Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BRDG-2004-04-1 - StrucSteelCoatingMan
BRDG-2004-04-1 - StrucSteelCoatingMan
BRIDGE OFFICE
(SSCM)
The information contained herein has been carefully compiled and is believed to be
accurate at the date of publication. Freedom from error, however, cannot be guaranteed.
Enquires regarding the purchase and distribution of this manual should be directed to:
Publications Ontario
By telephone: 1-800-668-9938
By fax: (613) 566-2234
TTY: 1-800-268-7095
Online: www.publications.gov.on.ca
Part 1 of the SSCM, Contract Preparation, was first issued in draft form in November
1985 and, subsequently, used in the preparation of Ministry coating contracts. After
undergoing extensive revisions it is now included as part 1 of SSCM.
The supplement to the SSCM, Special Provisions, was first issued in October 1985 and
revised in November 1986. It is now included, with minor changes, as part 2 of the
SSCM.
The idea for this manual was first conceived in 1984, by Engel VanBeilen, then, Head of
the Structural Office’s Field Services Section. He identified the need for a reference book
on coatings for Ministry use. This manuscript is the response to that objective.
The assistance of people too numerous to list in various M.T.C. offices and the Ontario
painting Contractors Association who critically read and commented on the document is
gratefully acknowledged. Their comments, which aided in turning an idea into reality,
were reviewed and incorporated into SSCM by the following committee:
April 2004 i
PREFACE TO THE SSCM 2004 EDITION
The Structural Steel Coating Manual, SSCM, was first published in 1987 primarily to
assist the ministry staff in achieving a consistent approach with respect to the preparation
of coating contracts. Since then there have been five updates issued from time to time
until 1992.
In order to continue to meet this objective and to provide the ministry staff with the latest
developments in coating technology for corrosion protection, Bridge Office recognised
the need for a revised version of the SSCM. The following were assigned to work on this
project:
There have been many developments in coating materials and practices since 1992.
This revised edition incorporates many changes to the original manual, including changes
made to the coating condition rating system in the OSIM, low VOC coatings, new
developments & alternative approaches available for maintenance coating of steel
structures such as overcoating and zone painting, details of test methods to be used during
detailed coating condition survey to evaluate overcoatability of the existing coatings, a
detailed discussion on criteria to be used for the selection of the most appropriate coating
option, revision to the chapter on planning and a set of new specifications and special
provisions.
It is expected that if all involved parties are made aware of the criteria for the different
maintenance coating options, latest specifications, procedures and approved coating
systems, and if coating systems are applied by competent contractors under the
supervision of qualified coating inspectors, it is possible to mitigate corrosion in the most
economical fashion.
April 2004 ii
SCOPE
Part 1of this manual details the activities essential in the planning and design of structural
steel coating contracts.
The text in Part I addresses four of the five main stages that contribute bridge coating,
namely:
iii) Design – selecting the appropriate coating system and requirements for
surface preparation & cleaning; and
The fifth stage – construction: involving the actual surface preparation & cleaning,
coating and inspection of the bridge (coating work) is outside the scope of this manual.
“Construction Administration and Inspection Task Manual” prepared by the Construction
Office of the Ministry, which is regularly updated, provides the necessary information
related to the construction administration and inspection work of all ministry contracts.
Part 2 contains typical special provisions used in coating contracts. It is to be noted that
most of the technical aspects of the SP 911F06 of October 2000, SP 911S07 of October
2000, SP 911S09 of November 1999, SP 911F04 of March 1997, and SP 911 S01
“Environmental Protection During Coating of Structural Steel and Railing System” of
May 1996 have been incorporated into the new OPSS 911 “ Construction Specification
for Coating Structural Steel Systems” dated April 2003. Consequently, the new special
provisions in Part2 of this manual are significantly smaller and deal with mainly the ‘Fill
–in’ sections and aspects which were not included in the OPSS 911 of April 2003. The
Special provisions 911S05 and 911S01 have also been revised by the Provincial and
Environmental Planning Office to make them compatible with the new OPSS 911.
6. DESIGN....................................................................................................................... 1-40
6.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 1-40
6.2 Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry Between 1986-1996......................................... 1-41
6.3 Current Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry (Since 1996) ....................................... 1-41
6.4 New Steel .................................................................................................................................. 1-43
6.5 Coating of Railing Systems ....................................................................................................... 1-44
6.6 Localized Coating Failure ......................................................................................................... 1-44
6.7 Field Identification of Existing Coatings................................................................................... 1-45
6.8 Surface Preparation and Cleaning Requirements for the Approved Coating Systems .............. 1-46
6.9 Selection of the Coating System................................................................................................ 1-48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Rust Condition Rating Categories for Coatings in OSIM 1-9
Figure 2.2 Performance Curves of Oil/Alkyd/SSPC-SP 2 1-11
Figure 2.3 Corrosion of Base Carbon Steel 1-11
Figure 2.4 ASTM D610 Pictorial- 0.3% rust 1-13
Figure 2.5 ASTM D610 Pictorial- 10% rust 1-13
1.1 General
The Ministry of Transportation has over 700 steel bridges under its jurisdiction. A recent
study1 showed that there are about 475 carbon steel bridges and about 250 atmospheric
corrosion resistant (ACR) steel (or weathering steel) bridges. It is mandatory that these
vital links in the highway system be protected from the detrimental effects of corrosion.
ACR steel, under normal weathering cycles, oxidises to form a tough layer of rust
referred to as "patina", which protects the steel from unabated corrosion2. However, this
steel too is susceptible to corrosion-induced deterioration under prolonged or severe
wetting and drying conditions (i.e. when the conditions are not right for the formation of
patina). The corrosion-induced deterioration is aggravated in the presence of de-icing
salts, especially under the leaking expansion joints and in the splash zones3, 4. Therefore,
ACR steel too needs to be protected in corrosion prone areas, such as under the leaking
expansion joints and in the splash zones in a bridge4.
Coatings are by far the most widely used form of steel protection and corrosion control.
A well-formulated coating system applied under the right environmental conditions on a
properly prepared surface is expected to protect the structure for many years. Failure of
the coatings invariably leads to corrosion and associated material and performance
defects of steel components in the structure. The related rehabilitation and replacement
costs are a concern to the ministry.
Historically, coating of bridge structures has been a lower priority item in the ministry,
compared to other rehabilitation needs. Due to continually rising labour costs, material
costs and the enormous increase in associated environmental protection costs, it is
necessary to place greater emphasis in developing economical coating alternatives in
order to address the need to protect steel structures from deterioration.
In recent years there have been significant developments in the areas of surface
preparation methods (e.g. the use of high and ultra high pressure water-jetting), protective
coating system formulations (e.g. coating systems for marginally prepared surfaces) and
maintenance painting procedures (e.g. overcoating). Hence, all the currently available
options for maintenance coating need to be carefully examined.
Prior knowledge of the existing coating is useful and often necessary to decide on the
maintenance coating options. It is imperative to know the existing coating system, if one
considers overcoating as an option for maintenance coating. The following coating
systems have been used on provincial steel structures.
This system was used on most coated steel bridges until about 1974 when it was
discontinued. It consisted of:
This system was used on most coated steel bridges from about 1974 to 1985. Its use has
been discontinued. It consisted of:
This system was used from 1982 until the introduction of low VOC systems in 1996. It
consisted of:
This system was used on coated steel bridges starting in 1987 until the introduction of
low VOC systems in 1996. It consisted of:
This system had been used since about 1982 on a number of coated steel bridges. It had
also been used in selected locations on atmospheric corrosion resistant (weathering) steel,
under expansion joints. It was discontinued in 1988 as a complete recoating system, but
could still be used for touch-up. It consisted of:
This system has been used in the past on the inside of some box girders. It is black or
dark brown in colour.
This system is one of the low VOC systems that have been in use for coating structural
steel since 1996. It consists of:
This system is one of the low VOC systems that have been in use for coating structural
steel since 1996. It consists of:
This system is one of the low VOC systems that are in the DSM list for coating structural
steel. It has only been used on a trial basis on some girders of Willow Creek Bridge. It
consists of:
j) Epoxy-Zinc/Acrylic/Acrylic (System 1)
This system is one of the low VOC systems that are in the DSM list for coating structural
steel. This system has only been used on a trial basis on some girders of Willow Creek
Bridge. It consists of:
The prime coat is an aluminium filled epoxy mastic type product, the mid coat is high
solids flexible aliphatic surface tolerant polyurethane and the topcoat is aliphatic
polyurethane. This system was applied on to the north side of the bridge. However, due to
the non-availability of the mid coat material, the south side received two coats of
aluminium filled epoxy mastic prime coat material and aliphatic polyurethane topcoat.
This bridge was previously painted with high build alkyd system [see subsection (b)
above], which received the above overcoating treatment.
Hot-dipped galvanizing of steel hand rails components commenced in 1987, after the
introduction of a coating policy which required that standard steel hand rails be hot-dip
galvanized and the posts and brackets metallized (see Appendix IV). Hot-dipped
galvanizing was used for coating of five bridges during 90’s, which included Upper
Canada CNR Overhead in the Eastern Region, Cripple Creek Bridge, New Liskeard, and
CNR Overhead at Parry Sound (Site # 44-163 - now a Municipal Bridge) in Northern
Region, Dereham Townline Overpass and Kent County Road # 15 Bridge over Hwy 401,
in the South Western Region1.
1.2.3 Metallizing
As stated above, metallizing of steel posts and brackets commenced in the year 1987 as a
field application method using flame spray process. Thermal arc sprayed metallizing was
employed for coating of the girders and new diaphragms of Division Street overpass,
Hwy 401, Kingston in 19987. A clear seal coat was applied over the metallic coating to
provide additional corrosion (barrier) protection. This work was done off site in a shop
and the coated components were transported back to the site and erected prior to the
installation of a new bridge deck.
The alkyd systems and aluminium epoxymastic system used in the past were applied onto
steel surfaces abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC -SP6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast
standard8 with the exception of a few structures which were coated over mill scale. For
the vinyl systems and the Low VOC systems, specification required the steel surfaces to
be abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC-SP10/NACE No. 2, Near-White Metal Standard9. For
the metallizing of steel girders of Division Street overpass in Kingston, the specification
At present, as a general practice, only the low VOC three coat paint systems from the
Designated Sources Materials (DSM) 12 list are specified for coating application on
abrasive blast cleaned steel.
2.1 General
Prior to any field inspection, all available documents concerning the original coating and
subsequent maintenance coating and their respective performances must be studied. This
review will establish what the inspector may encounter and also what to look for.
While conducting the detailed visual inspection, the Regional Structural Section should
note the coating condition as well as the condition of the members of the structure.
2.2.1 General
A structure must be inspected prior to contract design to ascertain the type and condition
of the existing coating system, condition of structural steel members and to assess
problem areas and maintenance requirements such as:
- deck drains and/or 25mm drain tubes that should be lengthened to prevent deposition
of runoff water on freshly coated steel members;
- to decide on maintenance painting options such as zone painting, touch up, full
removal & recoating and to decide on conducting a detailed coating condition survey
to assess overcoatability of the existing coatings.
The new condition rating in OSIM for coatings is based on material defects and Rust
Condition Rating Categories 1-4, which is described below and illustrated in Figure 2.1
This rating is performed for a component or sections of a component when there is a wide
variation in localised areas of a component. The new OSIM Coating Condition Rating
Categories and the parameters used for this assessment are presented in Table 2.1 and
Table 2.2.
Rust condition rating in the new OSIM (Tables 2.1 & 2.2) is based on the percentage of
surface rust on the coated steel. ASTM D 610 standards/sketches13 and SSPC VIS 2
Pictorial standards14 are used as guides for rating purposes. The rust condition rating
categories and maximum % rust for various categories are given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
** OSIM Rust Condition Ratings based on ASTM D 610 sketches are shown in
Figure 2.1.
The use of a pen knife to lift the paint film from areas which surround total loss of
coating will assist in determining the actual area, which should be considered as failed,
resulting in more appropriate rating.
During detailed coating condition survey, the percentage of metal area exposed or
affected by corrosion and corrosion by-products as evident on the steel surface is also
evaluated to determine the sectional loss of a component or a sectional loss in localized
areas.
Figure 2.2 and 2.3 show how rapidly coatings can deteriorate if not maintained and how
this then translates into section loss16.
Figure 2.2 is for an oil/alkyd coating but similar curves were reported for other coatings
in different environments. The points A, B, C refer respectively to 0.03%, 0.1% and 0.3%
rust 16. The graph shows that at about 0.3% rust the coating breakdown accelerates
rapidly.
Figure 2.3 shows the rate of metal loss after the coating has deteriorated completely. The
SSPC has determined that metal loss may occur beyond the 10% rust mark16.
In the new OSIM coating condition rating, rust marks of 3% and above are rated as in
Poor condition.
The Metals Handbook17 by the American Society for Metals (ASM) cautions that the
environmental classifications into rural, urban, industrial, marine, etc., are gross
oversimplifications of a particular situation. It suggests that the corrosion rate data, like
the above shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, should be used as qualitative rather than
quantitative. Corrosion rates can vary considerably within small proximities.
The main factors affecting corrosion of bridge members in Ontario and other places
where de-icing salts are used for winter maintenance are: a) the degree of exposure to de-
icing salts and b) the duration of wetness.
The Ministry’s experience clearly shows that within a bridge there can be different
corrosive environments. Under leaking expansion joints, at locations subject to salt
splashing, and in areas where there is bird droppings and accumulation debris, steel
components are in a severe corrosion environment and corrosion can occur at higher
rates. Areas that are not exposed to salt spray or the accumulation of debris and moisture
usually show much lower corrosion rates and can be considered as relatively benign.
Therefore, during inspection, special attention needs to be placed to the corrosion prone
areas described above to assess the extent and degree of coating failure and corrosion
damage.
The OSIM condition rating for coating is determined by assessing the degree of rusting
(Rust Condition Rating Categories) and other defects included in the Table 2.2.
To assist the person conducting the assessment arrive at an objective Rust Condition
Rating Category (and Coating Condition Rating), the following sketches in Figures 2.1,
based on the ASTM D 61013 should be used. These sketches are visual aids and they
compare, where applicable, the rust condition ratings for painted steel components to
pictorial representations of percent rust in SSPC- VIS 214 published by the SSPC. The
SSPC-VIS 2 pictorials are representative of rust but not blisters. Blisters should be treated
as if they were rust when determining the rust condition rating.
In addition to the assessment of degree of rusting (Rust Condition Rating), the inspector
should look for and assess the following defects in the coating.
Detailed description on the above defects and their causes are found in the Steel
Structures Painting Manual Volume 1, Good Painting Practice18and Corrosion Prevention
by Protective Coatings19.
MTO does not wait for a fixed time period before re-coating and maintenance painting.
The current practice is to allow certain level of corrosion or coating failure to occur
before re-coating or to adopt other maintenance painting procedures.
For many years, the Ministry has been using 10% rust mark (based on ASTM D610,
SSPC-VIS 2) as a failure point of the existing coating for primary components that
requires re-coating. With the revision of the OSIM coating rating categories, areas of
components exhibiting 3% rust mark and above are all classified as in Poor Condition.
Many organizations use more stringent criteria than the ministry's criteria for re-coating.
The Society for Protective Coatings, SSPC, criterion falls between 0.03% - 0.3% rust16
(see Figure 2.4) while the British Iron ands Steel research association use 0.1% rust (ref.
19, p 294). Appleman 16 says a structure should be re-coated at least at the 10% rust mark
(see Figure 2.5) before there is a possibility of metal loss, which is seen as happening
beyond the 10% rust mark.
3.1 General
A detailed coating condition survey is carried out to assess whether the structure is a
suitable candidate for overcoating project and to assess the risks associated with such a
decision. In order to select candidate structures for such a survey, one has to consider not
only the coating condition rating of individual structural elements, but also about the
overall coating condition (of all the elements) of the bridge structure. In the case of steel
girders, the ends of girders are considered as separate elements from the rest of the
girders12. The following combinations of coating condition rating is proposed for the
selection of structures for detailed condition survey and to assess whether the structure is
suitable for overcoating (Table 3.1). Since the detailed coating condition survey to
evaluate overcoatability is discussed in detail in this section of this manual, OSIM only
lists the tests to be performed during a detailed coating condition survey and makes
reference to this manual (Structural steel coating manual) in Section 1.3.3 – Specialized
Investigations.
The detailed coating condition survey for assessing overcoatability of the structure
includes visual inspection and physical inspection of the structure and the existing
coating, which is discussed in depth below in this section – (Section 3).
Table 3.1
Criteria for Selection of Steel Structures for Detailed Coating Condition Survey
Ends of Girder Middle Section of Girder b
Overall % Area in % Area in % Area in % Area in Good Action Option/
Category Fair & Poor Good & Fair & Poor & Comments
Condition a Excellent Condition a Excellent
Condition Condition
Detailed coating Overcoating
Condition survey may be an
A 50> X >25 > 50 50> X >25 > 50 and technical option
assessment for
overcoating
No immediate Overcoating
action required, if may be an
B > 50 < 50 50> X >25 > 50 length of girder is option for
<20 m girders
> 20m
C No action required Overcoating
50> X >25 >50 <25 >75 at present may be an
option in the
future
Note: If majority of the girders in the structure comes under the overall category A and the rest in category C, it is
recommended that a detailed coating condition survey is carried out to assess the technical suitability of the structure
for overcoating, provided that the area of poor condition is under 10%. However if the majority of the girders are in
category C, with a smaller number in category A, the detailed coating condition survey may be delayed. Superscript a:
% of Poor Condition should be <10%;
Superscript b: Criteria to be used for full girders, if the ends of the girders are not rated separately.
3.5.1 General
Physical inspection of the existing coating is conducted to determine the dry film
thickness (DFT), number of layers of paint, adhesion, underlying substrate condition,
coating type and the presence of soluble salt and other surface contamination. The
number of test locations examined must be such that it provides a representative picture
of all major conditions existing on the structure22. Table 3.4 gives testing frequencies for
the different tests.
Prior to the detailed inspection, the inspection crew should review all the information
available with regard to the structure and the existing coating, including the previous
construction and inspection reports. Information on the coating materials and the abrasive
blast cleaning standard used for coating work could be obtained from the above reports.
Section 1.2 of this manual also gives valuable information regarding various coating
systems and surface preparation standards used over the years on ministry structures,
which may be of use if information with regard to coating systems are not available from
other sources. However, laboratory testing of the coating material is necessary for
positive identification of the coating materials/systems. For such a positive identification
of the existing coating, small representative paint chips (small paint samples) retrieved
from the structure should be sent to the Concrete Section of the Materials Engineering
and Research Office (MERO) of the MTO, 2nd Floor, Building C, 1201 Wilson Avenue,
Downsview, Ontario.
DFT measurements to determine the total DFT of the existing coatings can be readily
performed using a Type 2 (constant pressure probe) magnetic gauge (such as Positector
6000 etc.). It is recommended that DFT measurements be taken on all accessible faces of
the steel girders/members.
Since many potential candidate MTO steel structures for overcoating projects consist of
I-beam carbon steel girders, it is appropriate that DFT measurements are taken, possibly
on all the accessible faces of the I-beam girders in the structure, i.e. on 7 faces. Ray
Weaver of SSPC, Pittsburgh, in his answer to Problem Solving Forum on Measuring
DFT on Steel I-Beams23, states that SSPC is developing a procedure for measuring the
dry film thickness of coatings on steel beams.
The following procedure, which was suggested by Mr. Weaver as a possible procedure
for measuring DFT on I-beams, is recommended for conducting DFT measurements
using Type II magnetic gauge on MTO structures with I-beam girders (for overcoating
projects).
For beams up to 12 m in length, choose a 0.6m length of beam near one end and another
0.6m length near the centre. As indicated in SSPC-PA 2 (Section 4.1.2), take one spot
measurement on each of the seven surfaces within the designated 0.6m length. The
average of these spot measurements is the DFT. If some of the seven surfaces are not
accessible, take at least five spot measurements with at least one spot on each accessible
surface. Repeat for the other 0.6m length.
For beams between 12m and 24 m in length, divide the beam into thirds. Choose a 0.6m
length of beam near one end, and randomly select a 0.6m length from each of the other
thirds. Measure the DFT in each 0.6m length as described above.
For beams over 24 m in length, divide the beam into 12m segments. The final segment
will be less than 12m, if the total length is not a whole number of 12m increments.
Choose a 0.6m length near one end and randomly selected 0.6m length from each beam
segment. Measure DFT in each 0.6m length as described above.
DFT of individual layers and the number of layers on coated steel can be measured using
a Tooke gauge. The procedure is based on ASTM D 413824, “Measurement of Dry Film
Thickness of Protective coating Systems by Destructive Means”. Tooke gauge
measurements are made by making a sharp straight scribe/cut at precise angle through the
paint layers down to the substrate, using the cutting tool that comes with the instrument.
The scribe is viewed through a 50x microscope of the instrument and the number of each
coat and thickness of each coat are measured. When examining the coating, the inspector
can observe the condition of the substrate as well. If rust is present beneath the primer
coating, it will often be visible. Since this is a destructive test method, the damage caused
to the coating has to be repaired after taking the measurements.
One method for assessing the condition of the coating in terms of its flexibility (or
brittleness) is to scrape off a small area of paint with a sharp carpenter’s chisel. If the
paint film curls up, it is flexible and in good condition for overcoating with little risk. If
the film fractures into chips, it is considered brittle and a higher risk for overcoating25.
Coating brittleness can also be assessed by a simple crosscut of the coating film by a
sharp knife. Poor coatings tend to crack and flake/come off, especially at the intersection
of the cuts. Again this is a destructive test and the coating has to be repaired after the test.
Ionic surface contaminants such as chlorides and sulphates can lead to decreased coating
life and increased rate of corrosion of the substrate, whereas grease, oil, and dust result in
poor wetting and adhesion of the overcoating system. Quantitative methods and semi-
The minimum specified thickness of coating systems used in MTO structures is expected
to be above 200 µm (or above the minimum specified) at the time of application. In order
to evaluate adhesion of these coatings, it is recommended that a modified version35 of
ASTM D 3359 Method B, called crosshatch method, be used. This modified procedure
requires the spacing of 5mm between adjacent cuts. KTA-Tator crosshatch cutting kit
(steel template with the required spacings, sharp razor or knife, pressure-sensitive
adhesive tape) or equivalent apparatus could be used. A grid of cuts is made through all
paint layers (by first making a set of parallel cuts using the cutting tool with a spacing of
5mm between the cutting edges and then making a second series of cuts, made
perpendicular to the first), resulting in 9 squares each 5mmx5mm. Pressure-sensitive tape
is applied to the cut surface and pulled off as given in the ASTM D 3359 Procedure34.
The amount of paint removal within the grid is used to assess the strength of the adhesive
bond. On a scale of 0B to 5B, Rating of 1B is between 35% and 65% paint removal,
which is unsatisfactory. Rating of 2 B is 16% to 35%, which is considered marginal, with
a considerable risk, since overcoating this paint would result in early failure. Ratings of
3B, 4B and 5B are satisfactory indicating that the old paint is sound enough to be
overcoated with compatible coating system and would have the normal expected life.
Risk assessment for overcoating based on ASTM D 3359 adhesion tests and coatings
thickness1 are summarized in Table 3.2. ASTM D 3359 Method B can be directly
applied (unmodified) for coatings having a thickness of <125µm.
As an alternative to the adhesion testing based on ASTM D3359, pull-off adhesion tests
based on ASTM D 454120 can be carried out to assess the adhesion of the aged coatings.
According to KTA Tator Report35, “In a survey of SSPC Paint manufacturers, minimum
values of 0.34 MPa - 2.1 MPa (50 –300 psi), were cited as necessary for overcoating.
Lenhart and El-Nagger have suggested the pull-off adhesion values of 0.69 MPa - 1.38
MPa (100 -200 psi) are marginal for overcoating and that adhesion of 1.72 MPa – 4.14
MPa (250 -600 psi) is acceptable for overcoating”. Glen Amos, in a recent article36 on
“Maintenance Painting/Practical Advice”, states, “As a rule, if the new coating is a single
component product that would add very little stress to the old coating, a minimum of 1.38
MPa – 1.72 MPa (200 - 250 psi) adhesion/cohesion is acceptable. Conversely, if the new
coating is a multiple-component product that would impart significant stress during cure,
the old system should display minimum adhesion/cohesion readings of 2.4 MPa (350
psi). This higher number is also appropriate for structures with more than five coats of
old paint, >20 mils (508 µm) thickness of old paint, and a severe environment”. Based on
the above information, it is recommended that a pull-off adhesion value of over 1.38 MPa
(200 psi) is required for overcoating projects.
Patch testing is a good method for determining whether the new overcoating system that
is to be used is compatible with the existing coating. The test should be performed so that
the worst-case exposure to the patch is achieved. This could be conducted as described in
ASTM D 506437. Representative areas or components of the structure should be selected
for testing. It is important that any test patch should include the feathered edges of the
existing paint at prepared rusted or degraded areas. Area(s) in poor condition as well as
area (s) that typify the overall condition of the existing coating should be selected for this
evaluation. The areas selected should be inspected (visual and physical) carefully and the
results of the inspection recorded. It is recommended that the surface preparation to be
used for the patch test should be the same as the procedure to be used for overcoating
project and is as follows:
Overcoating materials to be used for patch testing should be from the MTO approved
coating systems for marginally prepared coated steel. It is necessary to apply the
overcoating materials by the same procedure that will be used on the overcoating project,
at the recommended thickness under the recommended atmospheric and surface
conditions. The patch shall be re-inspected after curing/drying and condition of the patch
shall be documented. If the old coating is attacked, there will be signs of softening,
blistering or delamination. If there are no signs of initial failure then, the test patches
should be re-inspected a second time after 6 -12 months, preferably after one winter
season. DFT measurements and adhesion test may be conducted on the patch.
Patch test results are rather straightforward to interpret. Good compatibility is indicated
by the absence of any delamination in the patch or adhesion failures. Delaminated
At present the ministry does not have any specific information with regard to
compatibility of approved overcoating materials with the existing coating systems on
MTO bridges. Therefore, it is mandatory at the initial phase to conduct patch testing with
the approved overcoating materials on to the following existing coating systems on MTO
bridges:
Once the data on compatibility of the approved overcoating systems (materials) with the
above existing coating systems are collected and analysed, this information could be
made available for future reference.
Testing Frequencies for Various Tests During Physical Inspection for Overcoating
Projects
TEST Location/Location Selection Number of Tests
Recommended
Total DFT (Type In Conformance with In Conformance with
II Pull-off SSPC-PA 2 SSPC-PA 2
magnetic gauge)
DFT of individual Select at random (or select areas where the total DFT Limit the number to a
layers by Tooke from the previous measurements are either too low or too few tests at
high)
gauge representative locations
Coating Brittleness Select at random, to include areas where the Limit the number to a
coating is prone to more environmental few tests at
degradation (e.g. external faces of girders, splash zones, representative locations
areas close to leaking expansion joints etc.)
Surface Select areas close to expansion joints, splash A few representative
Contaminants- zones as well as areas where there is less locations (about 5- 9 tests)
Soluble chloride likelihood of salt contamination
Surface Random A few representative
Contaminants- locations
Dirt
Surface Select locations after careful visual A few representative
Contaminants- observation- Splash zones, external girders locations
Oil and grease etc.
Adhesion- Cross- Select areas close to expansion joints/ends of A few representative
hatch method girders, external girder web and lower flange locations
as well as some representative inner sections (This test need not be carried out
if pull-off adhesion test at
of steel members representative location is carried
out)
Adhesion- Pull-off Select areas close to expansion joints/ends of A few representative
adhesion test girders, external girder web and lower flange locations
as well as some representative inner sections
of steel members
Patch test Only done if all the other test results are A few representative
satisfactory to consider overcoating as an locations (e.g. external
option for maintenance painting and when girder web, areas close
compatibility data is not available for the to the expansion joints,
systems concerned. areas where high or low
DFT recorded etc.
4.1 General
The primary reason for coating steel is to prevent loss of a section with a secondary
function of maintaining the aesthetics of the structure.
With the change in the Ministry's role from hands-on delivery work to steering, it is
expected that most of the coating related work would be done by contract work as part of
the capital program, while little touch-up work would be done by the Districts. However,
it is economically advantageous to touch-up coatings in critical areas before serious
coating deterioration or corrosion occurs.
Despite the funding and service delivery model, the following coating options are
available:
The prime factor to be considered for the selection of the most suitable coating option
would be the coating condition rating for the entire structure concerned. NCHRP
Synthesis 25741 and ASHTO Guide for Painting Steel Structures42 are cited here as
reference publications on Maintenance Painting.
4.2.1 General
If the area with poor condition rating (visible metal, corrosion, blistering, loose primer)
and Rust Condition Category 4 is above 20% of the total surface area for primary
components, then the structure requires total re-coating via contract in the future.
If the area with Poor Condition rating is over 40% of the total area for secondary
structural components (e.g. railings) then they require re-coating via contract in the
future. The timing of the contract may depend on other rehabilitation needs, traffic
management issues, section losses, accessibility and the future plans for the structure.
The standard practice of the ministry has been to abrasive blast clean to SSPC- SP 10/
NACE No. 2 Near White Metal standard, using a full enclosure with negative pressure in
conformance with OPSS 91143, and recoat with a low VOC three coat paint coating
system from the DSM list11. This method of full removal and recoating has given
satisfactory service performance in the recent past. However, the environmental and
Another possible coating option would be to perform total removal of existing coatings
by high/ultrahigh-pressure water jetting to SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 544 Condition WJ-2,
NV-2 as an alternative to dry abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC SP-10/ NACE No. 2 Near-
White Metal standard9 and then use a 3 coat low VOC paint system that has been
approved for coating over an abrasive blast cleaned surface. Since the use of high or
ultrahigh- pressure water jetting does not produce a surface profile, this option is only
possible for surfaces that have an existing surface profile of 25 –75 microns [i.e.
previously abrasive blast cleaned (and coated) surfaces] unless a surface tolerant coating
system is used. One of the advantages of cleaning by water jetting is that it removes
invisible contaminants such as chlorides more effectively when compared with dry
abrasive blast cleaning45. However, the access to difficult areas in a bridge may pose a
bigger problem for cleaning by water jetting operations compared to dry abrasive blast
cleaning, considering the sizes of the water-jetting wands/tools that are presently
available. Another factor to be considered is the collection and disposal of wastewater
generated during this operation.
The use of high- and ultrahigh-pressure water jetting for surface preparation of steel for
recoating is a relatively new technology, which has gained wide acceptance for cleaning
of cargo ships, naval vessels and storage tanks. Performance data of this option for
cleaning and coating of bridges are not available at the present time. However, one would
expect the life expectancy for coatings applied over SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 5, Condition
WJ-2, NV-2, surface, to be about the same as that for the abrasive blast cleaned surface
(to SSPC SP-10/NACE No. 2).
This coating option is at a developmental stage; trial projects are being conducted to
gather first hand experience in utilizing this new technology for bridge coating projects
and to gather pertinent information concerning collection and disposal of wastewater
generated during water jetting operations.
4.3.1 General
Zone painting is a viable option when deterioration of coatings is localised, (e.g. ends of
girders under leaking expansion joints, lower portion of through trusses subjected to
direct salt splashing). If the area of Poor Condition rating according to OSIM12 exceeds
10 % of the total surface area for a primary component, or is up to 20% for a secondary
component, then that zone warrants cleaning, surface preparation and re-coating via
contract. This may be undertaken either along with other rehabilitation work or by itself
as a coating contract, depending on the total area to be coated. This may also depend on
With regard to the new weathering steel girders, the ministry policy is to paint the ends of
girders at expansion joints up to 3 metres after blast cleaning to SSPC-SP10. This is an
example of zone painting of new steel.
Surface preparation and Coating system specifications for zone painting can be as
follows:
i) Blast cleaning to SSPC-SP109 and application of a low VOC three coats paint
coating system listed in the DSM11. (Option A).
or
ii) Power Tool cleaning either to SSPC-SP339 and/or SSPC-SP1140 and application
of an MTO approved coating systems for marginally prepared surfaces in
conformance with OPSS 17045 and OPSS 91143(Option B).
or
iii) Surface preparation by high pressure or ultra high pressure water-jetting to SSPC-
SP 12/ NACE No. 544 Condition WJ-2, NV-2, followed by blow drying with clean
compressed air and application of an MTO approved coating systems for
marginally prepared surfaces in conformance with OPSS 1704 and OPSS
911(Option C).
Option B
Cleaning Method
Power Tool Cleaning to SSPC SP-3: 6-10 years*
Power Tool Cleaning to SSPC SP-11: 8-12 years*
[*For overcoating options, since the existing coating in sound/good condition is still
intact (and overcoated with the new overcoating paint coating), the estimated service life
given is the extension of service life beyond the remaining service life of the existing
coating].
Site situation, the type of the existing coating and other factors related to costs and life
expectancy of the coating system need to be considered when choosing the appropriate
method for zone painting. The use of salt removal agents may be necessary especially for
options B & C to reduce the amount of chlorides and other salts on the steel surface. In
such situations wash water need to be fully contained conforming to the environmental
regulations. As such, it is necessary to prepare a NSSP to incorporate surface preparation,
coating application and the management of wash water and all other materials generated.
4.4.1 General
The primary driving force for this approach in coating maintenance has been the cost of
performing the work, especially in connection with a lead based paint. Since this
procedure of overcoating inherently involves less coating removal and less extensive
surface cleaning/preparation, which could be performed without extensive environmental
protection, the cost is substantially less compared to total removal by abrasive blast
cleaning and repainting. However, the service life of overcoating is, in general, much
shorter compared to the coating applied over abrasive blast cleaned steel. A recently
completed ministry study1 on “ Steel Bridge Coating Program – Cost and Option Study”
makes the following conclusion and recommendation with regard to overcoating:
“Overcoating is not a competitive option if it is not feasible as the initial treatment.
However if there is a need to minimize the funding required over a period of time, or to
spread funding onto more bridges, then overcoating could be applied to some bridges
where conditions are suitable. For the 30 – 43% of the bridge inventory in which
overcoating might be suitable as an immediate treatment, additional tests (DFT, adhesion
etc.) have to be carried out to ascertain their suitability”.
a) General
The decision on whether to use overcoating should take into consideration the long-term
rehabilitation program for the bridge concerned. It should be borne in mind that
overcoating is estimated to extend the service life of the existing coating by 8-12 years
compared to the 20-25 years of life expectancy for full removal and re-coating.
The ministry, at present, does not have any performance data of its own on overcoating
projects. The information available in the literature amply reveals that for overcoating
project to be successful, careful consideration should be given in the selection of
candidate structures, in addition to the selection of suitable coating system and
construction procedures.
The most important consideration is the condition of the existing coating itself. Although
coating breakdown may be insignificant when first inspected, this deterioration is
ongoing with a linear increase around the 0.1% - 0.3% surface rust mark12, thereafter the
rate of deterioration increases more rapidly16. To consider overcoating as an option, the
total amount of coating breakdown (rust) should be less than 3% (based on ASTM D610
and SSPC-VIS 2) at the time of maintenance painting. When the percentage of coating
deterioration is higher, there is much higher risk of failure apart from higher cost
associated with surface preparation/spot repair and application of coating (not
economical).
On the average, ministry construction projects require a two-year period for design,
contract preparation and execution, after the initial inspection of the structure. Since
coatings continue to deteriorate at an increasing rate over time, it is necessary to consider
only the structures that have a much smaller percentage of coating failure at the time of
inspection. In our assessment based on OSIM12, if the combined area of coating in Fair
and Poor condition is 25 %- 50 % of the total area (with Poor condition is less than 10%
of the area) of coating on the steel member, with the rest of the area in Good Condition,
then a detailed coating condition survey is warranted if overcoating is to be considered.
c) Type of Structure
As stated previously, the ministry has about 725 steel structures of which 250 are
weathering steel structures with the rest being carbon steel structures. Of the carbon steel
structures, about 350 are girder type and the rest (about 125) are truss type structures1.
The truss type structures are usually complex with numerous elements. Maintenance
painting of truss structures is more labour intensive and the cost of access is usually much
higher than for girder bridges. Furthermore, the coating condition rating for truss
structures is done for the whole structure and not for the individual members. Such an
overall rating introduces some uncertainty with regard to the extent of cleaning required
for overcoating projects. Considering this uncertainty, along with the limited life
expectancy for overcoating projects when compared to the full removal and recoating,
one would prefer full removal and recoating for truss structures. (Abrasive blast cleaning
of the steel structure to SSPC- SP10/NACE No. 2 and recoating with approved coating
systems, which would last at least 20 years or more). However, there may still be
situations where the engineer may consider overcoating as an option of maintenance
painting for truss structures. This will be based on the condition of the coating and other
considerations; in such cases, a project specific life cycle financial analysis should be
carried out to assess the economics of the overcoating option.
The carbon steel girder structures would be the prime candidates for overcoating projects.
Between the years 1982-1998, 234 ministry bridges have been recoated1, which
represents 38% of the carbon steel bridge inventory. It is reasonable to assume that the
candidates for overcoating projects would most likely come from this list of bridges,
which have been recoated after 1982. However, structures which have been coated prior
to 1982, may also qualify if the criteria based on the condition of the existing coating are
a) Delamination
b) Premature failure due to recurring corrosion and deterioration at spot
cleaned areas
Factors that affect the above mentioned risks in overcoating are as follows35:
4.4.3.1 Delamination
A primary risk associated with overcoating is that the overcoating system may cause
delamination of the existing coating system. Delamination is primarily due to the internal
stresses in the overcoat material being transferred to existing coating layers. Internal
stress in a coating layer is mainly due to shrinkage of the coating material or system
during drying/curing and aging and is dependent on the chemical composition of the
coating material and the curing mechanisms involved. Many of the overcoating systems,
therefore, have been formulated as high solids systems with low shrinkage stress. The
other factors that affect the internal stress include coating thickness, film-forming
conditions, coating age, temperature and temperature fluctuations.
Low internal stress on the existing coating is vital if the overcoating project is to succeed.
The reduction in internal stress can be addressed at the formulation and/or overcoating
system design stages48.
With regard to the formulation, many approaches have been taken by the manufacturers
to mitigate internal stress (that is incurred in overcoating projects). The major emphasis
has been in resin design. Here, the emphasis should be to reduce cross-link density and
the glass transition temperature (Tg )48. The result is a flexible system that incurs less
internal stress during curing and more readily allows strain relaxation. A greater
molecular distance between reactive groups on the curing agent yields a final film that is
more flexible and stress dissipative. Highly reactive or functional cross-linking agents are
not wanted because they increase the brittleness of the film. Flexibilizers, such as the
aromatic hydrocarbon resins, plasticizers, and reactive chain stoppers, have been used in
With regard to the system design, Clive Hare48 suggests the following:
- Wherever possible, limit overcoating to bridges that were blast cleaned before
the application of the existing coating (or lead-based paint- i.e., bridges built
after 1970).
- Prepare the bare steel areas as well as possible, preferably with scarifying tools.
- Apply spot primers in 2 or more coats to a film thickness of 10 mils (250 µm)
total, but only over the corroded areas.
- Minimize the number of coats applied to areas of the substrate still bearing intact
existing (or lead-based) paint.
- Note that the overcoating will be less likely to succeed where the system is
subject to severe fluctuations in temperature and humidity (especially sharp falls
in temperature).
- Do not use the overcoating approach where there is clear evidence of existing
widespread adhesive or cohesive deficiencies in the existing coating system.
The risk of delamination is higher when the DFT of the existing coating is either too low
or too high. Based on the Alberta Transportation and Utilities Guidelines24, it is
recommended that the dry film thickness (DFT) values of the existing coating should be
between the range of 75 µm and 350 µm (3 mils - 14 mils) for considering overcoating as
an option for MTO structures.
b. Coating Compatibility
For the overcoating process to be successful, it is necessary that the overcoating system
to be used is compatible with the existing coating in the structure and that the new
coating material adheres well to the existing coating and the steel substrate where
exposed. If the overall compatibility is poor, failure due to cracking, delamination, and
peeling will occur. Here the term compatibility encompasses material compatibility
between the two different coating systems (or chemical compatibility) as well as the
ability to retain the integrity of the whole composite system without the above mentioned
The coating compatibility could be assessed in the field by conducting a Patch test; in
accordance with ASTM D 506437.This is a practical field method for assessing the overall
suitability of the existing coating to accept an overcoating system or systems under
evaluation.
c. Adhesion
Rust on the surface of steel in the deteriorated areas is a foreign material and will
effectively prevent chemical adhesion because it separates the coating and the substrate.
Loose rust is particularly problematic, for the coating has to wet and bind the rust into its
continuum during application and drying.
Another risk associated with overcoating is that the original/existing coating along with
overcoat system may not provide an adequate period of service primarily due to the
ongoing degradation of the coating material and recurring corrosion of the steel surface
due to severe service environment. This type of degradation may be manifested by pin-
point rust, undercutting at small breaks in the coating system or blistering.
Low DFT of the existing coating, presence of rust and surface contaminants affects the
performance of the overcoating. The extent and the type of surface preparation used prior
to overcoating significantly affect the performance of the overcoat systems. For example,
power tool cleaning to SSPC-SP 3 would not remove the rust fully and these areas are
more prone to corrosion and rusting if oxygen and moisture could get in. Furthermore,
many overcoating systems are formulated to be tolerant barrier systems without the
galvanic benefit of zinc; these systems are less tolerant to the level of chloride
contamination.
The paint system for overcoating shall be one of the MTO approved systems for
marginally prepared surfaces.
4.5.1 General
Touch-up refers to spot cleaning by power or hand tools and painting the affected areas
only, as compared to overcoating which requires spot priming, followed by application of
mid coat and top coat over the entire or designated area of the structure.
The coating life is, to a large degree, determined by the cleanliness of the steel surface to
which it is applied. A coating applied to a rusty substrate or on a flaking paint will not
last as long as the one applied to a blast-cleaned surface. Bearing this in mind, the
following situations may be repaired as follows:
An intact coating free of defects such as blisters should be left in place. After thoroughly
washing the surface to remove contaminants, extra coatings may be applied. Existing
coating may have to be abraded in order to topcoat them. This surface roughening may be
done by power tools/discs on small areas or power tools with vacuum attachment on
larger areas.
Where the coating is reasonably adhered to the steel with a slight degree of flaking or
blistering but no surface rusting, remove the loose paint by any means practical. A good
power wash of the steel surface at a water pressure of about 10 MPa should be carried out
before new coats are applied.
If there is coating failure with substrate corrosion, then the deteriorated coating and rust
shall be removed. These areas should be repaired as follows:
i) Remove all visible oil and grease by SSPC-SP 1Solvent Cleaning38, from areas
that are to be coated.
ii) Remove all loose rust and loose paint to the requirements of SSPC-SP2 (Hand
Tool Cleaning). However cleaning to SSPC-SP3 -Power Tool Cleaning39 standard
or SSPC-SP7 Brush-off Blast Cleaning50 standard (especially a vacuum shrouded
iii) If the original topcoat is grey, (it could be alkyd, epoxy mastic, vinyl paint,
polyurethane or acrylic), apply epoxy-mastic to a total dry film thickness of
225 µm in the bare spots.
If the original topcoat is green, (indicating alkyd paint), apply a single coat
surface tolerant paint system which is quite flexible after curing (e.g. calcium
sulfonate based system- Termarust 210051) to a total DFT of about 250µm in
matching colour.
A general guide for the selection of suitable maintenance painting procedure, based on
coating condition rating and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation schedules, is
presented in Table 4.1.
Fair Poor
Condition condition
>50% < 10% Overcoating of the entire SSPC-SP 11 cleaning of
Scattered structure after SSPC-SP 3 and corroded patches larger than
throughout localized SSPC-SP 11 100 cm2.
Surface Preparation Vacuum shrouded power
tool would be the preferred
option for SSPC-SP 11
cleaning.
>50% < 10% Overcoating of the entire Vacuum shrouded power
localised structure with Zone painting tool would be the preferred
of localized poor areas after option for SSPC-SP 11
SSPC-SP 11 Surface cleaning
preparation
60% - 90% 10% - 40% Zone painting of localized Full enclosure with negative
localized poor areas after SSPC SP 10 pressure is necessary for
or SSPC-SP 12 Surface SSPC-SP 10 cleaning.
preparation and Recoating of A collection (and filtration)
fair areas (Optional) system is required to collect
the processed water during
SSPC-SP 12 surface
Preparation
60% - 80% 20% - 40% Total Removal by* Full enclosure with negative
Scattered SSPC-SP 10 and recoating pressure is necessary for
throughout with a 3 coat paint system for SSPC-SP 10 cleaning.
and not abrasive blast cleaned surface A collection (and filtration)
localized from the DSM system is required to collect
or Total removal by the processed water during
SSPC-SP 12 and recoating SSPC-SP 12 surface
with a coating system for Preparation
marginally prepared surfaces
from the approved systems.
0ver 40% Same as above Same as above
*Abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC-SP5/NACE No. 1 and metallizing & sealing, or hot
dipped galvanizing may be considered on a case–by-case basis.
All factors that may affect the coating contract must be investigated before the contract
package is assembled. The offices charged with responsibility for the environment,
vehicular traffic control, navigable water, etc. must be contacted so their requirements
can be incorporated into the contract.
Structural steel coating should be carried out under a separate contract52 (See Appendix
I). Where it is included as part of a bridge rehabilitation project, it may, as in the past,
result in unrealistic underbidding of the coating item; the use of unqualified local
contractors unversed in bridge work leading to poor quality or work carry-over; and the
relegation of the coating item to the latter stages of the contract schedule resulting in
unfavourable weather conditions.
The more important items of information from the above are discussed below.
• history of deterioration;
• areas where coating failure occurs most frequently;
• previous cleaning/surface preparation methods employed;
• types of previous coatings, presence of lead and chromium pigments.
Visits made to the site, as discussed in Section 2.2, can be useful in establishing:
• traffic conditions;
• geometry of adjacent highway;
• options for staging (including detours);
• inaccessible areas;
• nature and extent of deterioration;
• deviations from design information;
• any unusual features (e.g. utilities, etc.);
• need for liaison with other authorities;
• any utility attachments or appurtenances not shown on the as-built drawings.
• if overcoating is intended, whether the coating condition is still within
applicable limits.
District Maintenance staff should be contacted to see if they have any concerns that may
bear on any final decisions.
The type of enclosure under environmental protection item would depend on the surface
preparation method to be specified as well as on the type and method of application of
coating material. Total removal of existing coatings by abrasive blast cleaning would
require a full enclosure with negative pressure, whereas power tool cleaning would
require only a partial enclosure. A partial enclosure is also adequate during brush or roller
application of coating materials, but a full enclosure is required during spray application
of paint coatings.
OPSS 911 and Special Provision 911 S01 “Environmental Protection During Coating of
Existing Structural Steel and Railing System” will constitute the prime requirements for
this item. It is to be noted that a memorandum of understanding between MTO/MOE54 is
in place.
Special Provision 911 S05 “Management of Spent Blasting Medium and Disposal of
Removed Coating Material and Spent Blasting Medium” is to be included in all contracts,
(which require surface preparation by abrasive blast cleaning). It is to be noted that spills
response requirements are as per MTO General Conditions.
The Regional Structural Section will provide the Regional Environmental Unit with
sufficient notice of upcoming contracts involving coating of structural steel so that site
investigations can be conducted under summer conditions prior to contract preparation.
The Regional Structural Sections will assemble the protection measures in the contract
package as recommended by the Regional Environmental Unit. This will be done after
any review and consultation between the Regional Environmental Unit and the
Environmental Policy and Standards Section.
The method of traffic control and protection of construction personnel must be decided
from the following options or combinations, as detailed in the Ontario Traffic Manual,
Book 7, Temporary Conditions53.
Where closures are being considered, it is essential that emergency services and local
authorities be advised early in the planning stage. However, the opportunity to detour
traffic is rarely available and most coating contracts are carried out in stages.
Traffic control shall provide safe passage through the construction zone while keeping
the disruption of traffic flow to a minimum. The number of lanes required, lane widths,
and the need for speed restrictions will be determined by the Regional Traffic Section.
Temporary lane widths will not normally be less than 3 m. The traffic control plan for
construction staging and lane closures will be determined jointly by the Planning and
Design, Traffic, Structural and Construction Sections in the Region. It is essential that
the traffic control plan be finalized before detailed design work begins.
The Planning and Design and Traffic Sections shall decide whether signing, traffic
control persons or temporary signals are required at the site. Traffic control devices
include construction markers, temporary New Jersey barriers, or temporary steel beam
guide rail. Any non-standard control devices should be covered in the special provisions.
In all cases, traffic control measures must conform to the requirements of the Ontario
Traffic Manual, Book 7, Temporary Conditions53.
Problems may occur during night work relative to application temperatures and dew
point. The Society for Protective Coatings specification, SSPC-PA155, specifies that the
o
steel surface temperature must be a minimum of 3 C above the dew point before painting
is allowed. This criterion is mandatory and should be achievable between May – August
in Southern Ontario; and June – July in the rest of the Province.
Two other aspects which should be investigated if night work is contemplated are: an
exemption from the noise by-laws of local municipalities may be needed; and provisions
for parking the contractor’s equipment on or off the right-of-way during daylight hours.
The contractor’s equipment shall not be placed where it may pose a safety hazard or
impede the flow of traffic. Once the traffic control plan has been formulated, the Project
Manager should inform all interested parties, including emergency services and the
media.
Corrosion is the deterioration of a material, usually a metal, because of a reaction with its
environment. It is an electrochemical reaction (sometimes called galvanic action). The
following four essential elements must be present for corrosion to occur18, 19.
• An anode (that corrodes)
• A cathode (that does not corrode)
• An electrolyte external path
• A metallic pathway to complete the circuit
Protective coatings and other systems that interfere with one or more of these
components can be used to control corrosion. Protective coatings on structural steel
interfere by three basic mechanisms:
• Barrier Protection- Most coating films form a barrier to isolate the metal surface
from electrolytes in the environment. e.g. epoxy zinc/epoxy/polyurethane, or
epoxy zinc/water-based acrylic/water-based acrylic, or epoxymastic system;
• Chemical inhibition- Chemical components added to the coating may inhibit
anodic or cathodic reactions. e.g. chromates, molybdates, borates, zinc phosphate,
red lead, calcium sulfonates;
• Galvanic (Cathodic) protection-The use of a primer heavily loaded with zinc
particles, galvanizing and metallizing provide galvanic protection to the base
metal (steel). These coatings also provide barrier protection to varying extents.
Structural steel coatings must perform in every type of macro environment, from the mild
rural atmosphere to the severe industrially polluted atmosphere. Structural steel coatings
in bridges and other highway structures in Ontario are subjected to exposure to de-icing
salts, to wetting and drying, to freezing temperatures, to blistering sunlight, and to all
types of atmospheric pollutants including acid rain.
It is not surprising that coatings break down, if not from the above, then inevitably from
degradation due to the aging of the coating itself. When coating breaks down (in the case
of barrier protection) or when the galvanic coating is consumed, corrosion of steel sets in.
In addition, contaminants trapped underneath the coating at the steel surface have
pronounced effect on corrosion of the steel substrate and the coating breakdown.
In 1985, the Ministry adopted the following policy: Effective 1986, all coating contracts
would specify the removal of all existing coatings and rust (See Appendix II), with one of
the following cleaning/surface preparation requirements:
In 1985, the Ministry had also decided to curtail the use of zinc chromate/alkyd based
coating system (See Appendix III), based on the many examples of premature coating
failure on contracts that had used this coating system. Alkyd coatings have poor
resistance to a road salt environment, resulting in a life span much less than anticipated.
The coating systems that were used during this period included inorganic zinc/vinyl/vinyl
and epoxy zinc/vinyl/vinyl system on SSPC- SP 10/NACE No.2 blast cleaned surface
and coal tar epoxy system on SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 blast cleaned surface. Aluminium
filled epoxy mastic system was also used to a smaller extent on SSPC-SP 6/ NACE No. 3
blast cleaned surface until 1988. The above mentioned coating systems contained more
than 350 mg/l of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and, as such, are classified as high
VOC coating systems.
Galvanizing and thermal metal spraying (metallizing) were used for coating handrails,
other railing systems and highway appurtenances. Hot-Dipped galvanizing had also been
used for coating five steel girder bridges between 1991 and 19961. Hot-dipped
galvanizing requires the steel surface to be cleaned to an SSPC-SP 8 Pickling standard,
while metallizing requires the steel surface to be abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC-SP 5/
NACE No. 1 White Metal Blast standard10.
6.3 Current Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry (Since 1996)
In 1996, the Ministry decided to terminate the use of high VOC coating systems and
embarked on the use of low VOC coating systems. This decision was mainly based on
environmental considerations without compromising on the service performance
expected. As in the past, it was necessary that the coatings to be used in ministry
contracts be selected from the pre-approved list of products in the ministry’s designated
sources materials (DSM) list. Pre-approval was based on laboratory evaluation
conforming to the OPSS 1704 Material Specification5 for Structural Steel coatings.
Since 1996, in almost all the bridge coating contracts, low VOC paint coating systems
have been used for maintenance painting, after full removal of the existing coating.
The surface preparation required for the above low VOC three coat paint coating systems
is abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC SP-10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Metal standard9
having a surface profile within a range of 25 –75 microns43.
Hot-dipped galvanizing and metallizing (metallic coatings) could be the two other
options if total removal is considered. Hot-dipped galvanizing is essentially a shop
operation, while metallizing could either be performed at site or offsite in a shop.
Although these two recoating options were available, these methods were seldom used
for coating bridges in the past, mainly due to the high initial costs. However, advances in
metallizing technology and the availability of larger galvanizing kettles for hot-dipped
galvanizing have made these processes more cost competitive in terms of life cycle costs
(LCC). As stated previously, hot-dipped galvanizing was employed for recoating of five
steel girder bridges between 1991 and 19961. Metallizing was performed in the shop for
recoating of a ministry bridge in 19987.
(See Section 1.3 for surface preparation requirements).
Total removal of all existing coating is advantageous for the following reasons: the
majority of the old coatings constituted of lead or chromate based paints and they are
designated hazardous substances which need to be properly disposed; total removal of the
existing coating would eliminate the hazardous materials once and for all; cleaning of the
steel to near-white metal condition provides the new coating systems a better/clean
substrate for a longer service life; and because longer service life is achieved, the
mobilisation and traffic protection and user costs are kept to a minimum over the life of
the bridge. The service life of the coating achievable by this approach is 20 years or
more.
Since 1994, it has been the Ministry’s standard practice to require a full enclosure with a
negative pressure whenever total removal of the existing coating and abrasive blast
cleaning is carried out.
Coating cost for bridges has escalated significantly during the last decade mainly due to
the cost associated with environmental protection for full removal by abrasive blast
cleaning. This is not unique to Ontario. Escalation of costs, sometimes coupled with
dwindling funding for bridge coating projects, has prompted many US agencies41 and
some Canadian provinces including Ontario to incorporate overcoating as an option of
maintenance painting of bridges. Ministry has already approved some coating systems
(surface tolerant coating systems) for this application.
Since 1968, the Ministry has used C.S.A. G40.21 Grade 350 A weathering steel or
Atmospheric Corrosion Resistant (ACR) steel exclusively for new construction 3.
Current policy calls for the following:
All weathering steel, including diaphragms and inside surface of box girders, but
excluding surfaces in contact with concrete and the contact surfaces of bolted joints to be
cleaned to the requirements of SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Metal standard and
shop coated with epoxy zinc/epoxy/polyurethane coating system for a distance of 3
metres from the end of the girders, (wherever there is an expansion joint or as specified in
the contract documents).
The steel railing system attached to concrete or steel structures should first be checked
whether the railing system meets the current standard. A substandard railing should be
replaced with a new railing conforming to the current standards at the time when the deck
is being rehabilitated.
The steel railing system attached to concrete or steel structures that meets the current
standard should be recoated when the combined area of rust and unsound paint exceeds
20% of the steel surface area. The railings should be removed and hot dipped galvanized,
where feasible. If galvanizing is not practical, or removal of the rails is not possible, then
the low VOC Paint Coating System 2 should be specified (See Appendix IV). Normally,
the railing system is coated when the rest of the bridge is coated.
If any part of the steel railings is damaged (e.g. bent balusters), or if the components of
the rails are connected with incomplete welds, then these defects should be repaired prior
to galvanizing.
When the rails are to be galvanized and where it is not feasible to remove the steel posts,
the posts should be metallized using either pure zinc or using Zn/Al 85/15 alloy
metallizing wire, after abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC-SP 5/NACE No. 1. If metallizing
is not a viable alternative, then the posts should be coated with Epoxy Zinc/ Epoxy/
Polyurethane (System 2), after the required SSPC SP-10/NACE No. 2 surface
preparation.
Where the rails are removed, temporary traffic protection must be used according to the
requirements given in the section on “Traffic Control and Protection”.
Although thick coatings usually protect steel better than thin coatings, a point is
eventually reached where internal stresses from the number of coats applied over the
years, leads to cracking and flaking. It is not optimum to keep applying the same amount
of paint to sound and rusted areas alike.
The existing coatings must be identified in the contract package. If in doubt, samples
should be taken (note where they are taken from) and after careful packaging, sent to the
Materials Engineering and Research Office (MERO), Concrete Section in Downsview for
analysis. Some information has already been provided in Section 1 of this manual. The
following points will also help to identify the existing coatings:
• To ascertain the primer, remove a portion of the topcoat. The old Alkyd system used
red lead primer, while the High Build Alkyd (See Section 1), used from 1974 – 1985,
employed a yellow zinc chromate primer.
• The intermediate coat on the old Alkyd system consists of a grey Alkyd paint.
• The top or final coat of the old system (prior to 1974) consists of a grey or green
Alkyd paint or Aluminum paint.
• Aluminum paint is identified by scraping the top layer, exposing a silvery coating.
• The vinyl systems have been used since 1982 until 1996.
• The epoxy mastic/epoxy mastic system has been used starting in 1986 – 1988.
• Low VOC inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane has only been used staring in 1995.
• Low VOC organic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane has only been used starting in 1995.
• Low VOC organic zinc/water-based acrylic/water-based acrylic has only been used
on some of the weathering steel girders and diaphragms of Willow Creek bridge.
• Low VOC inorganic zinc/water-based acrylic/water-based acrylic has only been used
on some of the carbon steel girders and diaphragms of Willow Creek Bridge in 1995.
• The colour of the finish coat for the low VOC system5 for carbon steel structure is a
semi gloss equivalent of either 501-101 grey (1-GP-12C) or 26307 grey (US Fed
The surface preparation requirements for the low VOC paint coating systems in the DSM
list11 are shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 also lists the surface preparation requirements for
spray metallizing and hot-dipped galvanizing that could be considered for coating some
bridge structures. (OPSS 91143, Subsection 3).
Some of the generic requirements for the surface preparation of steel components include
the following:
• Solvent cleaning to SSPC-SP 138 prior to blast cleaning and hand or power
tool cleaning is pre-requisite, when visible oil, grease, soil and other soluble
contaminants are on the steel surface. Blast cleaning usually does not
remove these contaminants.
• The baked-on carbon residue from diesel trains is very difficult to remove
by solvent cleaning. Abrasive blasting has, in the past, proven the only
effective way of removing it.
• For faying surfaces, either an epoxy zinc primer or inorganic zinc primer
from the low VOC coat systems should be applied to obtain frictional
resistance values conforming to the CHBDC CAN/CSA S6-00 Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code 43, 58; the mid and topcoat should not be
applied. Faying surfaces could also be metallized or galvanized.
• All the paint coating systems, including the seal coat for thermal spray metal
coating and paint systems to be applied over galvanised coating, should be
selected only from the pre-approved products lists.
1. When the area to be cleaned and coated is small, SSPC-SP11 Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal could be specified.
2. This paint system could be used in place of a paint system for marginally prepared surfaces, provided the surface has a minimum profile of 25µm (e.g. surfaces
which have been previously abrasive blast cleaned).
3. Inorganic zinc primer is less surface tolerant compared to epoxy zinc primer. It requires a very clean surface (SSPC–SP 10/NACE No. 2 Blast Cleaning to
Near-Whiter Metal standard or better) for optimum performance.
4. Sign support columns receive paint coatings over galvanizing (Duplex system) to provide additional corrosion protection. Prior to paint coating application,
galvanized zinc coating needs to be brush blast cleaned using low hardness (Moh’s hardness of 6 & lower) to provide a clean surface for paint application.
Abrasive blasting to SP6 may be required prior to pickling to remove existing coating.
5. SSPC-SP6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast cleaning standard is acceptable for coal tar epoxy system.
6. These systems are recommended for Overcoating projects. When overcoating is to be performed, surface preparation shall be performed to SSPC-SP 3 Power
Tool Cleaning standard throughout, except in corroded areas/rust patches which are greater than 100 cm2 in area, which require Power Tool Cleaning to Bare
Metal –SSPC-SP 11/NACE No. 2 standard, prior to the application of an approved coating system for marginally prepared surfaces. Non-visible contaminants
such as the chlorides need to be removed by the use of chloride removal agents during power washing. It is recommended that the designer contact the Bridge
Office, MTO with regard to the preparation of a non-standard special provision for coating of existing structural steel and environmental protection.
7. Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 5 “ Surface Preparation and Cleaning of Steel and Other Hard Materials by High and
Ultrahigh-Pressure Water Jetting Prior to Coating.
The selection of the coating system is a very important step in the preparation of a bridge-
coating contract. Many factors must be considered, such as:
Selection of the most durable coating system is warranted for structures where lane
closures may cause serious disruption to the normal flow of traffic. Coating systems with
greater life spans reduce the frequency of re-coating and resulting traffic disruptions.
Table 6.2 provides pertinent information concerning the various (ministry approved)
coating systems that could be considered for coating projects. The information provided
includes factors such as the optimum utilization, surface preparation requirements,
possible practical limitations in achieving the required surface preparation standards and
the sensitivity of the coating systems to such situations.
Table 6.3 lists the advantages and the disadvantages of the individual coats of the various
paint coating system types and metallic coatings (metallizing, hot-dipped galvanizing).
Table 6.3- Advantages and Disadvantages of Coating Systems Used in Ministry projects
Coating System Advantages Disadvantages
1) System 1 • More tolerant of poor surface • Poor acid and alkali resistance without
Low VOC Epoxy Zinc preparation and application than topcoat
Rich Primer inorganic zinc systems • less solvent resistance than inorganics
• usually easier to topcoat than
inorganic zinc systems
• spray application preferred, but can be
brush or roller applied
• Galvanic protection due to high
content of zinc.
Low VOC Water-Based • low odour and user friendly • Low film build per coat
Acrylic Mid and Topcoats • rapid drying and re-coating • can give dry spray in summer
• excellent chemical resistance • almost impossible to brush
• good corrosion resistance • Poor solvent resistance
• excellent water resistance (immersion) • Less water resistance
• good colour and gloss retention • Not surface tolerant
• fair abrasion resistance • Not recommended for application below 5˚C
• easy to repaint
• good weatherability
• Expected life of the system is ≈ 20 yrs
2) System 2 • Same as System 1 • Same as System 1
Low VOC Epoxy Zinc
Rich Primer
Epoxy Mid-Coat • User friendly • Poor gloss retention without topcoat
• High film build
• Excellent salt resistance
• Some moisture tolerance
(low permeability while curing)
• Rapid dry and top coat
• Excellent Chemical resistance
• Excellent adhesion and flexibility
• Surface tolerant
Polyurethane Topcoat • good application characteristics • not moisture tolerant in high humidity
• good chemical resistance • limited pot life
• excellent gloss, hardness • not recommended for application below 5˚C
• excellent UV resistance & (slow drying)
weatherability
• excellent flexibility
• expected life of the system is ≈ 20 yrs
3) System 3 • fast dry/recoat • Not surface tolerant
Low VOC Inorganic Zinc • excellent solvent resistance • no acid resistance
Rich Primer (alkali • excellent abrasion resistance • poor alkali resistance
silicate) • gives cathodic protection at scratches • can cause bubbling in finish coats since film
and pin-holes and prevents is porous
undercutting • requires better surface preparation than other
• excellent gloss/colour retention coatings
• spray application only
5) System 5 • excellent chemical and solvent • suitable for coating steel piles
Coal Tar Epoxy resistance • poor gloss retention
• excellent water resistance • chalks in sunlight
• excellent adhesion • will blush when applied in humid weather or
• excellent abrasion resistance if rained on within several hours of
• hard film application
• expected life of 10 – 15 years • not recommended for applications below
10˚ C
• difficult to re-coat due to the continuous
curing mechanism that increases their
hardness
6) Hot-Dipped • good abrasion resistance • coating thickness determined by operational
Galvanizing • not easily damaged procedures and the thickness and mass of the
• the zinc forms a metallurgical bond article
with the substrate giving excellent • some fabricated assemblies may distort due
adhesion to the galvanizing temperatures ( 850˚ F/
• provides sacrificial protection at 454˚ C)
pinholes and scratches • Size limitation
• gives thick coating on edges
• complete coverage achieved
• gives a smooth, even coating
• expected life to 20+ years
7) Metallizing • provides sacrificial protection at • requires highest level of surface cleanliness
Zinc/Al 85/15 pinholes and scratches and angular profile for proper adhesion
• no solvents, zero VOC • must be coated soon after blast cleaning
• depth of coating can be varied • porous surface
• expected life of 25+ years (with a seal • sealer is often used
coat)
• can be applied at a lower temperature
(marginally below 0˚ C)
Seal coat • provides additional barrier protection • needs to be applied as soon as possible before
to the metallized coating zinc corrosion products form
• some seal coat systems could be
applied even around – 6 ˚ C.
• expected life of the system is ≈ 25 yrs
8) Surface Tolerant • surface tolerant, suitable for overcoating • more experience than most surface tolerant
projects. coatings
Coating System
• can be applied on to surfaces power tool
ST 1 cleaned to SSPC-SP 3 .
Zinc and micaceous iron
• single component moisture cure
oxide filled surface tolerant
polyurethane Primer • can be applied in cold damp
conditions and even below freezing
conditions.
• easy to apply and recoat
• Low shrinkage stress
Table 6.4 provides a breakdown and overall costs per square metre of structural steel for
the various coating options/systems (including CESS item and EP item costs).
1. The above table reflects comparison of prices for coating systems based on the same simple structure in each case. These unit prices are to be used ONLY for
comparison of the basic coating system cost. The Estimating Office could provide an estimate of cost on a specific structure or could assist by providing historical cost
data for use in establishing program values. Special access requirements and traffic control/protection are not included in the cost estimates. Costs of these items
including environmental protection costs, depending on their severity, can substantially increase the total coating cost.
2. Low VOC Three coat systems: Low VOC epoxy zinc /epoxy/ polyurethane, Low VOC inorganic zinc/ epoxy/ polyurethane, epoxy zinc/ water-based acrylic/
water-based acrylic and Low VOC inorganic zinc/ water-based acrylic/ water-based acrylic systems.
3. Includes transportation, repair and erection costs.
4. The total cost quoted for hot-dip galvanizing does not include transportation, delivery and erection charges. Transportation and delivery charges are
affected by quantity of panels and distance from job site to galvaniser’s plant. Time to remove, delivery and galvanize would depend on plant workload,
but generally, two weeks should suffice.
5. Life expectancy of the original coating is extended by the number of years given in this cell.
6. The figures quoted include environmental protection costs for field application.
7. The use of salt removal agents (e.g. Chlor*rid liquid salt remover, Hold Tight 102) may be necessary during power washing to reduce the level of
chloride ions on the surface to achieve expected life for the coating system/to meet the SSPC-SP12, NV2 requirements.
8. Production rate for power-tool cleaning to SSPC-SP11 is low. Since it is labour-intensive and costly it is not recommended for cleaning large areas.
9. Only a rough estimate at this time, due to lack of field data.
Table 6.5
Coating Cost (Actual) Comparison –Metallizing, Galvanizing and Painting
Contract Type of Coating Total Area Unit Cost Based on Some Details
No. Coated in m2 Area of Coated including Other
Steel in $/sq.m Costs in $
98-45 Metallizing & 1,140 121.10 No EP,
Seal Coat (Coating item only) a) 85,000 Steel
Fabrication/Repair,
147.10 b) 13,000
(Total) Transportation
c) 17,000 Erection
In ER, at Kingston,
95-68 Galvanizing 1,140 93.22 No EP
In SWR, at Chatham
94-202 Galvanizing 709 81.56 Includes Access
Cost of 9,319.00,
In NR, near New
Liskeard
98-0076 3 Coat Paint 34,200 76.11 Includes EP
Coating System In CR,
Total of 7 Bridges in
Hamilton, CR
98-207 3 Coat Paint 1,000 126.60 EP included in
Coating System CESS,
In NWR, near
St. Sault Marie
98-270 3 Coat Paint 5,845 85.44 Includes EP
Coating System In NR, near
New Liskeard
99-0016 3 Coat Paint 1850 64.92 Includes EP,
Coating System In SWR, near
London
99-0051 3 Coat Paint 3,046 94.83 Includes EP,
Coating System In ER, near
Lancaster
2000-0047 3 Coat Paint 2,000 128.12 Includes EP,
Coating System In CR, near Hwy 9
2000-203 3 Coat Paint 2,050 122.57 Includes EP,
Coating System In NWR, near
Thunder Bay
The information contained herein has been carefully compiled and is believed to be
accurate at the date of publication. Freedom from error, however, cannot be guaranteed.
Enquires regarding the purchase and distribution of this manual should be directed to:
Publications Ontario
By telephone: 1-800-668-9938
By fax: (613) 566-2234
TTY: 1-800-268-7095
Online: www.publications.gov.on.ca
1. INTRODUCTION 2-1
Part 2 describes the tender items most commonly used in coating work. It contains a
listing of the 911 series of standard special provisions and samples of non-standard
special provisions specifically written for coating contracts. The standard special
provisions have been revised in 2004 to be in harmony with OPSS 911 April 2003, and
they are only written for conventional coatings involving dry abrasive blasting. For
overcoating projects and other surface preparation standards like waterjetting, the
designer should contact the Bridge Office for project specific requirements.
When conventional coating involving dry abrasive blasting is specified, the standard
special provisions should cover the majority of situations; the non-standard special
provisions should only be used in those cases where the standard special provisions do
not adequately or comprehensively define the work required under a particular tender
item. Before using the NSSP the user must verify that they are applicable because by
their very nature, non-standard special provisions are job specific and may need to be
modified to suit.
2.1 General
This section covers the cleaning and coating of structural steel components. It is divided
into the following sections:
2.3.1 General
This item addresses the surface preparation and coating of existing structural steel, such
as: bridge girders, trusses, lamp standards, deck drains, piles and bearings. It does not
cover railing systems.
If existing piles are to be coated below the water line, a dewatering tender item is
required.
Special Provision 911F06 must be inserted. It details the components to be cleaned and
coated, the surface area, the previous coatings, the new coatings, the cleaning
requirements and other relevant data.
2.4.1 General
This item may be used to detail the surface preparation and coating of any new structural
steel component such as, the coating of the last three metres of atmospheric corrosion
resistant (ACR) steel girders, or new components required as part of a rehabilitation
contract.
Special Provision 911S07 must be inserted when the ends of bridge girders are to be
protected. It details the sections to be cleaned and coated and specifies that the new
coating is to be the Low epoxy-zinc/epoxy/poly urethane system with all three coats
applied in the shop.
A non-standard special provision is required when components other than girder ends are
to be coated or a system other than the Low VOC epoxy-zinc/epoxy/poly urethane
system is specified. See the sample non-standard special provision (NSSP) in Section
2.7.
2.5.1 General
This item details the surface preparation and coating of the standard steel handrail panels
on bridges.
2.6.1 General
This item details the surface preparation and coating of new structural steel sign support
components such as the trusses and the legs (columns).
• Paint coating systems to be used for coating galvanized surfaces and the minimum
dry film thickness requirements for the individual coats,
• Minimum acceptable DFT of the hot-dipped galvanized coating,
• Quality control requirements specifically suited for galvanizing and paint coating
of galvanized components,
• Quality assurance requirements for galvanizing and paint coating of galvanized
components.
Scope of Work
This Special Provision covers the requirements for metallizing and/or hot dip galvanizing
new structural steel components.
Notes to Designer:
*1 Indicate all the components (except for handrail panels, posts, caps, and panel
anchorages) that are to be either hot dip galvanized or metallized.
*2 This only pertains to the components that are to be hot dip galvanized. Delete if
not required.
*3 This only pertains to the components that are to be metallized. Delete if not
required.
WARRANT: With this tender item when a new structural component is to be either hot
dip galvanized or metallized.
3.1 General
Special Provision 911S01 must be inserted with this tender item, when abrasive blast
cleaning of structural steel is specified (for surface preparation). It addresses the
following:
• Requirement for complete air change in less than one minute, within the full
enclosure with negative pressure.
• Requirement for the contractor to demonstrate the existence of negative pressure
within the full enclosure with negative pressure.
Special Provision 911S05 must be inserted with this tender item. If there is no
environmental protection item SP911S05 must be inserted with the “coating” items. It
details the requirements necessary for testing and disposal of the spent material and
debris removed from the bridge and administering of leachate toxic spent material with
additional payment.
For surface preparation that utilizes low dust equipment like power and hand tools,
typically in an overcoating contract, partial enclosure could be specified. A Non-standard
special provision (NSSP) should be inserted to stipulate the partial enclosure and waste
management requirements.
The drawings should show any vertical/horizontal clearance restrictions that may affect
the location of the environmental enclosures. If a paint skimmer is necessary, its location
at the structure should be shown on the drawings.
4.1 General
Samples of non-standard special provisions dealing with these items are contained in
sections 3.8 to 3.12.
4.3.1 General
This item addresses the removal and reinstallation of designated components including
the supply of new bolts.
The components included in the item should be identified on the contract drawings. The
metric size and length of new bolts, nuts and spacers should be listed.
4.4.1 General
This item addresses the removal, loading, transporting, storing and reinstallation,
including the supply of new bolts.
The work is carried out either on a lump sum basis or per linear metre.
The rails to be removed should be identified on the contract drawings. The metric size
and length of the new bolts, nuts, washers and spacers should be listed.
4.5.1 General
This item addresses the removal and reinstallation of diaphragms including the supply of
new bolts.
The diaphragms to be removed should be identified on the contract drawings along with
the sequence of removal. The metric size and length of new bolts and nuts should be
listed.
4.6.1 General
This item addresses the removal and reinstallation of railway blast deflection plates on
steelwork over railway tracks including the supply of new bolts.
The railway blast deflections plates to be removed should be identified on the contract
drawings. The metric size and length of new bolts and nuts should be listed.
4.7.1 General
This item addresses the removal and disposal of obsolete equipment attached to
structures.
Scope
Removing and reinstalling appurtenances. *1
Construction
1) To remove or move the following appurtenances *2 to the satisfaction of the Contract
Administrator before cleaning the structural steel adjacent to or covered by the
appurtenances.
3) Contractor shall make all necessary arrangements with the *4 for any approval or
inspection prior to removal of appurtenances.
4) If the coating work is not completed in the same construction season all removed
appurtenances shall be reinstalled prior to seasonal shutdown. *5
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designers:
*1 This is to be used when existing utility ducts are positioned in such a way
that they interfere with thorough cleaning and coating of the steel surfaces.
Scope
Removing and reinstalling the steel handrails along each side of the structure.
Construction
1) Remove and dispose (*1) of the steel post caps (*2) from the steel posts prior to
steel handrail removal.
2) Remove and salvage the steel handrails (total length of *3) from *4 of the
structure prior to cleaning and coating. The steel handrails shall not be removed
from both sides of the structure simultaneously. *5 Each panel shall be match-
marked prior to removal to identify its location.
3) Load and transport the steel handrails to a location acceptable to the Contract
Administrator and unload and store the handrails until required.
4) Load and transport the steel handrails, after coating, back to the structure site and
unload at the structure site.
5) Reinstall the steel handrails securely in their original locations using new-
galvanized bolts, nuts, washer and spacers. Bolts, nuts, spacers and washers to be
in accordance with ASTM A325M, Type 1. *6
The connections shall be friction type and the bolts shall be tightened by turn-of-
nut method in accordance with OPSS 906.
The dimensions of the new bolts and coupling nuts shall be verified by the
Contractor prior to ordering. (*7 -20 mm dia. x 50 mm long hexagon head
machine bolts each with one square nut and one lockwasher, *7 -20 mm dia. x 50
mm long hexagon head machine bolts, and *7 coupling nuts for 20 mm dia.
bolts.)
6) Re-install the steel post caps securely on the steel posts; re-drilling screw holes
where necessary; using new galvanized screws of appropriate size. *8
7) The Contractor shall handle, transport and install newly coated handrail panels in
such a manner as to prevent any damage to the new coating surfaces. Any
damage to the coating caused by the Contractor’s operations shall be repaired by
surface preparation and re-coating in accordance with OPSS 911.
8) If the coating work is not completed in the same construction season all removed
steel handrail panels shall be reinstalled prior to seasonal shutdown and the
structure returned to its original traffic pattern. *9
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
*5 Where the handrails are galvanized, and where site conditions permit, this
sentence should be deleted to allow simultaneous shipping to the
galvanizers in order to speed up the job.
*6 Give the metric size and length of the bolts, nuts and washers.
Notes: Construction step 6 and Footnote 8 are to be deleted if the old post caps
are disposed of.
Warrant: With this tender item when handrail panels are to be coated off the bridge
site.
Scope
This special provision covers the requirements for removing and re-installing diaphragms
to facilitate structural steel coating.
Construction
The diaphragms to be removed are indicated on the drawings. The diaphragm removal
procedure is as follows: *1
The diaphragms shall be refastened with new galvanized bolts, nuts and washers (*2,
ASTM A325M, Type 1).
Time shall be of the essence. There shall be no delays in the work when diaphragms are
removed for cleaning and coating. When the work is begun it must be a continuous
operation until the diaphragms are replaced.
If the coating work is not completed in the same construction season all removed
diaphragms shall be reinstalled prior to seasonal shutdown.
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
Notes: Where diaphragms are closer than 450 mm to the ballast wall or to each
other such that the inside face of the diaphragms and the ends of girders
are not accessible, it is recommended that the diaphragms be removed, if
possible, so they and any inaccessible areas behind them may be cleaned
and coated properly. In some cases they are embedded in the concrete
deck and cannot be removed. OPSS 510 is to be included in the Tender.
Warrant: With this tender item when diaphragm removal is necessary to permit
coating behind them.
Scope
Construction
The railway blast deflection plates are not to be cleaned and coated. The railway blast
deflection plates, but not the “T” connections are to be removed and salvaged prior to
painting the bottom flanges of the girders. *1 blast deflection plate/plates is/are to be
reattached over the rail line with new galvanized bolts, nuts and washers (*2, ASTM
A325M, Type 1).
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
Warrant: With this tender item when railway blast deflection plates need to be
removed to permit coating behind them.
Scope
Removing appurtenances. *1
Construction
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
5.1 General
This section addresses the extension of existing deck drainage components to prevent
road runoff being deposited onto structural steelwork. It is divided into the following
sections:
Samples of non-standard special provisions dealing with these items are contained in
sections 4.5 and 4.6.
5.3.1 General
This item addresses the extension of deck drains and related hardware.
The drains covered by this item should be identified on the contract drawings. The
method of extension and any attachment details should also be shown.
5.4.1 General
This item addresses the extension of asphalt wearing surface drains and related hardware.
The drain tubes covered by this item should be identified on the contract drawings. The
method of extension and any attachment details should also be shown. See OPSD
3951.00 for standard details.
Scope
Construction
To attach *2 deck drain extensions at the following locations: *3 using new galvanized
nuts, bolts, brackets and clamps. *4 Bolts, nuts and washers to be in accordance with
ASTM A325M, Type 1.
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
*1 This is to be used where the deck drains are situated at a higher elevation
than the bottom flange or bottom chord, thereby, depositing road runoff
onto the steel.
*2 Specify the number of drains and the material the extension is made from.
*4 Give the metric size and length of the bolts, nuts, brackets, and clamps.
Note: It is recommended that the drain extensions project at least 150 mm below
the lowest adjacent bottom flange or bottom chord. A detailed sketch of
the method of attaching the extensions should be part of the contract
package.
Scope
Construction
Installation of drainage tube extensions shall conform to the details shown in the contract.
*5
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
*4 Give the metric size and length of the bolts, nuts, brackets, and clamps.
6.1 General
This section addresses repairs to steel handrail panels prior to cleaning and coating
operations.
The components covered by the item should be identified on the contract drawings. Any
new parts and the repair procedures should be clearly shown.
Scope
This special provision covers the requirements for *1 the following components prior to
coating.
Construction
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
*1 Use this special provision if rail components are badly perforated and need
replacement; and/or, if verticals or other components are badly twisted or
bent; and/or, if the steel post caps are to be replaced or if the existing
plates are to be welded. Indicate the operation to be performed (e.g.
replacing components, or straightening members).
*3 If the steel post caps are replaced, use the following wording: “Grind off
existing coating and rust at the weld locations for the new 6mm steel
plates. Install new steel plates on steel handrail posts as per contract
drawings. Grind off excess weld slag prior to abrasive blast cleaning
entire surface area of steel post as per tender item – Coating Steel Railing
System(s). All structural steel work shall be in accordance with OPSS
906. Disposal shall be as specified elsewhere in the contract.”
7.1 General
This section addresses the provision for lighting the work area when surface
preparation/coating must be done at night.
There is currently no CPS item description or code available for this item. This item
description will have to be approved for use by the Highway Design Office.
Scope
Provide illumination for surface preparation and coating during night work.
Construction
To provide illumination for the work area during surface preparation, coating applications
and acceptance inspection procedures.
The minimum luminosity shall be 400 lux at any point within the work area for each
phase of the construction and inspection.
Basis of Payment
Payment at the contract price for the above tender item shall be full compensation for all
labour, equipment and materials to do the work.
Notes to Designer:
*1 Use only where daytime coating work will cause serious traffic
congestion.
8.1 Introduction
Standard special provisions which may be required as part of a bridge coating contract
can be found in the Contract Design, Estimating and Documentation Manual and CPS.
Listed below are the special provisions written specifically for structural steel coating
contracts. The text for each and the warrant for their use are in the above manual and
CPS.
As bridge coating is normally carried out between May and September, depending on
local conditions, SP100F09 should show the following “free time” periods: