Time is Money: Improving Shop & Field Painting Throughput by Reducing Finish Coat Handling Time Benjamin Fultz,

Bechtel Corporation William D. Corbett, KTA-Tator, Inc. Kurt Best, Bayer MaterialScience Learning Outcomes Describe common problems associated with handling finish coated steel prior to the dry-to-handle time. Explain the benefits of handling and shipping finish coated steel sooner. Explain the benefits of reducing field repairs to damaged finish coats Describe the non-traditional testing procedures used to compare the handling time of finish coats. List the coating systems that display a shorter application-to-handling time window. Coating Systems Six (6) coating systems (supplied by three coating manufacturers) were included in the study, as shown in the table below. Code A B C D E F Generic Coating System Organic (epoxy) Zinc Primer / Polysiloxane Finish Organic (epoxy) Zinc Primer / Polyaspartate Finish Organic (moisture cure urethane) Zinc Primer / Polyaspartate Finish Inorganic Zinc Primer / Epoxy Mid Coat / Acrylic Polyurethane Finish Inorganic Zinc Primer / Polysiloxane Finish Inorganic Zinc Primer / Polyaspartate Finish

Test Panel Preparation A variety of substrate sizes and types of test panels for study, as shown in the table below: Type Steel Q-Panels Steel Taber Panels Steel Q-Panels Steel Panels Steel Panels Steel Panels Size 0.032 x 4 x 6 0.032 x 4 x 4 0.032 x 4 x 6 5/8 x 3 x 4 5/8 x 4 x 12 1/4 x 4 x 6 Surface Preparation SSPC-SP 7 (brush blast) SSPC-SP 1 (solvent clean) SSPC-SP 1 (solvent clean) SSPC-SP 5 (White blast) SSPC-SP 5 (White blast) SSPC-SP 5 (White blast) Test Designation Impact Resistance Taber Abrasion Abrasive/Dust Pick-up Compression/Tensile Pull Contact Point Tensile Adhesion

All coatings were mixed, thinned and applied in accordance with the respective manufacturers instructions. The coatings were applied by conventional (air) spray. Dry film thickness measurements were acquired after the application of each coat using an electronic coating thickness gage. The thickness data are summarized in the tables below. Data are shown for two (2) sets of panels: Ambient cure of the finish coat (Set 1); and colder temperature/higher humidity cure (Set 2). The range is displayed for each; the average thickness is shown in parentheses. Note that the cure-to-test time (and/or film deformation caused by testing) for the finish coats may have prevented the acquisition of dry film thickness measurements on certain panels. Coating Thickness Summary (mils) Set 1 (Ambient Cure) System (Code) Organic (epoxy) Zinc / Polysiloxane (A) Organic (epoxy) Zinc / Polyaspartate (B) Moisture cure urethane zinc / Polyaspartate (C) Inorganic Zinc / Epoxy / Acrylic Polyurethane (D) Inorganic Zinc / Polysiloxane (E) Inorganic Zinc / Polyaspartate (F) Primer 2.7-4.0 (3.3) 3.2-6.3 (4.2) 2.8-5.2 (3.8) 2.1-6.3 (4.3) 2.5-5.4 (4.2) 2.2-5.6 (3.6) Primer + Mid-Coat NA NA NA 4.8-8.8 (6.9) NA NA Total System 5.0-8.5 (6.8) 9.7-16.5 (13.2) 8.5-17.1 (11.8) 7.9-12.2 (9.8) 8.1-11.3 (9.4) 9.7-18.8 (12.4)

Coating Thickness Summary (mils) Set 2 (Cold Temp/Humid Cure) System Code Moisture cure urethane zinc / Polyaspartate (C1) Inorganic Zinc / Epoxy / Acrylic Polyurethane (D1) Inorganic Zinc / Polysiloxane (E1) Inorganic Zinc / Polyaspartate (F1) Primer 3.6-6.4 (5.3) 2.4-5.2 (3.8) 2.2-7.5 (4.6) 2.4-5.9 (3.3) Primer + Mid-Coat NA 5.1-8.1 (6.3) NA NA Total System 8.1-15.9 (11.9) 7.4-11.5 (9.4) 4.7-11.3 (7.4) 8.0-13.3 (10.1)

The organic zinc-rich primers were cured for twenty-four (24) hours prior to application of the finish coats, while the inorganic zinc primers were cured for forty-eight (48) to ninety-six (96) hours prior to application of the midcoat/finish coats. The epoxy mid-coat for the three-coat system was cured for twenty-four (24) hours prior to application of the finish coat. The finish coats were cured at two (2) different conditions: 72F and 50% relative humidity; and 50F and 75% relative humidity. All curing was accomplished in an environmentally-controlled chamber. The cure time between finish coat application and testing ranged from two (2) hours to thirty-five (35) days, depending on the testing protocol, as shown in the tables below (indicated X).

Cure Times Prior to Testing Test Impact Resistance Taber Abrasion Abrasive/Dust Pick-up Compression/Tensile Pull Contact Point Tensile Adhesion 2 Hours X X X 6 Hours X X X X X 12 Hours X X X X X 24 Hours X X X X X 48 Hours 35 Days X X X X X X

TESTING PROCEDURES Standard ASTM testing procedures were performed, including dry-to-handle testing of the finish coats only (ASTM D 1640, Standard Test Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings at Room Temperature), as well as impact resistance (ASTM D 2794, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Organic Coatings to the Effects of Rapid Deformation (Impact)), Taber abrasion (ASTM D 4060, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser), and tensile (pull-off) adhesion (ASTM D 4541, Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers). Non-traditional testing procedures were also employed to simulate actual handling procedures commonly encountered in the shop and/or field. These included abrasive/dust pickup, compression/tensile pull and contact point. Each of standard ASTM test methods and the nonstandard testing procedures is described below. Impact Resistance The impact resistance was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2794, Resistance of Organic Coating to the Effects of Rapid Deformation (Impact). The testing was performed in direct (coating upward) orientation of the panels. A four (4) pound weight was dropped from various heights along the guide tube of the apparatus on a tap directly onto the coated surface. The maximum height at which the coating exhibited no cracking was considered to be the impact resistance of the coating. Taber Abrasion Taber abrasion resistance was determined in accordance with ASTM D 4060, Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser. Duplicate 4 x 4 panels were weighed then subjected to 1000 cycles using a 1000g load and CS-17 abrasion wheels. Post weights were acquired and the weight loss (in mg) reported. Tensile Adhesion Tensile adhesion (pull-off strength) was measured in accordance with ASTM D 4541, Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers, Annex A4, Self-Aligning Adhesion Tester Type IV. The testing surfaces were wiped clean and abraded gently using fine sandpaper. Loading fixtures with an abraded test surface were attached to the coating using a two-component epoxy adhesive, which was allowed to cure at ambient laboratory conditions. The fixtures were then detached using a selfaligning pneumatic adhesion tester. The force (in psi) required to remove each loading fixture was recorded along with the location of break and approximate percentage of each. The location of break was defined as adhesive (a split between layers), cohesive (within a layer), or glue failure (coating strength exceeds glue strength). Abrasive/Dust Pick-up After the designated curing time, approximately 50 grams of an abrasive/dust blend (G50 steel grit and silica dust; approximately 25 grams of each) was poured onto the finish coated panels (positioned horizontally) and allowed a one (1) minute dwell time. The panel was then inverted and any abrasive/dust that did not adhere to the coating was poured off. The panel was then carefully blown off with clean, dry

compressed air at a distance that would remove any loosely adhering debris but not dislodge debris trapped in the coating film. The finish-coated surface was then evaluated visually for residual debris (none, very minor, moderate, or severe). In addition, post-test gloss values (at 65 and 85) were acquired in general accordance with ASTM D 523, Specular Gloss and compared to the gloss values on the thirtyfive (35) day cure panels (considered baseline, since no debris would adhere after a 35-day cure) to assess whether dust or debris lodged in the film reduced the gloss of the finish coat. The gloss values and percent gloss retention are reported.

Application of abrasive/dust blend to finish coat

Removal of abrasive/dust blend after one (1) hour dwell time

Compression/Tensile Pull Duplicate x 3 x 4 carbon steel test panels were coated on one surface. After the designated curing time, the coated surfaces were mated and placed under a predetermined compression load (260 lbsforce to simulate stacking) using a load cell of a Universal Testing apparatus. The lbs-force was selected based on the weight of one linear foot of I-beam with a 36 web with 16.5 wide x 1.440 thick flanges. If the mating surfaces attached to one another, bolts were threaded into pre-drilled and tapped holes in the non-coated faces, then the assembly was mounted in a Tinius Olsen Universal Testing apparatus and the force (in pounds) to separate the mating surfaces was quantified. Any damage to the coating on the mating surfaces (once separated) was visually assessed (none, very minor, moderate, or severe).

Aligning mating surfaces for compression load

Application of 260 lbs of force to mating surfaces

Threading pulling rods into backsides of compression panels Contact Point

Application of tensile force to separate compression panels

Duplicate x 4 x 12 carbon steel test panels were coated on one surface. After the designated cure time, the coated surface of the steel panels was placed onto the apex of two pieces of angle iron (simulating dunnage placed beams during transit, or resting points for pipe sections during coating). A load (260 pounds) was applied to the plate for twenty-four (24) hours. Damage to the coating after the dwell time was rated on a relative scale of 5 (none) to severe (1).

Positioning of panel on apex of 1 angle iron (coated side down)

Application and positioning of weight onto coated panel

TEST RESULTS The results of the physical testing are provided in the tables below. The results are the average of duplicate tests when testing was performed using replicate samples. Dry-to-handle times for each of the three finish coats are provided below. Dry-to-Handle Times of Finish Coats (ASTM D 1640) Dry-to-Handle Time 50 minutes 4 hours, 25 minutes 5 hours, 15 minutes

Product Polyaspartate Polysiloxane Acrylic Polyurethane

Other than the dry time testing described above, the standardized ASTM procedures used in the testing program yielded little useful data, as these tests are primarily designed to be performed on fully cured films. For example, the impact resistance was relatively high during the early curing stages of the finish coats, but diminished as the film cured and became harder. After 35 days ambient cure, all six (6) coating systems exhibited an impact resistance of 10-15 inch-lbs. Abrasion resistance varied widely and at colder temperatures and higher humidity, the coating was too wet to test for two (2) of the four (4) systems (polyurethane and polysiloxane finish coats), even after twenty-four (24) hours curing. Tensile (pull-off) adhesion values were all relatively low at twelve (12) hours cure time (note that the loading fixtures were attached to the coating film a minimum of eight (8) hours prior to testing, so the epoxy adhesive may have affected the properties of the uncured finish coat). The adhesion values increased substantially after twenty-four (24) hours cure time (ambient cure), but remained relatively low after twenty-four (24) hours cure at 50F/75% RH curing conditions. Conversely, the non-traditional testing procedures (gloss retention after abrasive/dust pick-up, compression/tensile pull and contact point) generated discriminating data under both finish coat curing conditions. The data for the non-traditional tests are summarized below. Results of Gloss Retention after Abrasive/Dust Pick-up Test (60 Angle) Ambient Cure Cold/Damp Cure (72F/50% RH) (50F/75% RH) Coating System 2 Hours 6 Hours 2 Hours 6 Hours OZ/Polysiloxane (A) 1.6% 17.2% NA NA OZ/Polyaspartate (B) 80.5% 89.3% NA NA MCUZ/ Polyaspartate (C) 157.3%* 152.7%* 159.1%* 156.3%* IOZ/EP/Polyurethane (D) 7.6% 17.9% 6.5% 8.5% IOZ/ Polysiloxane (E) 4.5% 15.9% 2.5% 5.3% IOZ/ Polyaspartate (F) 97.8% 111.3%* 113.8%* 126.4%* *Gloss values increased from baseline. May be due to differences in application Results of Gloss Retention after Abrasive/Dust Pick-up Test (85 Angle) Ambient Cure Cold/Damp Cure (72F/50% RH) (50F/75% RH) Coating System 2 Hours 6 Hours 2 Hours 6 Hours OZ/Polysiloxane (A) 0.2% 1.1% NA NA OZ/Polyaspartate (B) 138.9%* 157.6%* NA NA MCUZ/ Polyaspartate (C) 86.3% 88.7% 98.4% 98.7% IOZ/EP/Polyurethane (D) 1.3% 2.0% 1% 1% IOZ/ Polysiloxane (E) 0.8% 1.8% 0.4% 1.3% IOZ/ Polyaspartate (F) 99.8% 126.4%* 147.1%* 151%* *Gloss values increased from baseline. May be due to differences in application

Damage after Compression/Tensile Pull Test Ambient Cure (72F/50% RH) Coating System OZ/Polysiloxane (A) OZ/Polyaspartate (B) MCUZ/ Polyaspartate (C) IOZ/EP/Polyurethane (D) IOZ/ Polysiloxane (E) IOZ/ Polyaspartate (F) Coating System MCUZ/ Polyaspartate (C1) IOZ/EP/Polyurethane (D1) IOZ/ Polysiloxane (E1) IOZ/ Polyaspartate (F1) 35 Days (control) None None None None None None 2 Hours Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe 6 Hours Very Minor None None Severe Severe Severe 12 Hours None None None Mod-Severe None None 24 Hours None None None None None None

2 Hours Severe Severe Severe Severe

Cold/Damp Cure (50F/75% RH) 6 Hours 12 Hours 24 Hours Severe Severe Moderate Severe Severe Minor-Moderate Severe Moderate-Severe Very Minor-Minor Severe Moderate Minor

Damage after 24-Hour 260# Contact Point Test Ambient Cure (72F/50% RH) Coating System OZ/Polysiloxane (A) OZ/Polyaspartate (B) MCUZ/ Polyaspartate (C) IOZ/EP/Polyurethane (D) IOZ/ Polysiloxane (E) IOZ/ Polyaspartate (F) Coating System MCUZ/ Polyaspartate (C1) IOZ/EP/Polyurethane (D1) IOZ/ Polysiloxane (E1) IOZ/ Polyaspartate (F1) 35 Days (control) None Very Minor Very Minor None None Very Minor 6 Hours Moderate Moderate Severe Severe Severe Severe 12 Hours V. Minor Minor Severe Severe Severe Severe 24 Hours None-V. Minor Very Minor Mod.-Severe Minor-Mod. Very Minor Minor-Mod. 48 Hours V. Minor Minor Moderate Minor V. Minor Minor-Mod.

6 Hours Severe Severe Severe Severe

Cold/Damp Cure (50F/75% RH) 12 Hours 24 Hours Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Mod.-Severe Moderate

48 Hours

Moderate Minor-Mod. V. Minor-Minor Minor

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS A relative rating system was created in order to compare the performance of the various coating systems. The rating scale is shown below. In addition, a weighting factor was assigned to each test, which was based on the relative importance of the characteristic. The weightings are also shown below. Test Result Range >100 in-lbs 75-100 in-lbs 50-74 in-lbs 25-49 in-lbs <25 in-lbs <25 mg loss 25-50 mg loss Taber Abrasion Resistance 51-100 mg loss 101-150 mg loss >151 mg loss > 81% gloss retention Gloss Retention after Abrasive/Dust Pick-up (60 and 85 incidence angle) 61-80% gloss retention 41-60% gloss retention 21-40% gloss retention < 20% gloss retention <2 hours 2-6 hours >6-12 hours >12-24 hours >24 hours None Very minor Contact Point Minor Moderate Severe >1000 psi 750-1000 psi 500-749 psi 250-500 psi <250 psi Point Value 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 35% 30% 0% Weight Factor

Impact Resistance

0%

Resistance to Compression No Damage:

35%

Tensile Adhesion

0%

Impact Resistance (72F/50% RH) The polyaspartate finish coat applied to a moisture cure urethane zinc primer showed the greatest resistance to direct impact after two (2) hours cure (75 in-lbs; Relative rating of 3). The polysiloxane finish coat applied to an inorganic and organic (epoxy) zinc primer had the greatest impact resistance after six (6) hours and twelve (12) hours cure (>160 in-lbs; Relative rating 5). The polysiloxane finish coat applied to an inorganic zinc primer had the greatest impact resistance after twenty-four (24) hours cure 75 in-lbs; (Relative rating 3). After 35 days cure, the impact resistance of all six (6) systems ranged from 10-15 in-lbs (Relative rating 1). Since impact resistance is designed to be conducted on a fully cured system, the data collected at two (2), six (6) and twelve (12) hours cure is not considered valid, since an uncured film will generally be more flexible than a cured film. After thirty-five (35) days cure, the ranking of the six (6) systems was: Moisture Cure Urethane Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 15 in-lbs) Inorganic Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 15 in-lbs) Inorganic Zinc/Polysiloxane (average 15 in-lbs) Organic Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 10 in-lbs) Organic Zinc/Polysiloxane (average 10 in-lbs) Inorganic Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane (average 10 in-lbs) Impact Resistance (50F/75% RH) The polyaspartate finish coat applied to an inorganic zinc primer showed the greatest resistance to direct impact after two (2) hours cure (150 in-lbs; Relative rating of 5). The polyaspartate finish coat (applied to inorganic zinc and moisture cure urethane zinc primers) maintained an impact resistance of 30-40 in-lbs after six (6), twelve (12) and twenty-four (24) hours cure (Relative rating of 2). The acrylic polyurethane finish coat and the polysiloxane finish coat were too wet to test until after twenty-four (24) hours cure, where they displayed an impact resistance of 55 in-lbs (Relative rating 3) and 125 in-lbs (Relative rating 5), respectively. Similar to the statement above, since impact resistance is designed to be conducted on a fully cured system, the data collected at two (2), six (6), twelve (12) and twenty-four (24) hours cure is not considered valid, since an uncured film will generally be more flexible than a cured film. Taber Abrasion Resistance (72F/50% RH) The acrylic polyurethane finish coat displayed the greatest resistance to abrasion damage after six (6) hours cure (average 18.4 mg loss; Relative rating 5); however this system was rated 1 after 35 days cure, with an average 221.6 mg loss). The polysiloxane finish coat (applied over an inorganic zinc primer) showed the greatest resistance to abrasion damage after twelve (12) hours cure (16.2 mg loss; Relative rating 5); however this system was rated 3 with an average 97.8 mg loss after thirty-five (35) days cure. After twenty-four (24) hours cure, the organic zinc primer/polysiloxane finish showed the greatest resistance to abrasion damage (94 mg loss; Relative rating 3). This rating for this system remained at a 3 with an average 82.2 mg loss after 35 days cure. Since Taber abrasion resistance is designed to be conducted on fully cured systems, the data collected at six (6) hours cure is not considered valid. After thirty-five (35) days cure, the ranking of the six (6) systems was: Inorganic Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 47.2 mg loss) Organic Zinc/Polysiloxane (average 82.2 mg loss) Inorganic Zinc/Polysiloxane (average 97.8 mg loss) Organic Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 109.8 mg loss) Inorganic Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane (average 221.6 mg loss) Moisture Cure Urethane Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 266.7 mg loss)

Taber Abrasion Resistance (50F/75% RH) The polysiloxane and polyurethane finish coats could not be evaluated for abrasion resistance after six (6), twelve (12) or twenty-four (24) hours cure as the film was too wet to test. The moisture cure urethane zinc primer/polyaspartate finish displayed average weight losses of 231.4 mg, 252 mg and 244.2 mg after six (6), twelve (12), and twenty-four (24) hours cure, respectively. The same finish coat applied to an inorganic zinc primer displayed average weight losses of 198.6 mg, 150.9 mg and 87.9 mg after six (6), twelve (12), and twenty-four (24) hours cure, respectively. The twelve (12) hour and twenty-four (24) hour performance of the inorganic zinc primer/polyaspartate finish resulted in a relative rating value of 2 and 3, respectively, which differentiated this system from the polysiloxane and polyurethane systems, which were rated 1 independent of cure time. Tensile Adhesion (72F/50% RH) The tensile (pull-off) adhesion for all six (6) systems was relatively low after 12 hours cure. Since the pull stubs were attached to the coating film after only four (4) hours cure time (to permit an eight (8) hour adhesive cure time prior to testing), it is suspected that the uncured film may have been affected by the adhesive. While there were differences in the adhesion values, all systems were rated either 2 or 3. Note that the organic zinc and the inorganic zinc primers with the polyaspartate finish generated the highest adhesion values (average 538 psi and 703 psi, respectively). These two (2) systems were rated 3. After twenty-four (24) hours cure, all systems were rated 4 or 5, indicating relatively high pull-off values. Two (2) of the six (6) systems (moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate finish and the inorganic zinc primer/polysiloxane finish) showed comparatively lower adhesion values (835 and 815 psi, respectively). These systems received a relative rating value of 4. The remaining four (4) systems revealed adhesion values ranging from 1075 to 2263 psi (relative ratings of 5). After thirty-five (35) days cure, the ranking of the six systems was: Organic Zinc/Polysiloxane (average 3953 psi) Organic Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 2344 psi) Inorganic Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane (average 2068 psi) Moisture Cure Urethane Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 2018) Inorganic Zinc/Polysiloxane (average 1579 psi) Inorganic Zinc/Polyaspartate (average 967 psi) Tensile Adhesion (50F/75% RH) All four (4) coating systems were too wet to acquire adhesion data after twelve (12) hours cure (pull stubs were attached to the coating film after only four (4) hours cure time to permit an eight (8) hour adhesive cure time prior to testing). All systems were rated (1). The inorganic zinc/polyaspartate system revealed an average adhesion value of 877 psi after twenty-four (24) hours cure (rating of 4), while the remaining three systems revealed comparatively lower adhesion values (range of 287-543 psi; ratings of 2-3) after twenty-four (24) hours cure. Gloss Retention after Abrasive/Dust Pick-up (72F/50% RH; 50F/75% RH) After two (2) and six (6) hours cure, the three (3) coating systems containing the polyaspartate finish coat displayed the highest gloss retention (> 81% of the baseline gloss), resulting in a weighted rating of (6.50) for each system. The polysiloxane and polyurethane systems displayed gloss retentions less than 20% of baseline and received weighted ratings of 1.30.

Resistance to 260 pounds-force Compression (72F/50% RH) All six (6) coating systems displayed severe damage after two (2) hours cure when subjected to 260 pounds-force compression for one hour. However after six (6) hours cure, two (2) systems (organic zinc/polyasparate and moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate) did not reveal any damage to the finish coat, even though tensile force had to be applied to the panel sets to pull them apart. The organic zinc/polysiloxane system exhibited very minor damage after six (6) hours cure. The remaining three systems exhibited severe damage resulting from compression testing after six (6) hours cure. Only one (1) system (inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane) exhibited severe damage resulting from compression testing after twelve (12) hours cure. None of the six (6) systems displayed damage of the film resulting from compression testing after twenty-four (24) hours cure. The overall weighted ratings for each of the six (6) systems follow: Organic zinc/polyasparate (5.40) Moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate (5.40) Inorganic zinc/polyasparate (4.05) Inorganic zinc/polysiloxane (4.05) Organic zinc/polysiloxane (4.05) Inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane (2.70) Resistance to 260 pounds-force Compression (50F/75% RH) All six (6) coating systems displayed severe damage after two (2) hours and six (6) hours cure when subjected to 260 pounds-force compression for one (1) hour. One (1) system (moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate) did not reveal any damage to the finish coat when cured for twelve (12) hours prior to testing, even though tensile force had to be applied to the panel set to pull them apart. Two (2) systems (organic zinc/polyasparate and moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate) did not reveal any damage to the finish coat after compression testing at twenty-four (24) hours cure. The overall weighted ratings for each of the four systems follow: Moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate (4.05) Inorganic zinc/polyasparate (2.70) Inorganic zinc/polysiloxane (1.35) Inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane (1.35) Resistance to 24-hour 260# Contact Point Load (72F/50% RH) After six (6) hours cure, three of the six systems containing the polyaspartate finish coats displayed moderate damage to the film (weighted rating of 2.70) after twenty-four (24) hours contact point loading; the remaining three (3) systems displayed severe damage (weighted rating of 1.35). After twelve (12) hours cure, one (1) system (organic zinc/polysiloxane) showed very minor damage (weighted rating of 5.40), while the remaining systems showed moderate to severe damage to the film. After twentyfour (24) hours cure, one system (moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate) showed moderate damage to the film (weighted rating of 2.70), while the remaining five (5) systems revealed minor damage (weighted rating of 4.05). After forty-eight (48) hours cure, two (2) systems (organic zinc/polysiloxane and inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane) displayed very minor damage (weighted rating of 5.40), while the remaining four (4) systems all displayed minor damage (weighted rating of 4.05).

Resistance to 24-hour 260# Contact Point Load (50F/75% RH) After twelve (12) hours cure, one (1) of the four (4) systems (inorganic zinc/polyasparate) displayed minor damage to the film (weighted rating of 4.05) after twenty-four (24) hours contact point loading; the remaining three (3) systems displayed severe damage (weighted rating of 1.35). After twentyfour (24) hours cure, one (1) system (inorganic zinc/polyasparate) showed minor damage (weighted rating of 4.05) and one (1) system (moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate) showed moderate damage (weighted rating of 2.70%); the remaining systems showed severe damage to the film. After forty-eight (48) hours cure, one (1) system (inorganic zinc/polyaspartate) displayed very minor damage (weighted rating of 5.40). The moisture cure urethane zinc/polyaspartate system and the three-coat inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane system displayed minor damage (weighted rating of 4.05). The inorganic zinc/polysiloxane system showed moderate damage (weighted rating of 2.70). SUMMARY OF RESULTS Based on the testing performed in this study, the polyasparate finish coat performed equivalent to or slightly better than the polysiloxane finish coat when cured under normal conditions of temperature and humidity (72F and 50% relative humidity). The polyaspartate finish coat performed comparatively better when tested for resistance to abrasive/dust pick-up and compression damage, while the polysiloxane appeared to have better performance in the contact point testing under the same curing conditions. Both finish coats outperformed the acrylic polyurethane finish. The polyaspartate finish coats outperformed the polysiloxane and polyurethane finish coats when cured under cold/damp conditions (50F and 75% relative humidity) in all three (3) of the tests designed to simulate product handling (abrasive/dust pick-up, compression damage and contact point damage). It does not appear that the generic type of primer used with the polyaspartate finish coat affected the performance of the finish coat (cured at 72F/50% RH). The type of primer used with the polysiloxane finish coat may have affected the performance of the finish coat, as there was a decrease in performance when an inorganic zinc was employed (verses an epoxy zinc primer). Since the polyurethane was only used in a single system, it is unknown whether the primer (or primer/mid-coat) affected the performance of the finish coat. Ambient Cure (72F/50% RH) Coating System Organic Zinc/Polyaspartate Finish Moisture Cure Urethane Zinc/Polyaspartate Finish Inorganic Zinc/Polyaspartate Finish Organic Zinc/Polysiloxane Finish Inorganic Zinc/Polysiloxane Finish Inorganic Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane Finish Overall Rating 49.9 49.6 49.6 49.2 44.5 39.5

Conversely, there appeared to be some affect of the primer on the finish coat performance when the polyaspartate finish coat was cured under cold/damp conditions (50F/75% RH), as there was a reduction in performance when a moisture cure urethane zinc primer was employed, compared to an inorganic zinc primer. Since the polysiloxane and polyurethane finish coats were only used in a single system (both over inorganic zinc primers), it is unknown whether the primer (or primer/mid-coat) affected the performance of the finish coat. Cold/Damp Cure (50F/75% RH) Coating System Inorganic Zinc/Polyaspartate Finish Moisture Cure Urethane Zinc/Polyaspartate Finish Inorganic Zinc/Polysiloxane Finish Inorganic Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane Finish Overall Rating 52.6 39.5 25.7 24.1

CONCLUSIONS Based on the data generated by this study, the use of polyaspartate and polysiloxane finish coats in steel fabrication shops (or blast & paint shops), when cured under normal conditions of 72F air temperature and 50% relative humidity can reduce throughput time and minimize or eliminate damage caused by stray abrasive or airborne dust in the cured film and compression (stacking), when compared to the performance of two-component acrylic polyurethane finish coats. When shop conditions are cooler and the relative humidity is escalated (e.g., 50F air temperature and 75% relative humidity), the use of a polyaspartate finish coat can result in reduced shop-to-field throughput by producing a hardened film that resists handling damage (abrasive/dust pick-up, compression and contact point damage), even at the lower temperature and higher humidity. Neither the polysiloxane nor the two-component acrylic polyurethane finish coats can be applied under these conditions without extended cure times prior to handling.