Cases from the F-Files

The Case of Shop Painting Going to Waste

By Jayson L. Helsel, P.E., KTA-Tator, Inc., Senior Consultant
Richard Burgess, KTA-Tator, Inc., Series Editor

N
ew steel rake arm compo-
nents were installed in
steel clarifier tanks at a
wastewater treatment plant in the east-
ern U.S. and finish coated on site during
2005. The rake arm components were
reported to have been shop primed with
one coat of epoxy coating and then
stored off site for an extended period of
time before delivery to the treatment
plant and installation.
The product data sheet for the epoxy
coating recommended a dry film thick-
ness (DFT) of 4 to 10 mils per coat
applied to an SSPC-SP 10 (Near-White
Blast Cleaning) prepared surface.
Further information related to the shop
painting and storage of the steel compo-
nents was not available. Fig. 2
Fig. 1
Once the shop-coated steel was
assembled in the various tanks,
Figs. 1-3: Various photos of typical coating failure
two finish coats of a different on steel components. All photos courtesy of KTA-
manufacturers epoxy coating Tator, Inc.
were applied to the shop-applied
primer. The product data sheet had delaminated, and a red primer was
for the epoxy finish coat recom- visible (Figs. 13). Areas of failure were
mended 5 to 8 mils DFT per coat. typically only several square inches in
The steel surfaces of the assem- size, but relatively widespread through-
blies in the tanks where work was out the various tanks. There did not
first completed consisted of pres- appear to be a particular pattern to the
Fig. 3
surized water cleaning. However, failure.
the surface preparation method was were performed. An independent third Closer examination of the failed areas
later changed to brush-off blasting. party investigation of the coating failure found that the back side of the delami-
A few months after the tanks were was requested to determine the cause of nating finish also contained a red
placed into service, the new finish coats the problem. primer layer, with red primer remaining

The Site Investigation

applied to the clarifier assembly were
observed to be delaminating from the
shop-applied primer coat in all of the
tanks where the new steel components
had been installed. The coating failure
occurred in tanks regardless of whether
water cleaning or brush-off blast clean-
ing methods of surface preparation
A coatings consultant visited the site to
investigate the failure in early 2007. A
visual examination of the tanks
revealed scattered coating failure on the
newly installed rake arm assemblies of
the tanks, where the white finish coat
on the steel surfaces. In places where
the finish coat had delaminated, the
loose edges of the finish coat could typi-
cally be pried from the surface with rel-
ative ease using a putty knife. When the
finish coat was forcibly removed, the
back side showed a thin and relatively
Continued

10 JPCL August 2010 www.paintsquare.com

 Cases from the F-Files

uniform layer of the red primer, indicat-
ing that the break in the system was
either between (adhesive) or within
(cohesive) layers of the red primer coat.
Coating adhesion was evaluated fol-
lowing Method A of ASTM D3359,
Standard Test Methods for Measuring
Adhesion by Tape Test. The Method A
tape test involves making two intersect-
ing cuts through the coating to the sub-
strate with the smaller angle of the cuts
between 30 and 45 degrees. A pressure-
sensitive tape is then applied to the X-
cut area and rapidly removed. The
adhesion is rated according to the scale
provided in the method, with the high-
est rating being 5A (no coating
removed).
Testing the rake arm components
throughout the tanks showed poor
adhesion between the finish coat and
primer coat, as evidenced by 0A (worst)
or 1A test ratings. The remaining
primer was well adhered to the steel.
The DFT of the coatings was mea-
sured at various locations over steel
surfaces of the rake arm assemblies. The
measurements for total DFT varied
with ranges as low as 14 to 18 mils and
as high as 25 to 29 mils. The thickness
of the exposed red primer that
remained on the steel surfaces was also
measured, with DFTs ranging from 6 to
11 mils. The thickness of the finish coat
could not easily be determined in the
field since a thin layer of the primer was
also delaminating.
Representative coating samples were
collected from tank rake arm assemblies
for laboratory analysis to help deter-
mine the cause of failure. One of the
samples obtained included all coating
layers down to the steel substrate.

Have a new Surface Prep project but dont want The Laboratory Analysis
to invest in new equipment? Try renting! From Following the site visit, the samples
40k waterblasters to spinning nozzles. Blasting were submitted to the laboratory for
mowers to lances, water guns to safety wear. visual and microscopic examination
FS Solutions centers carry high quality and infrared spectroscopy. The micro-
Jetstream units for rent or purchase as scopic analysis of delaminated samples
well as all of the parts and accessories revealed three coating layers. The first
for your surface prep application. red coatthe coating that had delami-
nated from red primer that remained on
Call today for pricing the steelwas approximately 0.5 mils
thick. A light blue intermediate coat (or
and availability.
first finish coat) was 3 to 7 mils thick,
and the white top coat was also 3 to 7
mils thick.
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

The additional sample of the entire

Weve Got You Covered
Purchase or Rent
Long Beach, CA 866.515.9891 Birmingham, AL 800.822.8785
Gonzales, LA 225.647.0660 Toledo, OH 888.415.7368
Image courtesy of Hydro-Klean, Inc.
12 JPCL August 2010
coating system applied to the steel was
also examined under the microscope.
This cross-section showed five coating
layersthree red coats (primer) and the
two finish coats. For the primer coats,
the first red coat was 8 to 9 mils thick,
the next (darker) red coat was 15 to 16
mils thick, and the third (lighter) red
coat was approximately 0.5 mils thick.
Continued
www.paintsquare.com
 Cases from the F-Files

The remaining (finish) coats were different epoxy coating products, as

consisted of a light blue coat, had been reported.

10 to 11 mils thick, and the
white topcoat, 12 to 15 mils
thick. The edges of the sample
appeared to exhibit coating
fracture between the second,
darker red coat and the thin-
ner, lighter red coat (Fig. 4). The
thickness of the lighter red coat
was consistent with the range
of thickness of the red coat on
the delaminated sample chips. Fig. 4: Lab microphoto showing coating fracture between
what appeared to be a darker red coat from a thinner, lighter
The fractured edge of the
sample was further examined
by applying pressure at the point of
fracture to induce separation. The
forced separation at the point of frac-
ture resulted in the back two red coats
disbonding from the top three coats,
which included the white top coat, light
blue intermediate coat, and the thin red
coat. This mode of separation matched
red coat.
that observed in the field, both from
delaminating finish coat and by adhe-
sion testing.
The infrared spectroscopic analysis of
the various coating layers found all mate-
rials were epoxy coatings. However, dif-
ferences in the spectra obtained indicated
that the red primer and white/blue finish
Possible Explanations
Although the primer and finish coats
were from different manufacturers,
there should not have been an inherent
compatibility problem between the
coatings. Both coatings were epoxies,
but differed slightly in their composi-
tionthe primer was an amine epoxy
and the finish was a polyamide epoxy.
When dealing with epoxies, one possi-
bility for coating problems is curing
stresses imposed by new coats of exces-
sive thickness, but the samples obtained
from the site visit did not generally
show excessive thickness. The thickness
of the finish coats was typically consis-
tent with the recommended DFT of 10
to 16 mils for two coats.
With the coating system separating
Continued

FROM DETECTION TO CORRECTION:

The Corrosion Probe staff
has over 500 years of collective
water industry experience and expertise
For steel and concrete water tanks,
water treatment plants, aqueducts, and pipelines, CPI provides:
Condition Assessment Failure Analysis Services
Civil/Structural Engineering Field & Laboratory Testing
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric

Coatings/Linings Design Cathodic Protection Design

Metallurgical Engineering QC/QA Inspection Services

CORROSION PROBE, INC.

Your Rehabilitation
Phone: (860) 767-4402
Contact Us:
and Corrosion Control
Email: nixonr@cpiengineering.com
www.cpiengineering.com
Specialists

www.paintsquare.com JPCL August 2010 13


Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric
Looking for quality containment tarps for your next project?
Need fast turn around time?
Jenessco is the solution! We offer:
Abrasion resistant tarps for multi-job use
Flame retardant and rip-stop fabrics
85%, 95%, 100% Duramesh, Vinyl and Canvas fabric
Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric
For over 20 years, Jenessco has been supplying containment to the following industries:
Oilfield Shipyards Refineries and Power plants Paper mills And more.
Call today for a custom quote.
Free fabric sample swatches available upon request.
jenessco.com 281.498.8833 felix@jenessco.com
14 JPCL August 2010
F-Files
within the primer layers, the failure was
either a cohesive break within the same
coating layer or an adhesive break
between different primer layers. All
indications from the laboratory analysis
were that the thin red primer layer
delaminating with the finish coat was a
separate coating layer. This determina-
tion was based on: (1) the clearly identi-
fied thin coating layer at the upper por-
tion of the red primer; (2) the lighter red
color of this thin layer; and (3) the clear
break that occurred along the same
plane between coating layers when fail-
ure occurred spontaneously or was
induced in the laboratory.
The determination that the thin red
layer is a separate coat suggests that an
additional coat of the primer was
applied sometime after the first two
primer coats. The finish coats adhered
well to this primer layer, but there was a
weak link in the coating system between
the second and third primer layers. This
was not evident until after the finish
coats were applied and the tanks were
put into service. The poor overall adhe-
sion between the primer layers indicat-
ed that the failure would likely have
occurred regardless of which finish coat
product would have been applied. There
was no evidence that the finish coats
were inappropriately applied or that the
application and/or selection of the top-
coat significantly contributed to the
coating failures.
The laboratory analysis did not indi-
cate a reason for the poor adhesion
between primer coats. Epoxy coatings
may be difficult to recoat after an
extended period due to the hard and
dense coating film that forms. Most
coating manufacturers recommend
scarifying the primer surface before
topcoating if exterior exposure is 30
days or longer. Although the length of
time that had elapsed between shop
priming the steel and applying the finish
coat was not established, the time peri-
od was likely well in excess of one
month.
www.paintsquare.com
 F-Files

Exposed epoxy coatings will also

chalk, leaving loosely adhered pigment
particles (i.e., like a dust) over the top
surface of the coating. Chalking between
the primer layers did not appear to
have occurred to any significant extent
since the infrared analysis of the primer
coats did not indicate a pigment rich
layer characteristic of a chalked sur-
face. Nor was there any evidence of
amine blush on the back surface of the
failed red primer.

Conclusion
The cause of the failure was attributed
to exceeding the recoat time for the
epoxy primer, which did not allow the
last primer coat applied to achieve ade-
quate adhesion to the initial primer lay-
ers. A likely scenario was that the shop-
primed steel was initially coated with
two coats of epoxy primer and stored
for an extended period. Prior to ship-
ment and erection at the site, an addi-
tional thin layer of the primer was
applied, creating the weak adhesive link
in the coating system that failed after
the tanks were put into service.
JPCL

Jayson Helsel, P.E., a

senior coatings con-
sultant with KTA-
Tator, Inc., manages
failure investigations
and coatings projects
and is involved with coatings surveys
and inspection of industrial structures.
He holds an MS in chemical engi-
neering from the University of Michigan,
is a registered professional engineer,
and is a NACE-Certified Coatings
Inspector. He has been published in the
past in JPCL and in the Journal of
Architectural Coatings, which featured
his monthly column, "Getting It Right."

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