Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Anlisis de caso
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Coating Systems
While eight one-coat systems were selected in the accelerated laboratory study, seven
one-coat systems were selected for the outdoor study. Glass reinforced polyester was not
included in the outdoor study due to its delayed arrival for the panel preparation.
Historically well performing one 3-coat system and one 2-coat system were also included
in the both studies as controls. The selected coating systems are listed in Table 1. The
chosen eight one-coat systems covered the most popular generic types of coating used
for steel bridge protection.
Test Panels and Surface Preparation
All test panels were blast cleaned to the level of SSPC-SP 10. Measured anchor profiles
of the cleaned steel panels were between 2.2 and 2.9 mils (55 m and 72 m). All
coatings were sprayed on the cleaned test panels using airless spray method. A total of
222 panels were prepared for the entire study and they were divided into three groups.
The type and number of panels for each group were listed in the previous PACE paper1.
For the outdoor testing, 54 small panels (4 in x 6 in) in the second group were selected for
a marine environment exposure testing in Sea Isle City, New Jersey. The third group
consisted of 108 of 6 in x 12 in large size panels and they were tested in the outdoor
exposure racks at the FHWA Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center (TFHRC),
McLean, Virginia.
Half of the test panels in each group were scribed diagonally following the instructions
specified in American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Method D 1654.3 The scribes
were made to evaluate corrosion resistance of a coating system at the artificial defect
area. The other half of the panels were left unscribed to test coating properties such as
gloss, color, pencil scratch hardness, coating impedance, etc.
Exposure Conditions
The test panels classified for a marine environment testing were exposed at an oceanfront
test site in Sea Isle City, NJ. All the test panels were placed on a 45-degree angle wooden
rack, facing directly south. The test site was considered a harsh environment with high
chloride and high time-of-wetness.4 The test panels were sent back to the FHWA Coatings
and Corrosion Laboratory every six months to evaluate on-going degradation. The total
exposure duration was 24 months.
The large size test panels were exposed at the TFHRC weathering test site. The test
panels were placed on two wooden racks oriented at a 30-degree angle facing directly
south. The panels placed on one rack underwent mild natural weathering exposure only.
The panels placed on the other rack were sprayed once a day and 5 days per week with a
15 wt. % sodium chloride solution in addition to the natural weathering. Due to delay in
experimental setup, the salt spray commenced three months late. The test panels were
also evaluated every six months.
At the completion of the outdoor testing program, all the panels were thoroughly examined
for final performance evaluation.
Coating Characterization and Performance Monitoring
A series of characterization tests were conducted on the wet paints and coated test panels
before the study started. Previous publications described more detailed information about
the experimental procedures and methodologies.1, 2
As mentioned earlier, performance of the outdoor test panels was evaluated every six
months. A low voltage holiday detector was used for detecting newly developed holidays.
The blistering and rusting were visually examined using the standard methods described
in ASTM D 6105 and ASTM D 7146, respectively. The rust creepage developed at the
scribe was measured according to ASTM D 7087.7 Electrochemical Impedance
Spectroscopy (EIS) was used to monitor quantitative changes in coating properties. Digital
photographs were taken to document the progressive changes observed on the panels. At
the completion of the exposure testing, final evaluation was made in terms of extent of rust
creepage, physical appearance, and number of surface defects. Changes in physical and
optical properties such as gloss, color, pencil hardness, adhesion strength, and coating
impedance were also evaluated.
REFERENCES
1. Seung-Kyoung Lee, Shuang-Ling Chong and Yuan Yao, The Most Recent Test
Results of One-coat System Applicable to Steel Bridge Structures The Proceeding of
the PACE 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 15-18, 2009.
2. Seung-Kyoung Lee, Shuang-Ling Chong and Yuan Yao, Early Test Results of OneCoat Systems Applicable to Steel Bridge Structures, Proceedings of PACE 2008, Los
Angeles, California, January 27-30, 2008.
3. ASTM D 1654 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated
Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments.
4. Peter Ault, Jim Ellor, John Repp, and Brad Shaw, Characterization of the
Environment, FHWA-RD-00-030, August 2000.
5. ASTM D 714 Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints.
6. ASTM D 610, Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted
Steel Surfaces.
7. ASTM D 7087-05a, Standard Test Method for an Imaging Technique to Measure
Rust Creepage at Scribe on Coated Test Panels Subjected to Corrosive Environment.