at which
the machine is propelled.
Shotblasting will also highlight surface defects in the substrate being prepared, and cannot be carried out in wet or damp conditions.
For optimum results, the process requires a smooth, even surface; otherwise, the shot will escape from the machine.
Summary
Selecting the correct technique for the nature of the concrete surface to be prepared is essential for obtaining the optimum substrate
for coating or further treatment.
30.On static electricity and abrasive blasting

What causes static electricity during abrasive blasting? What risk does it pose, and how can it be
controlled?
From Simon Hope Salamis
Static electricity is produced by the active transport of electrons to create a potential difference or charge (the classic example being
the Van de Graff generator), which then discharges back to earth when the voltage is great enough to ‘jump’ as a spark. The spark
will take the shortest and easiest track to earth.
In abrasive blasting using compressed air, it is possible to charge up the blast nozzle with static electricity. Dry air, rather than damp
air, helps maintain the charge that builds up as the abrasive transports electrons to the nozzle and deposits them there. Eventually,
the charge becomes so great that the electrons jump to the nearest earth, which will be either the operator, if not wearing suitable
rubber-soled boots, or the substrate. Sparks can be over one foot (300 mm) long and have relatively high energy.
Sparks themselves do not pose a particularly high risk in normal operations such as in blast pens of general construction sites. They
do, however, become a problem in explosive or potentially explosive environments, where a spark becomes an ignition source. An
adjacent spray shop may have enough solvent vapor to be within the explosive concentration limits for the material. Similarly, in
petrochemical sites, there are ‘zoned’ areas where equipment producing sparks or having a spark potential must be controlled by a
permit-to-work system due to the risk from hydrocarbons. Systems such as flour mills that produce fine dust likewise are high-risk
areas for static-producing equipment because the spark can cause ignition of the dust, with catastrophic consequences.
Control of the static is quite simple to achieve. The first and simplest thing to do is to provide a controlled discharge path without
permitting a spark. This path can be provided either by directly earth-bonding the nozzle using an earth wire from the nozzle straight
to earth or by using conductive blast hose with continuity to the blast pot, which is then earthed to a suitable point.
Another alternative control is the use of a wet abrasive slurry. It creates continuity with the nozzle and substrate, thus completing the
earth circuit.
The air from the nozzle can act as a purge to remove flammables from the vicinity of any discharge, although this practice is not a
substitute for proper earthing.
In Europe, static discharge comes under the ATEX (ATmosphere EXplosive) regulations, so any equipment with the potential to
generate static that is used in a zoned area must be built to be compliant with these regulations and must be certified accordingly. In
the U.S., OSHA should be consulted for regulations, standards, and guidance on explosive environments and static discharge
(osha.gov).
Also, for work in high-risk areas, the use of suitable gas monitors set to pick up any potentially explosive situations is a must.
Editor’s Note: This Problem Solving Forum was also posted on JPCL’s sister publication,PaintSquare News. Online responses to
the question as well as other Problem Solving Forum questions and answers can be found at paintsquare.com/psf/. Problem
Solving Forum is an interactive column on PaintSquare News and on JPCL. Additional answers to this month’s question may be
submitted to PaintSquare News or to JPCL. You can also submit questions for Problem Solving Forum on PaintSquare News, or
you can submit questions to Karen Kapsanis, JPCL, kkapsanis@paintsquare.com.
31.Preparing stainless steel for atmospheric salt service

What is the proper surface preparation for stainless steel before coating to resist a salt-laden
atmosphere?
From William Slama International Paint/Ceilcote Products
Over the years, there have been many of these applications in which the original alloy was found to be inadequate for the operating
conditions (usually chloride fluoride chemistry) of the vessel or equipment. In some cases, the inadequacy was identified even
before the structure was placed in service; other times, the inadequacy was identified when the alloy didn’t perform as expected.
A recurring recent case is the many FGD vessels (absorbers and other vessels) constructed of Alloy 2205. Apparently, buildup of
scale creates a concentration of chlorides/fluorides under the scale buildup, which results in extreme pitting of the alloy.
The surface preparation, not surprisingly, is not much different than that needed for lining carbon steel. Basically, the alloy requires
a clean surface with a sharp profile with the required blast profile (depth) for the system being applied. For most high-build linings or
coatings, a 3-mil profile is needed.
For most alloys, adjacent unlined surfaces should be protected during abrasive blasting to ensure that the surfaces are not
contaminated by iron. The protection is needed because the most commonly used slag abrasives contain iron. In some cases, that
possibility is avoided by using a blast abrasive that does not contain iron. Garnet or aluminum oxide abrasives are suitable,
providing they are able to produce the required sharp profile.
As with carbon steel, the surface must be tested for salt contamination and cleaned if necessary to the lining manufacturer’s
requirements.
One differing feature is that the surface must be coated or primed soon after blasting, unless dehumidification (DH) control holds the
relative humidity (RH) to less than 40-50% because the surface will not show the typical discoloration due to surface oxidation as
carbon steel does.
From Derek Righinni Certified Coating Inspection Ltd

There is no clear consensus on a cleanliness standard that stainless steel is required to meet before the application of coatings to
protect it from chloride-induced pitting or stress corrosion cracking.
Here is the question that should be asked: Is the chromium oxide passive layer that forms rapidly on the surface of stainless steel
tightly adherent and suitable for painting?
The answer to the question dictates the time allowable between the start of blasting to the maximum time the stainless steel
substrate can be left before coating. It would be helpful if NACE, SSPC, ISO, and ICORR would give the industry some clear
guidance on the preparation of stainless steel for painting with protective coatings and linings.
Editor’s Note: This Problem Solving Forum was posted on JPCL’s sister publication,PaintSquare News. Answers have been edited
to conform to JPCL style and space limitations. For more Problem Solving Forum questions, go to paintsquare.com/psf/.Problem
Solving Forum is an interactive column on PaintSquare News and on JPCL. Additional answers to this month’s question may be
submitted to PaintSquare News or toJPCL. You can also submit questions for Problem Solving Forum on PaintSquare News, or
you can submit questions to Karen Kapsanis, JPCL, kkapsanis@paintsquare.com.
32.What is a Green Abrasive?

Do YOU consider a “green” abrasive when planning for your surface preparation project?
David Dorrow
Mineral Aggregates Inc.
David Dorrow is the president of Mineral Aggregates Inc., which develops marketing solutions for mineral co-products from the steel, smelter, and
other industries. With more than 30 years of experience in the abrasive markets, he is a member of SSPC and has served on its Abrasive Steering
Committee; Surface Preparation Steering Committee; and Development Committee for SSPC-AB 1, Mineral Abrasive Specification.
ISO 4628-2 to -6 standards have been used to assess paint defects, such as blistering, rusting, cracking, and chalking. For
delamination measurement from the scribes, two methods have been used as described and illustrated in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4:
Assessme
nt of
scribe
creep.
Left:
M1=(V-
scribe
width)/2
This
measurem
ent
method
has been
used for
intermedia
te
measurem
ents in
particular.
Right:
M4=(C’-
scribe)/2
where C’
= ΣC’n/n
This
measurem
ent has
been used
after
removal of
the
coating
once C5M
test was
completed.
Pull-Off Adhesion Test

The pull-off adhesion tests were carried out according to ISO 4624 standard using a hydraulic pull-off device on unexposed
references and after completion of the C5M cycle. Twenty-millimeter diameter dollies glued to the coating were used, and the tests
were carried out in laboratory conditions (23.8 C – 45.1% RH). Figure 2 indicates the position of the dollies as a function of the area
on the welded test pieces.
Assessment Requirements
For accelerated corrosion tests, the assessment of test pieces cleaned by UHP waterjetting was carried out according to the
acceptance requirements defined in ISO 20340 (Table 5) and compared to abrasive blasting performance.
TABLE 5
Assessment Criteria According to ISO 20340
Criteria Standard Acceptance Thresholds Established at the End of the Ageing Cycle (ISO 20340)
Defects before and ISO 4628- 0 (S0)

after aging 2 Ri 0
ISO 4628-
3
Peeling-corrosion ISO 4628- Max < 8 mm for the coating system with zinc-free primer
around the scribe 8
and
ISO 20340
Minimum pull-off test value: 4 MPa for the coating system with zinc-free primer No adhesion
Adhesion before C5M
ISO 4624 defect between the substrate and the first layer except if pull-off values exceed or equal 5
weathering test
MPa
Minimum pull-off test value=50% of the initial value with a minimum value of 2 MPa No
Adhesion after C5M
ISO 4624 adhesion defect between the substrate and the first layer except if pull-off values exceed or
weathering test
equal 5 MPa
Results
Cyclic Corrosion Test C5M
Flat test panels: No degradation such as blistering, rusting, cracking, and chalking was observed on any of the paint systems.
However, a loss of brightness was seen on S2 paint system. Visible degradations for all test pieces were red rust runs from the
scribes.
Regarding flat test panels of DHP1 surface preparation grade, a variable degree of creep from the scribe line was observed with the
different paint systems, as shown in Fig. 5. Thus, paint system S1 was clearly less efficient than the other two systems, S2 and R.
This has already been observed in a previous study where the same system (except for the first layer) was tested.10 For the other
two paint systems (S2 and R), the results were comparable between UHP-treated DPH4 and grit-blasted Sa 2.5 surface states.
Fig. 5:
Delaminati
on from
the scribes
on flat test
pieces
after 6
months of
C5M test.
Paint system adhesion results are summarized in Table 6. These show satisfactory behavior of paint systems S2 and R on a ZRP
UHP-waterjetted DHP1 surface state. The behavior was the same as for the abrasive-blasted surface (data from a previous study),
indicating no alteration of the coating performance on ZRP completely (DHP4) or partially (DHP1) cleaned steel surfaces.
Nevertheless, the results highlighted the poor behavior of system 1.
TABLE 6
Pull-Off Test Values on Flat Samples after Six Months of C5M Cycle Corrosion Test*
Paint System Pull-Off Test Value, MPa
T1 (Sa 2.5) T3 (DHP1)
S1 15.7±1.1 11.0±2.3
S2 12.2±3.2 14.6±1.2
R 12.8±1.9 9.4±1.9
*T1: Sa 2.5, T3: DHP1. Data on T1 surface state from Ref 10

Welded test panels: As with the flat test panels, no degradation such as blistering, rusting, cracking, and chalking was observed on
any of the paint systems. Only corrosion from the scribes was present.Figure 6 (p. 50) presents the scribe creep measured on the
welded test panels after six months of C5M test for both Sa 2.5 abrasive-blasted surface (T1) and DHP4 UHP-treated samples (T3).
As mentioned in the experimental section regarding the design of the welded samples, five scribe lines were applied to assess the
coating performance on the surface properties. From the results, abrasive blasting gives satisfactory behavior whatever the
locations on the welded sample, in particular when considering systems S2 and R. It is interesting to note that the weld area
periphery (scribes 2 and 5) or machined area (scribe 3, 4, and 5) are not significantly more affected than the reference surface
(scribe 1).
Fig. 6:
Influence
of surface
preparatio
n (left:
abrasive
blasting
Sa2.5 - T1;
right: UHP
watterjetti
ng DHP4 –
T3) of
welded
test pieces
on the
delaminati
on from
the scribes
after 6
months of
C5M cycle
test. The
labels 1 to
5 refer to
the 5
scribes as
shown on
the
scheme in
the right-
hand
graph.
This test also clearly highlights the difference in behavior between the three paint systems applied on abrasive-blasted samples.
Only system S1 did not satisfy the aging resistance criteria defined in Table 5. Indeed, the average scribe creep after coating
removal of the five scribes gives the following values per paint system: S1 = 11 mm; S2 = 7.8 mm; S3 = 2.2 mm.
Regarding UHP-waterjetted (DHP4) samples, system S1 again gave unsatisfactory results, even worse than the abrasive-blasted
surface. Nevertheless, for the two other paint systems, S2 and R, there was no significant difference between the two surface
preparation modes. The average scribe creep after coating removal of the five scribes was the following: S1=17.4 mm; S2=7.6 mm;
S3=3 mm. It should be noted, however, that on paint system S2, an unsatisfactory value of scribe creep was measured at scribe 2,
located on the as-fabricated weld area with an average value of 13 mm. This may be observed on the photographs in Fig. 7. They
also clearly highlight the degree and extent of corrosion upon the surface state, with an obvious remarkable behavior of the UHP
DHP4 machined area in the center of the samples.
Fig. 7:
Photograp
hs of test
panels
S2T3
(DHP4)
after six
months of
C5M test –
(left):
before
coating
removal
around the
scribe,
(center):
details of
scribe 3
and (right):
after
coating
removal.
Paint system R presented a marked and constant behavior regardless of the scribe location, whereas extremely different roughness
and surface profile levels were tested. The scribe creep was far below the requirements (<8 mm).
As with the flat samples, adhesion properties were investigated in accordance to ISO 4624 in different areas of the welded panels,
which differ in their surface roughness and profile. These areas were labelled as follows: area 1 corresponds to machined steel
surface, area 2 to ZRP-coated steel surface (not machined) and area 3 to machined welded area. The adhesion was also
investigated in the vicinity of the as-fabricated weld (dollies 6 and 7 in Fig. 2). However, due to the deformation of the weld, the
results were very scattered and thus not conclusive. However, for the other locations on the test panels, the results indicated no
adhesive failure. Figure 8 presents the adhesion strength as a function of the paint system and surface preparation, where
satisfactory results can be observed regardless of the paint system and the surface roughness and cleanliness. In particular, it is
interesting to note that despite the low roughness (Ra 4.4 μm) obtained on the UHP-waterjetted (DHP4) pre-rusted machined area
(central section), adhesion properties comparable to the abrasive-blasted surface can be seen. This result obviously underlines the
importance of the surface cleanliness level achieved after UHP waterjetting to level DHP4.
Fig. 8:
Influence
of surface
preparatio
n on
coating
adhesion
before and
after six
months of
C5M
corrosion
test for
paint
system
(left): S1,
(center):
S2 and
(right): R.
Surface
state:
T3=UHP
DHP4,
T1=abrasiv
e blasting
Sa 2.5.
The different tests carried out on the welded test pieces, having roughness and surface profile levels not covered by any standards,
gave the following results.
 For all tested configurations, including test piece types and UHP waterjetting cleaning requirement (DHP4), no blistering,
rusting, cracking, or chalking defects were observed. These results constituted an important point demonstrating that the
relative level of performance of the tested paint systems could be judged only by the corrosion creep at the scribe and
adhesion.
 Paint system 1 did not meet the requirement of ISO 20340 of <8 mm creep, and this occurred after only a 4.5-month
aging on Sa 2.5. Systems S2 and R showed satisfactory behavior. S2 had results close to the value of 8 mm and on
average below the requirement. All these remarks are valid for all scribe locations on the welded test piece.
 Pull-off adhesion tests in seven different locations revealed variations in system behavior according to the different
surface profiles. However, due to the study conditions, the adhesion results do not make it possible to define the
roughness and the proximity to the weld area that produce a weak point for tested systems. The behavior of test pieces
cleaned with the UHP waterjetting method was rather similar to that obtained after abrasive blasting (Sa 2.5), where all
surface irregularities have been evened-out by abrasive blasting.
Such behavior confirms the conclusions of the previous study and thus gives credibility to the thesis that surface cleanliness quality
level associated with a roughness level is a key element to guarantee the performance of paint systems. The cleanliness level
required is indeed obtained using UHP waterjetting. Specific work on required roughness levels will be undertaken in the ongoing
program, “Anticor.”
Natural Aging
After 2 years of natural aging in a marine atmosphere, the inspection revealed no blistering and rusting defects—only delamination
from the scribe line as shown in Fig. 9, which presents the maximum scribe creep on flat and welded samples. In good agreement
with the results from the accelerated corrosion test, more severe breakdown was generally observed on paint system S1 for both
DHP1 and DHP4 surfaces, compared to systems S2 and R. With paint system 1, increased scribe creep was formed with ZRP-
coated steel DHP4 (scribe 1 and 3) in comparison to machined surface (scribe 4 and 5). The extent of scribe creep was between 1
and 2 mm for paint system 2 with no major difference upon the surface roughness. The same observation may be drawn for paint
system R with however less scribe creep (below 1 mm). Thus, these observations are quite consistent with artificial aging trends
and demonstrate the necessity to carry out specific additional work on paint system roughness and stability.
Fig. 9:
Influence
of surface
preparatio
n (top: flat
test panels
UHP-
DHP1;
bottom:
welded
test panels
UHP
DHP4) on
the
delaminati
on from
the scribes
after 24
months of
exposure
in marine
atmospher
e.
Conclusions
The aims of the study were to assess the performance of three different coating systems applied on UHP-treated zinc-rich shop
primer-coated steel (in new construction configurations) by considering different surface states (roughness and cleanliness DHP1
and DHP4). Thus, in addition to conventional flat panels, welded panels were included to represent fabricated and machined welded
areas. The results were compared with classical grit blasted Sa 2.5 surfaces. A cyclic corrosion test based on C5M corrosivity was
carried out to evaluate the performance of the coatings. The results were compared to field data obtained on a natural aging site
that qualified for a C5M corrosivity category.
From the results, the following conclusions were drawn:
 Flat panels, DHP1 cleaning: On the basis of corrosion from scribe and pull-off adhesion results, UHP waterjetting on ZRP
was efficient for S2 and R paint systems, showing behavior comparable to abrasive blasting. Both ZRP complete (DHP4)
or partial (DHP1) cleaning generated satisfactory results.
 Welded panels, DHP4 cleaning: For paint systems S2 and R, UHP waterjetting (DHP4) gives behavior comparable to that
of conventional abrasive blasting on a surface, with an optimized performance in the low roughness area (machined area
and machined weld).
Comparable observations may be drawn from 24 months of natural aging in a marine C5M atmosphere. The results will, however,
be consolidated after longer exposure durations in the coming years.
The conclusions were in good agreement with a previous study for maintenance situations where a reinforcement of the surface
cleanliness obtained after UHP waterjetting in relation to the abrasive blasting was noticed. One of the major advantages of UHP
waterjetting is the complete removal of non-visible contaminations. They include water-soluble substances such as salts (chlorides,
sulphates, soluble iron oxides); alkaline residuals (from lyes); welding fume deposits; and water-insoluble matter such as oils,
greases, silicones, dust, and abrasive material inclusions. This good performance level was obtained in previous investigations with
controlled flash rusting levels (<1 g/m2) where the surface cleanliness level was found to be a key parameter in the paint durability.6
It is undeniable that this approach can include an important notion relative to roughness. Within this scope, a new study has begun,
taking into account both surface preparation types and associated cleanliness levels, particularly reached using UHP waterjetting.
Editor’s Note: This article, by Philippe Le Calvé and his co-authors, is part of the series of Top Thinker articles appearing
in JPCL throughout 2012. Mr. Le Calvé is a recipient of JPCL’s 2012 Top Thinkers: The Clive Hare Honors. Mr. Le Calvé’s profile
and professional profiles of all of the award winners, as well as an article by Clive Hare, appear in the accompanying supplement to
the August 2012 JPCL.
This article is based on a presentation given at EuroCorr 2011, Stockholm, Sweden. Parts 1 and 2 were also given earlier: Part 1
was also published in the April/June 2011 PCE and the May 2011JPCL; Part 2 was also published in the July/September
2011 PCE and the September 2011 JPCL.
REFERENCES
1. A. Momber, Hydroblasting & Coating of Steel Structures, 2003 Elsevier.

2. T. Mabrouki, A. Cornier, O. Hafiz, K. Raissi, Mécanique & Industries, 5 (2004) 11.
3. P. Le Calvé, P. Meunier P, J.-M. Lacam, Protective Coatings Europe, 19 (9) (2002) 22.
4. P. Le Calvé, P. Meunier P, J.-M. Lacam, Protective Coatings Europe, 19 (9) (2002) 22.
5. P. Le Calvé, P. Meunier, J.-M. Lacam, J. Protective Coatings & Linings, 20 (1) (2003) 48.
6. P. Le Calvé, J. Protective Coatings & Linings, volume 24 no. 8 (August 2007) 13.
7. M. Islam, W. McGaulley, M. Adams, Analitical, WJTA American Waterjet Conference, August 21-25 2005. Houston,
Texas.
8. D. Ward. CORROSION/08, Paper 08003, New Orleans, NACE (2008).
9. P. Le Calvé, J.-P. Pautasso, N. Le Bozec, Paper 8369, Eurocorr09, September 6-10, 2009, Nice, France.
10. P. Le Calvé, J.-P. Pautasso, N. Le Bozec, Paper 8371, Eurocorr09, September 6-10, 2009, Nice, France.
11. P. Le Calvé, J.-M. Lacam, N. Le Bozec, Protective Coatings Europe, 10(7), (2005) 29.
35.On removing uncured coatings without blasting

How do you remove all traces of an uncured internal coating from a tank when abrasive blasting is not
an option?
From David Grove Shaw Nuclear Power Services
One key to removing uncured coatings is to keep in mind that if the material can be changed into a physical state where it is no
longer “sticky” on the substrate, then it will be easier to remove. In many cases, high heat will make this happen, and there are a
number to tools that will do this. Of course, a second surface preparation will still be required for reapplication. All appropriate
measures to protect workers and the environment need to be followed.
From Murjan Murjan Sirte Oil

Assuming all requirements for protecting workers and the environment are in place, the first thing to do is to solvent clean and
abrade the old coating. Then, use SSPC-SP 3, power tool cleaning. After that, blow down and coat the surface.
From Jeremi Day Allphaz Inspection Services

Unfortunately, a strong solvent such as MEK must be used. Two drawbacks come with this solution.
One drawback is that some strong solvents pose safety or health hazards to the crew. Workers should wear respiratory protection,
appropriate work suits, double eye protection, chemical-resistant gloves, and all other appropriate gear, depending on the structure,
solvent, and environment. The MSDS should include such information about equipment to protect workers.
The other drawback is that workers must use white rags, which cost more. The dye in colored rags will transfer to the substrate,
presenting yet another problem.
The crew will have to use a lot of rags and solvent. If not, as the rags and solvent pick up the uncured coating, it will transfer back
onto the substrate.
Also, brushes should be used to remove the uncured coating from the crevices of the weld seams. In my experience, this is the best
way to remove all traces of the coating without blasting.
The only other solution I can think of is to wash with UHP. Depending on the coating, this may cause more problems.
From Josh Inklovich Total Coating Solutions

This is a tricky problem. I have had to do this on numerous occasions when an “experienced” coating applicator neglected to add
the part B’s to the part A’s in a 1:1 mix product. I can only advise based on what we have done.
First, we used scrapers to remove as much uncured coating as possible. Scoop it, and throw it in a bucket.
Second, we did a solvent wipe on the remaining material. Some people might think first of using MEK. My suggestion is to use the
solvent recommended by the manufacturer, which is what we did. Different coatings more fully dissolve in different solvents. We
used stiff bristle brushes and ample solvent to get the uncured coating out of the profile. We also used protective measures
appropriate for a confined space. For instance, we utilized air moving equipment and “sniffers” to detect levels of vapors. Our men
wore tyvek suits, spark-resistant foot covering, and spark-resistant (i.e., non-metallic) tools during this entire operation. Goggles and
gloves and supplied-air, full-face respirators were used.
Third, we used lint-free, solvent-soaked rags to mop up the remaining material. We cleaned until the rags were clean after wiping.
Fourth, we reblasted everything with a suitable abrasive each time this problem was encountered (3 times in 12 years).
But the question about removing the coating creates another issue. If you can’t blast, how are you going to prepare the cleaned
steel for relining?
Editor’s Note: Problem Solving Forum questions are posted on the free daily electronic newsletter, PaintSquare News, on
behalf of JPCL. Responses are selected and edited to conform to JPCL style. To subscribe to PaintSquare News, go
towww.paintsquare.com/psn/.
36.Six Key Points You Should Know about Concrete Surface Preparation before
Coating Application
Fred Goodwin
BASF Construction Chemicals
Fred Goodwin is a fellow scientist in research and development at BASF Construction Chemicals LLC (Cleveland, OH). He has 30 years of experience
in the construction chemicals industry and is an active member of SSPC, ICRI, ASTM, ACI, SDC, NACE, and ISO. Goodwin is a chair on the ICRI
Materials and Methods, the ACI 364 Rehabilitation, and the ASTM C09.68 Volume Change Committees. Goodwin and co-author Gail Winterbottom
won a JPCL’s Editor’s Award for their January 2005 JPCL article, “Concrete Cracks: Causes, Correcting, and Coatings.” Goodwin received
a JPCL Top Thinker award this year.
Concrete is perceived as a common, hard, durable, and relatively unexciting material surrounding us in our homes,
highways, bridges, airports, workspace, sewers, mines, and monuments. Coating concrete is the most common
method to enhance its appearance and improve its durability. Proper surface preparation is one of the most important
stages in achieving successful coating installation. The most important factors in surface preparation of concrete are:
 project objectives,
 concrete surface quality,
 compatibility of the surface preparation with job site conditions and coating system,
 contamination of the concrete,
 moisture content and movement in the concrete, and
 concrete surface profile.
Project Objectives
The project objectives must be determined; otherwise, they can become a moving target. These include the substrate conditions,
coating requirements, owner requirements, and application conditions, all of which must be well thought out together. Define with
the owner and other interested parties what success means for this project. Mockups are very helpful in deciding what can be done
and can serve as a test bed for different techniques, materials, and cost vs. performance results. Decide in advance what happens if
the results are less than expected—who pays, what penalties are assessed, and who can arbitrate disputes? Also, agreement
needs to be reached about the project “tolerables,” such as how to mitigate the side effects of the construction process (e.g., noise,
dust, vibration, fumes); what to do with debris (especially if a hazardous material); what, if any, utilities (power, ventilation, water,
etc.) are available for the needed procedures; what kind of protection from weather and traffic is possible for the project area; and
how will the environment around the project be protected from the construction activity.
iStockphot
o
Concrete Surface Quality

Not all concrete is created equal. With varying degrees of success, coatings are applied to all types of concrete, such as ”green”
fresh concrete, fully cured virgin concrete, contaminated concrete, and previously coated concrete. Concrete’s appearance doesn’t
change much, but the properties can vary widely based on the water-to-cement ratio, aggregates, admixtures, curing, age,
orientation, service history, and what is and has been in contact with the concrete. The concrete’s exposure to different conditions
can also influence the extent of surface preparation and the techniques. Concrete can be oriented horizontally both on- and above-
grade, sloped, vertically, and overhead. Different surface preparation techniques are more suitable for different orientations. ACI
201.1, 201.2, 311.1, and 364.1 are especially useful for evaluating concrete to receive coatings. SSPC-SP 13/NACE 6 is also a
useful reference for characterizing the concrete surface and qualifying the prepared surface (Table 1 and 2). Cracks must also be
addressed, both to prevent further cracking in the concrete as well as reflective cracking in the coating system (ACI 224.1).
TABLE 1
Concrete Finishes Producing Different Profiles, Strength, and Issues*
Method Profile Porosity(A) Strength(A) Problems
Formed concrete Smooth to medium Low to medium Medium Voids, protrusions, release agents
Wood float Medium Medium Medium
Metal trowel Smooth Low High
Power trowel Smooth Very low High Very dense
Broom finish Coarse to very coarse Medium Medium
Sacking Smooth Low to medium Low to high(B) Weak layer if not properly cured
Stoning Smooth to medium Low to medium Low to high(B) Weak layer if not properly cured
Concrete block Coarse to very coarse Very high Medium Pinholes

(C)
Shotcrete Very coarse Medium Medium Too rough for thin coatings
* From SSPC-SP 13/NACE No. 6

UHP
waterjettin
g test
panels.
TABLE 6
Anticorrosive effect (AE) after 4200 h of cyclic corrosion test: influence of surface preparation given in Table 1
Surface preparation
Paint system T1 T2
Blasting Sa2½ UHP waterjetting
P1 0.5 0.8
P2 0.5 2.8
P3 4.8 5.5
P4 5.1 6.8
P5 2.5 2.3
P6 4.0 4.0
R 3.8 3.8
Mean 3.0±1.9 3.7±2.0
TABLE 7
Pull-off test values after 4200 h of cyclic corrosion test. (T1: Sa2½, T2: UHP treated)*: adhesive fracture
Pull-off test value, MPa After ageing (Cycle C5-M)

Paint system
T1 T2
P1 7.7±3.0 4.5±1.3*
P2 10.0±3.7 10.4±3.0
P3 7.2±1.1 13.6±0.6
P4 15.7±1.1 12.6±0.4
P5 12.2±3.2 10.3±1.1
P6 10.4±1.9 11.7±2.6
R 12.8±1.9 13.0±2.8
Mean 10.9±3.0 10.9±3.0

Outdoor Exposure in Marine Atmosphere C5M
As indicated in the experimental section, all samples were exposed in an outdoor marine atmosphere of C5M corrosivity category
for steel, for a minimum of 4 years. The first inspection of the samples, conducted after 12 months of exposure, revealed
delamination from the scribe line on some coatings systems. Nevertheless, the anticorrosion effect was calculated to compare it with
data from the laboratory. The AE from the 12 months of outdoor exposure is summarized in Table 8. From the results, no visual
defects were observed on coating systems P1, P2 and P5 while moderate delamination was found on paint systems P6 and R for
both surface preparations. Concerning coating systems P3 and P4, more damage was found on UHP treated samples in
comparison to blasted ones at least after 12 months of exposure. However, the development of paint degradation should be
examined after a longer exposure duration. It should be mentioned that defects were already observed after 6 months of exposure
on paint systems P3 and P4, which reflects the poor performance of these paint systems.
The product ranking in terms of performance after 12 months of outdoor exposure was compared to that obtained after artificial
ageing in the neutral salt spray test and in the cyclic corrosion test (Table 9). The ranking was made by comparing the anticorrosion
effect. The results indicate comparable ranking between field exposure and the cyclic corrosion test while the salt spray test
definitely gives a different classification of the coating systems. As an example, coating system P1 was the poorest after the salt
spray test, while it shows very good performance in the field after 12 months. These observations are in agreement with previous
work.5,10-11 They should, however, be consolidated with results from longer outdoor exposures, as is indeed scheduled in the present
work.
From the first results of the present study, UHP waterjetting seems to be a rather promising technique for secondary steel surface
preparation in new construction. UHP waterjetting generally induces a notable reduction of soluble salts, contaminants, and dust at
the steel surface because of an effective water flow. The water from UHP waterjetting can enter pores and pits and sweep the
contaminants away. The level of cleanliness is thus better than that obtained on blasted steel. Despite a slightly different surface
state in terms of roughness, no significant differences were observed in the performance of the coatings applied. From a study
aiming to characterize steel surface after UHP waterjetting of zinc primer-coated steel, it was shown that with water pressure
between 2,560 and 3,000 bar, and regardless of the waterjetting tool (gun or robot), traces of the zinc shop primer were always
detected on such steel surfaces.8 Similarly, traces of zinc on steel were also measured after abrasive blasting the zinc shop primer.
From the results obtained in the present work, the presence of remaining zinc on steel substrate does not seem to affect the
performance of the coating.
This study highlights the need to adapt and improve the standardization related to surface preparation by UHP waterjetting for new
construction. Most of the existing standards address surface preparation of painted steel for maintenance. Among standards related
to UHP waterjetting, initial conditions involving zinc shop primers are defined in ISO 8501-4 (conditions PRZ) and SSPC-VIS
4/NACE V1S7 (condition F, zinc-rich paint applied over blast cleaned steel). More details are needed, however, to help the
operators and the project manager to be able to require a guarantee of the result.
UHP waterjetting is becoming more widely used for maintenance, but there are some questions on the use of this technique for new
construction. Questions arise specifically about the influence of surface roughness, which is known to be a key parameter affecting
the adhesion of the coating and thus its durability. In particular, it is known that UHP waterjetting is not efficient in eliminating mill
scale, which limits the use of the technique. Thus, in addition to classical abrasive blasting, the surface preparation with waterjetting
may be an alternative, but more work is needed to validate this new use of the technique.1
Other aspects related to real structures have to be carefully considered, such as the effect of waterjetting on welded areas and
further coating performance. Research on these and other aspects is still in progress at this writing. Additional results will be
available later.
TABLE 8
Anticorrosive effect (AE) after 12 months of outdoor exposure in marine atmosphere C5M: influence of surface preparation
given in Table 1. The scribe creep is given in brackets.
Surface preparation
Paint system T1 T2
Blasting Sa2½ UHP waterjetting
P1 0 0
P2 0 0.0
P3 0.3 (1.3) 3.4 (13.5)
P4 1.2 (4.9) 3.0 (12)
P5 0 0
P6 0.9 (3.9) 0.3 (1.1)
R 0.3 (1.3) 0.2 (0.8)
TABLE 9
Material ranking after cyclic corrosion test (4200 h), salt spray test (1440 h), and 12 months of outdoor exposure in marine
atmosphere
Paint system Cyclic corrosion test 4200h Salt spray test 1440h Outdoor 12 months
P1 1 7 1
P2 2 1 1
P3 6 3 6
P4 7 5 7
P5 3 2 1
P6 5 6 5
R 4 3 4
Conclusions
The aims of the study were to assess the performance of different coating systems applied on UHP waterjetted zinc-rich shop
primer coated steel, as secondary surface preparation in new construction. The results were compared with traditional abrasive
blasted surfaces (Sa2½.) Two accelerated corrosion tests (a neutral salt spray test and a cyclic corrosion test based on C5M
corrosivity) were carried out in order to evaluate the performance of the coatings. The results were compared to field data obtained
on a natural ageing site qualified for a C5M corrosivity category.
UHP waterjetting seems to be a promising technique in new construction for secondary surface preparation of steel with a zinc-rich
shop primer, and the technique gives comparable behavior to traditional abrasive blasted surfaces. Despite a slight difference in
roughness and the presence of traces of zinc remaining (at a similar level as that with abrasive cleaning), the performance of the
coatings does not seem to be significantly affected.
The results also indicated quite similar material rankings between field exposure and the cyclic corrosion test, while the salt spray
test definitely gave a different classification of the paint systems, confirming previous results.
Other aspects related to real structures have to be carefully considered such as the effect of hydroblasting on welded areas and
longer term coating performance. This work was still in progress when writing the paper, and will be reported later.
Editor’s Note: “Performance of Paint Sysems after UHP,” was first published in Protective Coatings Europe (PCE), July-
September 2011, pp. 24-29. It is the second article the authors have published on their research findings about the use of UHP
waterjetting in new ship construction. The first part, “Characterisation of Surfaces after UHP (Ultra High Pressure) Waterjetting of
Shop Primer Coated Steel Substrates for New Construction in the Naval Sector,” also was first published in PCE, April-June 2011,
pp. 16-21, and then in the May 2011 JPCL.
REFERENCES
1. A. Momber . Hydroblasting & Coating of Steel Structures 2003, Elsevier.

2. T. Mabrouki, A. Cornier, O. Hafiz, K. Raissi . Mécanique & Industries, 5 (2004) 11.
3. P. Le Calvé, P. Meunier P, J.-M. Lacam . Protect. Coat Europe, 19 (9) (2002) 22.
4. P. Le Calvé, P. Meunier, J.-M. Lacam . JPCL, 20 (1) (2003) 48.
5. P. Le Calvé . JPCL, 24 (8) (2007) 13.
6. M. Islam, W. McGaulley, M. Adams . Proceedings of Analitical WJTA American Waterjet Conference, August 21-25
2005. Houston, Texas.
7. P. Le Calvé, J-P Pautasso, N. Le Bozec . Protect. Coat. Europe, 3 (2) (2011) 16, and JPCL, 28 (5) (2011) 36.
8. P. Le Calvé, J-P Pautasso, N. Le Bozec . Paper 8369, Eurocorr09, September 6-10, 2009, Nice, France.
9. Hochmannová, Zinc-Rich Primers With Micaceous Iron Oxide, Symposium “Protective Corrosion Industry” April 2004.
10. P. Le Calvé, J-M Lacam, N. Le Bozec . Protective Coating Europe, 10(7), (2005) 29.
11. D. Ward . CORROSION/08, Paper 08003, New Orleans, NACE (2008).
39.Remedying excessive profile
Remedying Excessive Profile
This Month’s Question: What is the remedial action if a blaster produces too high a surface profile for
the required primer thickness?
From Jesse Chasteen
Schriener Construction
The surface requires rework. You should find out what the surface profile was on the test plate. What was the spec on the abrasive?
If the manufacturer stated that a specific profile range at a certain psi at the nozzle would result in the appropriate profile, but it
didn’t, then the rework should be subsidized.
It is important to answer many questions about why the excessive profile was created to ensure that a repeat performance doesn’t
happen. If the reason was an out of spec, pre-existing profile issue, the change to the abrasive after inspection of the test plate
would have been grounds for a change order, and the contractor would have appeared to be more professional. Always put the
horse in front of the cart; it’s the best way to move forward.
From Richard D. Souza

Stoncor Middle East LLC
When such a case arises, people re-blast with a fine grade sand or garnet abrasive to try to reduce the profile because it is always
assumed that re-blasting with a finer abrasive will bring down the profile to the desired profile range. However, I am very sure that,
at best, you may be able to bring the profile down by 10–15 microns by knocking off the high profile peaks, but it is almost
impossible to change a 100-micron profile to a 50-micron profile with this technique.
The same problem exists if there is an excessive pre-existing profile under the existing coating being removed and if there is
existing rust pitting on the surface. In such case, all parties involved must reach an agreement and take appropriate steps to
account for such variables, changing the coating system and/or increasing the total dft to meet or exceed the specification
requirements.
From Barry Barman

Barry Barman & Associates
Reblast using a finer abrasive. The finer abrasive will result in the cold flow of surface steel, creating a greater density of peaks and
valleys per unit of surface area but with a shallower profile.
From Carl Havemann

www.corrosioneducation.co.za
Check that the measurements are statistically representative. Use emery paper of suitable roughness to abrade the surface to
reduce the high points. Establish this method by experiment. This method, however, may be suitable only for small areas. An
altenative is to replace the primer with one having a higher film build to accommodate the profile.
Editor’s Note: The above Problem Solving Forum (PSF) question was posted on the free daily electronic
newsletter, PaintSquare News (PSN), on behalf of JPCL. PSF responses submitted through PSN as well as those sent
directly to JPCL are selected and edited to conform to JPCL style and space limitations. JPCL invites additional responses
to the question; you may send your answer directly to Karen Kapsanis, editor, JPCL, kkapsanis@protectivecoatings.com.

Fundamentals of Stripe Coating

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fundamentals of Stripe Coating

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1.

Fundamentals of stripe coating

More items for Quality Control

What is ‘Striping’ or ‘Stripe Coating?’

 Tinting of the stripe coat is advisable to promote contrast.

 Stripe coating is most effective on edges that are rounded by grinding.

Is Stripe Coating Necessary?

Stripe Coating Techniques

When Should Stripe Coating be Specified?

Is Stripe Coating an Additional Coat of Paint?

Which Generic Paints Warrant Consideration of Stripe Coating?

Which Coating Layers Warrant Stripe Coating?

Is Thinning Required for the Striping Material?

Should a Thickness Be Specified for a Stripe Coat?

What Application Methods Should Be Used for Stripe Coating?

 filling voids and other irregularities in the affected substrate areas;

Edge Retentive Coatings

THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2014 Technology Publishing Company

Comment from Michael Deaton, (2/26/2014, 7:03 AM)

Comment from Tom Selby, (2/26/2014, 12:49 PM)

Comment from Billy Russell, (2/26/2014, 4:35 PM)

3.Testing adhesion of multi-coat system

From James Albertoni CA Department of Water Resources

From Daniel Liu APC

From Tom Swan M-TEST

From Manpreet Singh Spiecapag Australia PTY LTD

From Atanas Cholakov ACT

From Trevor Neale TF Warren Group

From Bryant Chandler Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.

THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2013 Technology Publishing Company

THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2013 Technology Publishing Company

 Step 1: Instrument Calibration

 Step 2: Verification of Gage Accuracy on Certified Coated Standards or Certified Shims

 Step 4: Measurement of Coating Thickness

 Step 5: Correction for Base Metal Reading (if acquired).

Summary of Changes to SSPC-PA 2: 2004 Version and 2012 Version

Conformance to Specified Thickness: Conformance to Specified Thickness:

 Method for Measuring DFT of Coated Steel Pipe Exterior

Gage Calibration, Accuracy Verification, and Adjustment

Verifying Gage Accuracy

Verifying the Accuracy of Type 1 Gages

Verifying the Accuracy of Type 2 Gages

Adjusting Type 2 Gages

Acceptability of Gage Readings, Spot Measurements, and Area Measurements

Determining the Magnitude of Nonconforming Thickness

THE JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS ©2013 Technology Publishing Comp

6.Testing the cure of IOZ

From Simon Hope BIS Salamis (M&I)

From Gary Hall Consultant

 Whose responsibility is safety on a bridge coating site?

 What causes “amine blush” in epoxy topcoats?

7. Basics of corrosion of steel for applicators

 a positive pole (a cathode),

 a negative pole (an anode),

 an electrical conductor, and

Upcoming Applicator Training Bulletins

Basics of Corrosion and Coatings

 Basics of Concrete Deterioration for Applicators

 How Coatings Protect Concrete

 Introduction to Surface Preparation of Concrete

 Mechanical Methods of Preparing Concrete

 Chemical Cleaning of Concrete

 Power Tool Cleaning for Steel