A-2092 174630 v1 PDF

__
,,__
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
f,
OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
SPONSORED PROJECT INITIATION

Date: __
J_an_uary
___2_4_,_1_9_7_8_ _ __
Project Title:
Coating Systems for Painting 'old and New Structural Steel
Project No:
A-2092
Project Director:
Sponsor:
D. J. 0' Neil
National Academy of Sciences

From
Agreement Period:
Type Agreement:
Amount:
1/1/78
----~~----------------
Until
~t;t)
--------------------------
COntract No. 4-14
$149,231
Reports Required:
r.Dnthly Progress Schedule; Quarterly Narrative; Final Teclmical.
Sponsor Contact Person (s):

Contractual Matters
(thru OCA)
Technical Matters
Mr. Ronald R. Wiley
National Accrlemy of Sciences

2101 Cbnstitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20418
(202) 389-6908
Defense Priority Rating:
__
o_logy
_ _&_~_~_lq:m=n_
. ____ _t_L_.a_l:x>_r_a_b_o_ry-----Assigned to: __Te_chn
(School/Laboratory)
COPIES TO:
Project Director
Division Chief (EES)
School/ laboratory Director
Oean/Director-EES
Accounting Office
Procurement Office
Security Coordinator (OCA)
Reports Coordinator (OCA) I
CA-3 (3/76)
Library, Technical Reports Section .

EES lnformation Office
EES Reports & Procedu-res
Project File (OCA)
Project Code (GTRI)
Oth-er
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
SPONSORED PROJECT TERMINATION SHEET
Date
6/4/82
Project Title:
Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel
Project No:
A-2092
Project Director:
Dr. C. J. Ray
Sponsor: National Academy of Sciences

Effective Termination Date: _ _....;1;;..,2...:../....;3_1..;_/_8_1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Clearance of Accounting Charges:
Grant/Contract Closeout Actions Remaining:
~ Final Invoice and Closing Documents
D
D
D
D
D
Final Fiscal Report

Final Report of Inventions
Govt. Property Inventory & Related Certificate
Classified Material Certificate
Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assigned to:
COPIES TO:
EMSL
iA~.
Ad r:tuAtstrattweeer

mater
Res~1rch Security Services

Research Property Management
-(OCA)
Accounting
Legal Services (OCA)
Procurement/EES Supply Services
Library
FORM OCA 10:781
(&tm:sW Laboratory)
EES Public Relations (2)

Computer Input
Project File
Other - - - - - - - -
NCHRP 4-14, FY 1978
WORKING PLAN
COATING SYSTEMS FOR PAINTING

OLD AND NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL
Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil

Chemical & Material Scienc~s Division
Technology Development Laboratory
Engineering Experiment Station
Georgia Institute c:>f Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
January, 1978
Foreward
This document is a "Working Plan", an expansion and amplification
of the Approved Research Plan for NCHRP 4-14, as outlined in the original
proposal submitted by the Georgia Tech Research Institute on behalf of
the Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Any elements of this Working Plan, which conflict with the research
plan of the original proposal, will take preference.
This Working Plan
will be used in conjunction with the Approved Research Plan of the original
proposal, upon approval of the NCHRP 4-14 Review Panel.
Daniel J. O'Ne~
Principal Investigator
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
:HAP Project No. 4-14: COATING SYSTEMS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
Fy' 78
Month _ _ _ __
;earch Agency Georgia Tech Research Institute ~Engineering Experiment Station)
Dr. Daniel J. 0 'Neil (Telephone: 404-894-3095)
ncipal Investigator
1978
M A M J J
:SEARCH
lASES
J F
Current
Practices 10 20 40 60
sks
I.1-1.4
~0
sk 1.5
Exptl.
Eva1n.
4U
.:>U
J F
1979
J J
M A
ESTIMATED%
D COMPLETION
~u ~uu
) l.U zu .5U
bl
0~
/L
1fo
l:S5 90
9),1.~
sk~
2.1-2.2
sks
2.3-2.4
sk 2.5
ro
~- -
ide1ines
"ie1d
20
40~
60 80 90 100
~Proszram
lQ_ ?I)
iorities
-L.J 'tl0 ._
J.al.
Re"Q.ort 40 90 lOU
3 6 12 18 24 28 33 36 39 42 45 48 50 53 57 ol b~ 14
'ERALL%
MPLETION 97 99 100
FIG. A-OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE
15 n
0
,~.,-
Planned Gross Expenditure

.Y
Actual Gross Expenditure )(
~13 5 r- o
C
Planned Salaries and Wages (Gross)
~12 r- - - - Actual Salaries and Wages
:J
X
)f."
0
,.
:J: 10 ...
...(/). . 9
u..
'i(
cw
6 (l
<(
...
.J
)<'
1:
.J
,)
::>
:E 3 r.
::>
"'
u
~ 1 ~,;~~
~
...-
/
~
vv
0 2
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
FIG. 8-CONTRACT FUNDS
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
12/2/75
---
~)
II
~9
9l 94 9)
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
_.,--'
1/
.J
.J
~ <(
a:
J0>w
I
j
7
50
40
./
30
l--
'
I
:
i
I
20
10
-I ....ww 80
j'*'
-'"
:J 7 .J
90 1-
10C
10 20 40 80 10C
:E
0 60
u
/"
,.
1)0 l'j_
~ 70
).!" '
c
z
100
...
L_/
00
%_ _ _ __
$ 149,231
$ _ _ __
!J,
l.U
l.l 1.4
l.b
l .ts l J l l l4
Months
FIG. C-CONTRACT PERIOD
Time Expended %
Starting Date
January -r,- 1978
Completion Date March 31, 1980
$ _ _ _ __
$ _ _ __
Salaries and Wages Estimated This Month

Salaries and Wages Spent This Month
Accumulated Salaries and Wages To Date
$ _ _ __
$ _ _ __
$ _ _ __
20.0008
CONTENTS
Expansion and Amplification of Approved Research Plan
Page
1.0
Research Plan
1.1
2.0
Objective
Statement of Work:
1968-1978 Survey
PHASE !--Evaluation of Current Practices and Experience
Task 1.1--Literature Survey
Task 1.2--Contacts with Public Agencies
Task 1.3--Contacts with Private Industry
Task 1.4--Contacts withOther Laboratories
Task 1.5--State-of-the-Art Report
PHASE 2--Experimental Evaluation of Phase 1
Task 2.1--Review of Phase 1
Task 2.2--Selection of Candidate Formulations
Task 2.3--Preparation of Test Formulations
Task 2.4--Test Program
Task 2.5--Compilation of Results
11
PHASE 3--Preparation of Tentative Guidelines
11
Task 3 .1--Review of Guidelines
11
Task 3.2--Modification of Guidelines
12
Task 3.3--Final Version of Guidelines
12
PHASE 4--Design of Field Evaluation Program
13 .
Task 4.1--Review of Present anci Past Field Programs
13
Task 4. 2--0bj ect i.ves of Fi.eld Evaluation
13
Task 4.3--Final Version of Field Evaluation Program
13
PHASE 5--Priorities for Needed Research

Task 5.1--Review of Laboratory and Field Evaluations
14
14
Task 5.2--Identification of Problems and Problem Areas 14
WORKING PLAN
Narrative
Expansion and Amplification of Approved Research Plan
This plan has been developed on the basis of the original research
plan (Section 1.2, Research Approach, pp. 7-18) of the original proposal,
on the response of August 17, 1977 (letter to K. W. Henderson, Jr., from
Mark C. Kelly, Contracting Officer of Georgia Tech Research Institute),
and on a discussion held .with Mr. Harry A. Smith, Project Engineer, NCHRP
staff at Georgia Institute of Technology on October 5, 1977.
1.0
Research Plan
1.1
Objective
The objective of this research is the preparation of tentative guide-
lines for the use of existing and recently developed nonproprietary coating
systems for the painting of structural steel, with emphasis on such considerations as:
(a) health and environment, (b) exposure conditions,
(c) application requirements, and (d) ,e conomics.

In this proj rect:, .emphasis on health and environment will recognize
California's Rule 66 type of solvent restrictions, together with OSHA and
EPA regulations as they exist during the term of this research program, with
a best guess of pertinent regulations to be anticipated by 1980.
Consequently,
prime consideration will be g:iven to water-borne coatings containing the

least amount of volatile organic constituents.
For example, based upon recent
findings on methyl n-butyl ketone and 2-nitroparaffin, these solvents will be

avoided as far as possible.
The
choic'~
of all ingredients including pigments
and modifiers will be considered for their protective effectiveness versus

the latest knowledge and planned regulations on their effect on health and
environment.
Results of the PACE program, among others, will be monitored.

1
We propose to consider highway structure exposure conditions using

the "zone classification" system (Table 3, p. 11) defined in NCHRP Report
74, "Protective Coatings for Highway Structural Steel," 1969, by J. D. Keane
of the Steel Structures Painting Council.
All "zones" will be considered
in developing tentative coating system guidelines, but the experimental

elements of the research will focus on zones lB and 2B primarily.
Application requirements are not expected to change much from those
in general use today, except that it is recognized that spray and roller
coating are increasing in economic favor over brushing.
Also, water-borne
coatings, which might be favored, tend to apply better by spray and roller.
In agreement with the NCHRP panel, it is important to investigate the
increased use of precoated steel and precoated assemblies.
and the types of shop coatings will be documented.
This practice
New shop coatings
will be evaluated for performance "after erection", particularly with regard

to the compatibility of shop coats with proposed maintenance coatings.
The
economic value _of completing the entire application of the coating system in
one positioning of the staging and other rigging will be considered.
Special conditions will be investigated, e.g., as to variability in
the substrate.-
Welding of weather-treated steel involves a different welding
material from that of the weathered steel.
Failure in maintenance produces
weathered steel streaking of steel below and staining of concrete.
The
nature of coatings, thickness, etc. for application must be considered vis-avis substrate, e.g., hot-dipped galvanized vs. weather-treated steel.
Recoating in the field must be assessed in
~erms
of substrate condition,
e.g., failure in galvanizing produces v.uprotected spots which must be repaired

by suitable coatings.
Because of the numerous environntental conditions experienced in the
United States, it will be necessary to query state highway departments
2
through use of a well-developed questionnaire as to their experiences and,

also, it will be necessary to solicit copies of relevant state specifications for the coating systems.
The latter information will form a part
of the final report of this project, probably in the form of an Appendix

. with a separate summary comparison of the specifications.
Unlike the NCHRP Reports 74, 74A, and 75A, summarizing the investigation of the Structural Steel Painting Council, the investigation and
reports of this project will include,
"Recoat ing" of old, i.e. , in-service,.
structural steel, particularly as it is affected by environmental restrictions.

Both preparation and application will be considered in terms of environmental,
economic, and technical feasibility.
Application requirements include preparation of rusted surfaces.
Abrasive blasting is generally recognized as most economical for aggressive
environmental exposures and particularly for the more durable chemical
coatings.
The recent experience of wet-blasting in California and newer
cleaning methods, e.g., of off-shore drilling rigs, will be evaluated.
New
methods include dry-ice pellet blasting and the KUE process, developed in
the United Kingdom.
2.0
Statement of Work; 1968-1978 Survey

The research proposed to meet the foregoing objective will be divided
into phases and subdivided into tasks, as described in the following sections.
PHASE !--Evaluation of Current Practices and Experience
The research program will begin with evaluation of current
practices and experience of public agencies, industry and others involved
in the protection of structural steel (both new and existing), with regard
to such factors as surface preparation, coating systems, coating thickness
and exposure.
It will focus on developments since 1968, the last year
covered by NCHRP Reports 74, 74A, and 74B.

3
This phase would be organized
into tasks as follows.

Task 1.1--Literature Survey
A thorough search of the literature will be made to include
as far as possible all published information on recently developed paint
systems.
Entries into the search would be made from such primary keywords
as the following:
Coatings; Systems, coating; Paints; Systems, paint;
Coatings, steel, structural; etc.

terms as:
Secondary entries would include such
Protective; Corrosion, protective; Corrosion, preventive; Anti-
corrosion; Rust resistant; Corrosion inhibiting; Rust inhibiting; etc.

Some sources are computerized and will provide printouts in response
to submitted keywords and keyword combinations.
Among those available to
us are HRIS, NITS, NASA/SCAN, Chemical Abstracts, etc.

Other abstracts which would be useful include:
Paint Abstracts, Corrosion Abstracts, etc.
such journals as Paint Journal, Metal
Metal Abstracts,
In addition, annual indexes of
:!~'inishing,
Steel, Stahl N. Eisen, etc.,
will be valuable sources of information.

Task 1.2--Contacts with Public Agencies
Among the f ederal agencies which would be expected to provide
information pertinent to our research would be DOT/FHWA, HRB, NCHRP, National
Bureau of Standards, Naval Research Laboratory, Army's Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), Bureau of Reclamation, TVA,
Of significant importance will be close communication and cooperation with
the Federally Coordinated Program dealing with corrosion protection of
structural
ste~l
which is in planning by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
A major initial task will be to develop a "questionnaire" to be sent
to state highway departments in order to solicit information as to their
current operating practices, specifications, and information on their
4
current operating practices, specifications, and information on their

experience with respect to the special environmental conditions and restrictions existing in their states.
The questionnaire will be designed to anticipate questions of both
materials engineers and maintenance engineers.
It will be designed to
facilitate rapid, detailed response in as time-conservative a manner as

possible.
A chart-type format which allows selection of "common" answers
and/or selective commentary will be used.

It will be aimed at identifying environmental conditions, preferred
and non-preferred pre-coated materials, coating materials, re-coating
materials, surface preparation techniques.
Information regarding special
conditions, e.g., painting welds 1 coating pre-coated structures, etc. will

be solicited.
Benefits and disadvantages in terms of service life, cost,
compatibility, etc. will be analyzed.

Personal visits will be made to appropriate state - agencies when
availability of detailed information and practical examples warrant close
attention.
Task 1.3--Contacts with Pri.vate Industry
Many companies in the private sector are engaged in paint related
activities; many have their own research laboratories which are engaged in
studies closely allied to the proposed research.
tion will be forthcoming
It is expected. that coopera-
from these to provide us with information on specific
formulations with which they are directly concerned.

already agreed to support our activity.
is expected are the following:
Several companies have
Among those from whom such cooperation
Sherwin-Williams, Glidden, Dupont, Carboline,
Reliance, Porter Paint, PPG and Napko.
Paint raw materials suppliers, such
as Union Carbide, NL Industries, Rohm & Haas, Polyvinyl Chemical, Pfizer,

Hammond Industries, Southern Services, Mobil Oil and Exxon.
5
Task 1.4--Contacts with Other Laboratories

There are many other laboratories engaged in coatings research
and in related topics such as polymers, surface chemistry, corrosion, etc.
Some are connected to universities, while some are privately operated.
These laboratories may generally be identified via reports in the published
literature.
Where a mutually beneficial exchange of information can be
offered, as would be the case in this instance, such an

be arranged without difficulty.
Council has been arranged.
exchange can generally
The support of the Structural Steel Painting
The NASA Technology Application Team at Stanford
Research Institute and the American Railway Engineering Association have

offered their services, as well.
Task
ASTM and NACE will be contacted.
1.5-~State-of-the-Art
Report
Information gathered from the sources identified in Tasks 1.1

to 1.4 will be analyzed and summarized in the form of a state-of-the-art
report designed to up-date NCHRP Reports 74, 74A, and 74B.
It will identify
vehicles, solvents, and pigments; methods of application; identity and

condition of substrates; times of applieation; times of inspection: preparation and application parameters: costs; environmental factors: cumulative
results.
Recommended systems, and alternates, for painting and repainting
steel under defined "zoned" categories will be developed.
Standard controls
for the experimental tasks of Phase 2 will be recommended.

Twenty copies of the draft report and reconnnendations will be submitted to NCHRP Panel 4-14 for review, evaluation and approval.
PHASE 2--Experimental Evaluation of Recently Developed Systems
Task 2.1--Review of Phase 1
At the outset of Phase 2, which is experimental in nature,
rather than informational, Phase 1 will be reviewed in its entirety for the
purpose of assuring that the selection of formulations, materials, test
procedures, etc., will be most productive in meeting the objective of the

proposed research.
It will he an objective to establish acceptable standard
controls and candidate formulations for experimental verification studies.

Task 2.2--Selection of Candidate Formulations
While the ultimate selection of candidate formulations will
depend upon the information accumulated, compiled and correlated in Phase 1,
it is anticipated that the systems from which experimental formulations will
be selected are the following:
I.
Primarily Heavy-duty Systems:
A.
Primers
Topcoats
Zinc-rich Primers:
Solutions:
Alkyl silicate
Modified alkyl
High-build vinyl solution

silicate~
One-pack alkyl silicate
Vinyl/acrylic solution
Latexes:
Vinyl acetate/acrylic latex
Acrylic latex
Styrene/acrylic latex
Acrylic/vinyl chloride latex
Acrylic/ethylene latex
Emulsions:
Water-borne epoxy amine
B.
II.
Polymeric*
Vinyl solution
High-build vinyl solution
Vinyl solution
Vinyl alkyd solution
Isophthalic alkyd
Isophthalic alkyd
Primarily Rural
c.
Latexes:
Latexes*:
Vinyl acetate/acrylic
7
Vinyl acetate/acrylic
D.
Acrylic
Acrylic
Styrene/acrylic
Styrene/acrylic
Acrylic/vinyl chloride
Acrylic/vinyl chloride
Acrylic/ethylene
Acrylic/ethylene
Water-borne Oil-free Polyesters*:

such as based on:
E.
Esterdiol 204
same
Water-borne epoxy amine
same
Controls (as determined from Phase 1)
It is intended to evaluate non-proprietary coating systems, both

existing and recently developed systems.
The experimental phase of the
program, however, will concentrate on recently developed coating systems

for which little or no data exists.
Non-proprietary systems is meant to
define formulations which are available from more than a single source.
Such systems should be defined by specifications which allow formulation by
more than one paint manufacturer.
If appropriate, certain currently
"developmental" systems might be included in the study if there is evidence

/
that they will be non-proprietary, by the above definition, upon commercial-

ization.
Newer systems which are designed to meet environmental standards
include the following:
(1)
Formulations of water-based systems which are equal to or better than

alkyd systems.
Development of water-based primers (California study
under HPR).
(2)
High-solids coatings.
(3)
New solvents--alternatives.
Acceptability in the long-term must be
considered, e.g., methylisobutyl ketone was replaced by methyl

n-butyl ketone, which was subsequently banned, in turn.
8
Task 2.3--Preparation of Test Formulations

As quickly as the formulations to be included in the experimental
program are selected, the raw-materials will be placed on order.
As the
materials are received, the formulations will be prepared in the laboratory

in quantities of sufficient size to accommodate the test program and to
provide accuracy in measurement and mixing of the ingredients.
The formula-
tions will be stored in friction-seal cans labeled as to formulation number,

date of preparation and such other information as shall be pertinent.
Task 2.4--Testing Program
Testing will be done on substrates characteristic of structural
steel and specifically for the purpose of comparing corrosion resistance of
the various systems.
For this reason, rather than utilize Q-panels of cold
rolled steel, we shall utilize KTA panels.
Constructed of plate and channel
forms, the KTA Test Panel includes all common surface characteristics that
promote early paint failure:
corners, edges, scratches, impact injury,
welds, inside angles and moisture pockets.

In agreement with the comments of the NCHRP panel and following
discussion with Mr. Smith of
the~
NCHRP, the testing program will be defined
to limit accelerated testing with the objective of generating useful service

information after about one year of exposure.
The number of systems to be investigated is undeterminable until the
results of Phase 1 are produced.
However, within best estimates currently
determined, it is anticipated that a maximum of 180 test panels could be

required.
This estimate was initially based on a statistically-designed
experiment in which up to seven surface treatments, up to eight topcoats,

up to twelve primers, three levels of thickness, and two levels (natural and
accelerated) of exposure would be invest:lgated.
be too optimistic.
This level of activity could
With the ag:reement of the NCHRP 4-14 Panel, a revised
plan would be submitted near the conclusion of Phase 1.
For example, two
levels of thickness (5 and 10 mils) might be used, rather than three, and
the applications in the coastal environment might be limited to 10 mils.
In this manner an increase in the number of systems, above the numbers
anticipated for study, could be accommodated.
It is anticipated that by
the use of these panels comparat1.ve performance of the various systems will
be more quickly evaluated than by any othE!r means.
Surface preparation of the panels will include the following:
Near white metal sand blast
Good commercial blast
Hydro blast
~-let
sand blast
Wet grit blast

Brush blast to clean old painted surfaces
Hydroblast to clean old painted surfaces
Coatings will be applied in thickness of approximately
10 mils, utilizing
5 and
minimum thickness of primer and topcoat as follows:
Nominal thickness
(mils)
Primer
(mils, min~imum)
1~
to 2~
Topcoat
(mils , minimum)
3~
8~
10
Exposures will include the following:

A)
Natural Exposure:
45 South for a period up to one year in a
coastal environment located in Burnswick, Georgia.
The site
has been made available for this study by the Georgia Department
of Transportation.
B)
Accelerated
E~posure:
Weatherometer for up to 1,000 hours

Salt spray up to 3,000 hours, 5% and lOOOF
10
Following exposure, inspection and evaluation will be conducted in

accordance with principles and procedures related in the Steel Structures
Painting Manual, Volume 1, Good Paint:lng Practice.
Should the inspection disclose special problems with respect to the
integrity of the paint film or its me<!hanical properties, difficulties with
application or adhesion of the paint to the substrate, indications of
corrosion phenomena, such as stress corrosion, which might accentuate the
corrosion damage, or other problems of diverse nature, such problems will
be given special attention in one or ntore of the laboratories listed in the
original proposal under Section 5, Equipment and Facilities.
Task 2.5--Compilation of Results
The experimental evaluation of the systems selected for application and examination will be concluded by a thorough compilation of the
results, utilizing appropriate statistical procedures to develop correlations
among the various parameters of surface preparation, application technique,
primer and topcoat composition, exposure type and exposure duration.
It is hoped that the test panels located on the coastal site in
Brunswick, Georgia will be monitored beyond the time frame of this contract
by the Georgia Department of Transportation, FHWA, or other investigators
in order to maximize the benefits of the field tests and to provide data
for correlation to the accelerated weathering tests performed in our laboratories.
PHASE 3--Preparation of Tentative Guidelines
Task 3.1--Review of Guidelines for Coating of Structural
Steel, Present Technology
It is not the intention of this phase of the research to generate
a new series of specifications since such standards have been developed by
the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, AASHTO, SSPC and the ASTM-many of which are cross-referenced.
ASTM, in particular, has specifications

11
for most
o~
the raw materials.
These sources will be used to develop the
tentative guidelines of this phase of the study.

TheSteel Structures Painting Manual, Volume 2, Systems and Specifications, Second Edition, 1967, is representative of the present technology
for the formulation of primers and topcoats for the corrosion protection of
steel structures.
Many of the formulations included in this manual have
been utilized on steel structures during the past decade, and it is anticipated that a number of the reports in the literature in Phase 1, Task 1.1,
will include field tests conducted with 1:hese formulations.
reported on such tests will be compared
~vith
The results
results obtained on newer
formulations in Phase 2 of this research, such comparison to include especially

the ten desired characteristics listed in Section 1 .. 1. 3 (p. 5) of the original proposal
Task 3.2--Hodifications of Guidelines Imposed by New Systems
In all instances in which the newer formulations produce factors
which indicate superiority over present formulations, modifications in the
present guidelines will be made to bring them into conformance with the use
of the newer formulations.
While the prime purpose of the research is the development of tentative
new guidelines for the formulation of paints, the performance of those
included in the Phase 2 program will be governed, in part at least, also by
the methods of surface preparation and paint application utilized.
These
factors will, then, be reflected in the results obtained in Phase 2 and the
modifications imposed upon present guidelines in this task.
In short, new
guidelines may apply primarily to formulations, but will imply certain modes
of preparation and application, as well8
Task 3.3--Final Version of Tentative Guidelines
While some of the present guidelines will be modified by Phase 2
results, others will remain unchallenged.
12
The final tentative guidelines will
consist,
t~erefore,
of some new or modified versions of present guidelines,
some which will remain in question as to whether modifications are fully

justified, and some which will remain unchanged.
PHASE 4--Design of a Field Evaluation Program
Task 4 .1--Review of Prese~nt and Past Field Evaluation Programs,
with Critique
It is anticipated that the literature survey of Phase 1,
Task 1.1, will have included reports of field evaluations conducted in recent
years.
These will be reviewed critically to determine the extent to which
they fulfilled their intended purposes and to identify whatever faults

induced failure to meet those purposes.
The results of this review will be
summarized in terms of objectives, procedures, results and conclusions of each

such evaluation program, with an overall summary of all those reviewed.
Task 4.2--0bjectives of Field Evaluation
A field evaluation must obviously have the objective of providing
long-term in-service data on the performance of each system, together with the
effects of surface preparation, method of application and environmental factors.
For each individual field evaluation program, however, it is often desirable
to concentrate on certain factors more than others.
For this reason, each
field evaluation program will be directed toward a somewhat different set of

objectives.
The decision as to what are the specific objectives for the field
evaluation program to be derived at th:ts point, is a decision which must be

made before that program can be defined.
Task 4.3--Final Version of Field Evaluation Program
Once the objectives have been established, on the basis of
results obtained in Phase 3 and review of previous field evaluation programs
in Phase 4, the necessary ingredients of a field evaluation can be assembled.
This program would carry the
experience~
of the Phase 2 experimental program
into the area of practical service application on a full-scale structure,

13
wherein
qu~ntities
of materials used, areas covered, types of surface,
types of application and types of exposure would realistically parallel

those to be encountered by a paint system accepted for full-time service.
PHASE 5-- Priorities for Needed Research
Task 5.1--Review of Laboratory and Field Evaluations
A critical review will be made at this time of the work to date,
with special attention given to:
(a) the laboratory evaluation program and
its results, and, (b) the design of the field evaluation program.
A prime
purpose of this examination will be the identification of data gaps; i.e.,

promising systems for which present research data are incomplete or inconelusive.
Task 5.2--Identifi.cation of Problems and Problem Areas
The preceding revi.ew will provide the basis for identification
and assessment of major problems in the proposed tentative guidelines.
These
problems will be categorized as requiring further research in one or more of

the following areas:
Formulation procedures )
Materials selection
To bring steel structures painting

systems into closer conformance with
}----~
Substrate treatment
Application techniques)
desired characteristics stated in

Se.ction 1.1.3 of the original proposal.
It is apparent that the present proposed research is for an initial

effort, only, and that this effort will need to be followed by an intensive
and extensive research effort across a broad field of chemical formulations
and materials, as well as preparation te.chniques and application procedures.
Such research effort would have a goal of bringing the technology of steel
structures painting to its highest attainable peak, one which would see
coatings with double decade durability even in very aggressive environments.
At this point it is not possible to predict what the elements of such
14
a research program will be, but with the background of Phases 1 through 5
of this research project, followed by the review and problem identification
efforts of Tasks 5.1 and 5.2, it is believe that the problems which must
be addressed in subsequent research will be clearly defined.
Some of
these problems will be of such urgency that their early solution would have
considerable impact upon steel structures painting practices.
Such problems
should be given the highest possible priority for subsequent research.

Other problems will be of lesser, some of even negligible, impact.
These
would obviously be assigned lower priorities.

The assignment of prio:rities fo:r subsequent research will, then, be
a major product of this initial resear-ch effort and constitute the closing
activity of the proposed research
./
15
QU
TE LV
to the
NATIO AL COOPERATIVE HIGH AY RESEARCH PROGR A
on ProjE~ct
NCHRP
4~14
FY
~78
Coatina Svstems For Paintina Old and New Structural Steel
for period
Januarv 1 , 1978
to
March 31 , 1978
from
Goeraia Institute of Technoloav, Enaineerina Exoeriment Station
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGH~\'AY RESEARCH PROGRAM

PROGRESS SCHEDULE
I
RP Project No. 4-14:

COATING SYSTE~fS FOR STRUCTUR.<\L STEEL
Fy' 78
Month March '78
lrch Agency
Georgia Tech Research Institute (Engineering Experiment Station
ipal Investigator Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil (Telephone:
f:ARCH
SES
1978
J
rreot
act1ces
F
lnJ . .
ll
LU I
19/9
"'f"Jf
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
b() 00190 OJ)
Lt~
404-894-3095)
28 5
-
(I.l-1.4
c 1. 5
ptl.
Eva1n.
1r /(
'
'
]( I
4(
!)0
()Of
f)S
~s
].1-2.2
~s
'fnhsi
8f :
0(
: gc::, 1nr1
:
:
i
2.3-2.4
!
;
: 2. 5
zc
1C
e lines
?.ld
?rogram
4( 6C 0) 90l()Q!
') 5. SO; '5 100

1
' 10
rities
9~<1-
Report
20: 40 li.OlDQl
4(! 9010(
I
3 6 12 18 24 2~ 3'1 36 39 42 45 4-Ci
97 99 100
tALL%
,'LETION
il
s-c
51
68 7
Sf 6L
7~
8189j 9
94 95

)
15 c
I.,
Actual Gross Expenditure ~ '
Salaries and Wages (Gross}
~12 Or- - - - Planned
Actual Salaries and Wages
)
..
c;
.)13
I
s~
w 80
..
~~
70
18
60
60
..
4 c;
30
..
1 c;
0~
0 2
/
6
//
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
j~ 50
I~ 40
! 0~
__j
27
/~
30
10
0
Balance
2/2/75
./
20
v
0
Months
FIG. B-CONTR.l\CT FUNDS
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Dote
/
J
..... ~
v --
7 .....c;
1-
~~
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
..
9c
---I
90 f.-
~10
)
__ _ , _
100
>
% 8 5
S _li..9_.23_l_
6 5 56L_
12 660
S 1 36, 57L.:_

Accumulated Sularies and Wages To Date
'I
//
~-
-- ------.
2.
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
FIG. C-CONTRt\CT PERIOD
8.6
Time Expended %
Starting Date
JanuaryT"; 1978
Completion Date ~~1980
2
$ ____,4,_8r-::l::-:5.----
S _3-=-4:::-:2=-=_6_ _
S -~68_3:.....;:5:..___
20.0008
NCHRP 4-14, FY 1978
COATING SYSTEMS FOR PAINTING

OLD AND NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL
First Quarterly Report:
Submitted by:
January 1, 1978 - March 31, 1978
Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil (Principal Investigator)

Chief, Chemical and Material Sciences Diviston
Technology and Development Laboratory
Georgia Institute of Technology
March, 1978
I.
Introduction
All state and local highway agencies have steel structures that
must be painted to provide protection against corrosion.
Available
funds dictate the number of structures that can be painted and the grade
of surface preparation that can be used.
Although various coating systems intended to protect structural
steel are available, users report a wide range of results.
Many systems,
including those in general use, require a degree of -surface preparation

and use of solvents, both in the formulation and for cleanup, that are
being increasingly restricted to protect health and environment.
In
addition, some systems have poor flow characteristics, require a high

degree of surface preparation, and require highly skilled applicators.
The objective of this research is the preparation of tentative
guidelines for the use of existing and recently developed nonproprietary
coating systems for the painting of structural steel with emphasis on such
consideration as (a) health and environment, (b) exposure conditions,
(c) application requirements, and (d) economics.
It is anticipated that
accomplishment of this objective will involve:

1.
Evaluation of current practices and experience of public
agencies, industry, and others involved in the protection of structural

steel (both new and existing) with regard to such factors as surface preparation, coating systems,
2.
coating thickness, and exposure.
Selection and experimental evaluation of recently developed
coating systems for structural steel.
The experimental program is
intended to be an accelerated test that is expected to provide useful

information after about one year of exposure.
-1-
3.
Preparation of tentative guidelines for the selection and
application of coating systems for defined
set~
of conditions based on
current experience and limited experimental evaluation work.

4.
Design of a field evaluation program for selected coating
systems compatible with the project objective.
The field evaluation
design should consider the practicality as well as the performance of the

selected systems.
5.
Determination of gaps in the tentative guidelines and
recomnendatfon of priorties for needed research.

II.
Research Activities:
Januarv 1, 1978 - March 31, 1978
The research activities of the first quarter have been concerned

exclusively with elements of Phase I:,
and Experience of the Work Plan.
11
Evaluation of Current Practices
More specifically, work has been
initiated on Tasks 1.1 through 1.4.

Before commentary on a description of the work undertaken on each
individual task it is well to outline the strategy which has been adopted
to insure completion, successfully, of Phase I.
Firstly, a literature survey has been initiated.
Besides providing
the basis for a state-of-the-art report (Task 1 .5), the survey is

generating information regarding the identification of organizations
which are active or have been active in the investigation of coatings
for steel structures.
These organizations, and the individual investigators
particularly, are being contacted (per Task 1.2 through 1 .4).
This
procedure will allow the project team to identify the researchers and
users most active with (most) current practices and experience.
-2-
Secondly, based on an extensive list of contacts in the paints

and coating$ industry, we have
solicit~d
general information, via a
standard letter of inquiry (see Appendix A), on the coating of old and
new structural steel.
Direct contact with individuals at a recent
meeting and by telephone has been and is being used to eltctt a meaningful
level of response from industry.
this sector, a refined and
Based on the generalized responses from
fo)~malized
questionnaire is being drafted for
submission to state highway departments and DOT's to determine hard,

experimental data on the coating of old and new structural steel.
The questionnaire will be submitted to the industrial sector
respondents (and non-respondents) to the initial letter of inquiry to
obtain more detailed information.
It will also be used with public
agencies (other than the state DOT's) and with the other laboratories
(previously indentified) who have been recently active in the field of
steel coatings.
Task l .l
Literature Survey
Computerized information retrieval has been undertaken using
the data
bases of the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS),
the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), the machine-readable

version of the Engineering Index (COMPENDEX), of the Metals Abstracts/
Alloys Index (METADEX), Chemical Abstracts (CA CONDENSATES and CA
CONDENSATES/CASIS), and Current Awareness because of its minimal cost,
through the Georgia Information Dissemination Center.
Our initial computer retrieval program has been modified to reduce
the volume of printouts (which includes title, author, organization,
sponsoring agency, keywords, abstract, etc) to a manageable level.
-3-
The
print-out format has been selected to present the organization, address,

and name of the report author(s) firstly, thus facilitating future
contact with the investigators.
Where data bases extend back to reports or articles issued or
printed in 1968, titles and abstracts for the period 1968 - present are
being retrieved.
Refinement of our computer program was necessary to reduce the
available number of reports and articles from numbers in the
relating
11
Steel 11 and
11
Coatings 11 , to manipulative numbers.
11
thousands 11 ,
First results
follows:
Database
Number of Articles
NTIS
29
COt1PENDEX
134
r~ETADEX
197
TRIS (incl. HRIS)
108
It was found that employing the keywords

11
11
recoating 11 or
repainting 11 (on the NTIS data base) that no articles were retrievable.
World Surface Coatings Abstracts has been surveyed for the last
two years.
Task 1 .2.
Contacts with Public Agencies

The
11
questionnaire'' to be submitted to public agencies, in
particular the state highway departments and departments of transportation,

has been drafted in very preliminary form.
The responses to our inquiries
from industry (see Task 1 .3.) will influence the final draft version of the
questionnaire. _It is expected that input from the Federal Highway
Administration will be important to the design of the questionnaire.
-4-
This
point was discussed with Dr. Bernard Appleman in March and the interest
in FHWA cooperation was confirmed .
. The Georgia Department of Transportation (Office of Materials
and Research: Hugh Tyner, Director) was notified of the status of NCHRP
4-14.
GDOT has agreed to allow us the use of selected panels (_KTA and
flat-type) which formed a part of a previous GDOT-Georgia Tech study on

coating of highway steel structures.
This will
facilitate the study of
coating (recoating) of old structural steel as part of the project under

Phase 2.
We confirmed that the Brunswick site will be available for an
outdoor exposure test.
~Ji
th GDOT personnel we are i dent i. fyi ng and
selecting on a preliminary basis those panels for use in Phase 2.

panels are located at two test sites:
in Brunswick.
one on our
campus~
The
and the second
Original applications were made as early as 1965.
Mr Ray
Tooke who was involved in the original study was contacted and he provided
background information on the panels.
In correspondence with the NCHRP 4-14, we have suggested that
the most appropriate individual in state DOT
might be identified by the
FHWA regional offices who might also act to distribute the questionnaire.
Meanwhile, individuals have been ident i fied from the AASHTO membership
directory who appear to hold state positions responsible for the
evaluation, application, or specifications of coatings for structural steel.
Task 1 .3.
Contacts with Private Industry

In order to accelerate the development of the questionnaire to
be submitted to state highway departments and state DOTts, and to generate

information from the industrial sector on coating systems which fulfill the
-5-
objectives of this project (see Introduction), a standard letter of

mat~rial
inquiry (Appendix A) was sent to major raw

companies, and equipment suppliers.
suppliers, paint
Feedback from this survey is being
used to refine the draft questionnaire.

Industrial firms who are being requested to suggest systems
or components to consider for meeting our objectives are listed in
Tab .le I.
Sales figures for the firms are listed and represent total
sales . for
l~test
12 months as reported by Chemical Week, February 27, 1978
Sales volume as maintenance paint or all paint materials is not usually

available.
We have shown our rough estimate for comparison.
The major suppliers to the maintenance coatings market are

listed first.
Supplying paint against bids for individual bridge coatings is
most often the regional paint manufacturer rather than the largest maintenance
paint manufacturers who operate nationally.
For that reason we have
solicited some smaller firms known to be active bidders in the local areas.
Most of the larger firms who do intensive development work on coatings
formulations for potential end uses or applications try to develop
proprietary paints and try to win business with a superior product.
sometimes called
11
fine-tuning
overlooked for some possible

performa~ce,
11
11
This is
of generic coatings types and must not be

best ans\!Jers
11
to our objectives for cost/
environment, application, and exposure condttions.
The initial level of response to our letters of inquiry has not

been great.
The difficulty has been identified, following telephone
-6-
conversations and personal contact by a member of the project team

(F.A.R.) with representatives of industry at Corrosion '78, the NACE
meeting held in March in Houston.
The difficulty is created by the apparent
requirement that coating systems be classified as
''non-proprietary~~.
Clarification of this point with industrial representatives has

resulted in a commitment by those individuals who were contacted to provide
a more detailed response to the letter of inquiry (see Appendix A).
-7,
Table I .
Surveved Paint Industry
us
~1~1$
Paint
Maintenance
Pa i nt Sa l e s EM~~$
220E
15
30E
30
Total
Sa1es
Ameron
Carboline
Binder
- --
Pigmen t
DuPont
9435
160
Gildden
1429
140
Int'l Paint
~10 bi l
Oil
15
35,700
15
55
Napko
28
ll
Porter Coatings
37
30
PPG Industries
2506
Sherwin-Williams
180
140
30
Matcote
Reliance Universal
139
35
Grow Chemical
187
70
Koppers
1356
30
Ashland Chern.
4894
MA Bruder & Sons
25
En0a:rd -_Coatings
Dexter Corp.
316E
Farboi1 Corp.
Hercules
10
1698
Hughson Chern
66E
.5
Mobile Paint Mfg.
20E
18
-8-
Table I. (Can't)
r~onsanto
tH1$
us
Total
Sales
--
r~a
Binder
4594
Pigment
Paint
Plas-Chem Coatings
San Jacinto Pt
Shell Chemical
13 '193
Southern Imperial
l5E
scans in Prot.
25E
\~i
7
X
X
2410
BASF Corp
Cargill~
Inc.
General Electric
Hammond Lead
Mobay Chemical
NL Industries
Pftzer, Inc.
X
X
Rohm and Haas
Un i.on Carbide
u. s. Steel
ICI Chemical Spec.
E-estimated
-9-
Asarco
American Cyanamid
ntenance
Pa nt SalesE t1M$
Five equipment suppliers have also been contacted for their

recommendations and new developments as they make changes to meet the
chang i ng economy and anti c i pa t e reg ul at i on s concerned
application.
vJ
i t h pa i nt
They are:
l.
Binks Mfg. Co., Atlanta, GA
2.
Hydri ll Co., Houston, TX
3.
Nordson Corp., Amherst, OH
4.
Graco, Inc., t1inneapol is, t1HlN
5.
DeVilbiss Co., Toledo, OH
Our inquiry was also sent to individuals, usually corrosion

engineers, in firms known to have a great interest in better protective
coating systems.
We have included the firms and addresses of individuals
responsible for the technical progress in most of the firms working
actively.with pertinent committees in ASTM, NACE & SSPC-PACE Committees.
These include:
Ashland Petroleum Co., Ashland, KY
Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, TX
Chevron Oil Co., New Orleans, LA
Coastal Galvanizing Co., Friedswood, TX
Metalweld, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
Task 1 .4.Contacts with Other Laboratories
As indicated earlier extensive contact with laboratories, such
as universities, research
identified
thro~gh
institutes~
trade association, etc. are being
the literature survey.
Certain organizations, notably
the Steel Structures Painting Council, have offered their support.
-10-
The SSPC
has been asked to provide an attenda ce list from their annual

meeting and has agreed to do so.
NACE Committees, particularly T-6H,
members and chairmen have been consu ted and cooperation has been provided.
Information on the NASA zinc-rich coating system (NASA
Technology Applications Team, Stanford Research Institute) which is
undergoing field tests on several coastal bridges and elsewhere is being
obtained.
Committee 15, Steel Structures, of the American Railway
Engineering Association has been solicited for assistance.
III.
Planned Activities:
April
1~
1978 -June 30, 1978
During the second quarter, we plan to complete up to 20% of the

tasks of Phase 1.
This Will include development of the draft questionnaire,
approval by the NCHRP panel, distribution, retrieval of responses, and

critical analysis of the responses.
manufacturer~
A comparison will be made of
claims with the performance experience of users, in
particular state highway departments.
Selection of promising coatings
systems fulfilling the project objectives will be made on a near final

basis.
Ordering of materials will have been initiated for all possible
systems and their components) so that elements of Phase 2, ''Experimental

Evaluation of Recently Developed Systems'' can be initiated.
A draft state-of-the-art report will be completed or near
completion for submission, reviews, evaluations, and approval by the NCHRP
4-14 panel.
-11-
Appendix A.
Form-Letter of Inquiry
to Industry
ENGINEERING E XFJL R lr .liE N T STATICJf'J

GEORGIA INSTITUTe OF TECH~IOLOGY ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332
"Coating S~~ems_Jor Pa_int~ng_Qld 2~1.d Ne1v Structural SteelH is the

title of a two-year project, recently initiated by Georgia Tech on behalf
of the National Cooperative Htghvray Researc.h Program.
Project Objective
The objective is the preparation of tentative guidelines for the

use of existing and recently C..evelopec! no::-proprietary ccating syste:us for
the paintis.g of st:::uctural ste.el, with ~:r:phas:is 0'';. sach cc::1siderati.ons c1.s:
(a) health a2d environme nt ~ (b) exposu~e conditions, (c) application requirements, and (d) economics. We will update and extend t~e w0zk don2 by the
Steel Structures Painti~g Council and published by NrHRP in 1969.
I~dustrial Par~atiorr
The results of this research will make considerable bapact on the

paints and coatings industry. Input from this sector is vital to the
conduct of this project and will aid ti1e drafting of guidelines and in the
selection of n2wer sy~te.;-us for expa~ded tL::stir.g prograns.
Please consider the following questions and 2nswer them in as much

detail as your t:i:n.e permits--and as soon as is convenient:
(1)
\!hat "r2cently-developed" (r0 J?,hly 197C and orn.~ards) non-pro~::..?-E-2_

coating systems for (a) the painting, or (b) re-coating of painted,
structural steel offer the most promise to 111eet the project objective?
1
(_Note: "Non-proprietary systems" is meant to define for!'mlatio:1s v.rhi.ch

are available from mure than oD.e source.
Such syst~'lls should be.
deiineci by specifications Hhich allo:,., formulation by more than one
paint mar..ufacturer~
If appropriate, certair. currently 11 tlevelopmental:'
systeres ;night be i_r:J.cluded :in (_he study if ther~ i3 evidence tl:a.t they
will be non-proprietary, oy t:hc <-ibove. t1.'2f~_:1:itior:, upon cc:r:-.n:erc.:i..:'l.liz.p.t:_on.)
An Equal Employment/Education Opportunity Institu t ion
. Page 2
(2)
Please provide summaries of your experience or references to the

advan~ages and disadvantages of application of your coatings suggestions in terms of the following factors:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(3)
surface preparation
application
thickness
cost
durability
exposure conditions
environment and health
Please provide relevant literature v7hich can assist us in implementing

this project.
Our question to equipment suppliers is: ~{hat's new in surface preparations and spray equipment? Do you have recommendations for applying
water-thinned coatings and high solids coatings? Do you have suggestions
for viscosity, pressures, nozzels, etc., that may be different from equipment
designed for conventional solvent-borne coatings? Field application for old
and new structural steel is the o6jective.
Use of Your Information
Your information will be combined with ~ther responses? (a) to prepare
a state-of-the-art report and, (b) to determine a selection of coatings for
field evaluation and accelerated testing.
Since we are on a tight schedule, your prompt response to this questionnaire will be appreciated. Please duplicate this questionnaire if there are
others in your organization who might care to contribute their opinions.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel J. O'Neil, Ph.D.

Frank A. Rideout
Senior Research Scientist
(404) 894-3095
(404) 894-3375
DJO'N/FAR:bn
ENGINEERING
E X ~::)E:Rir\!lENT
STATIOf'J
GEOF!GIA INSTITUTE OF TFCHNOl.OGY JI.TLANTA, GEOf\CIA 30332
"Coating Systems for Painti~g_Old a:1d Ne\7 Structural Steel 11 is the

title of a two-ye_ar project, recently initiated by Gecrgia Tech on behalf
of the National Cooperative HighPay Research Program.
Project-Objective
The objective is the preparation of tentative guidelines for the
use of existing and recently ::::E.veloped nor:-;)roprietary coati:1g syste:us for
the painting of st::-llctural steel, ,.Iith '?.:.rcphas.~s or. such c.c-::lsi.derati.ons <::ts:
(a) health ar..d environment, (b) expos'-1 ~:-e conditions~ (c) application requirements, and (J) economics. vle will update <Jncl exteL~d t:v=' ~;.nzk. don2 by the
Steel Structures Painti::g Council and published by t\C'HRP .in 1~169.
Industrial Participation
The results of this research will make consid2rable i~pact on th~
paints and coatings indus:try.
Input from this sector is vital to th2
conduct of this project and will aid t!1e drafting of guidelines and in th~
select ion of n2w2r sy~ te.-us for expanded test irlg pro grans.
Your Opinion
a~d
Experience
Please consider the following questions and ~nswer them in as

detail as your ti~e permits--and as soon as is convenient:
(1)
mu~h
Hhat "r2cently-develo~ed" ( rolJz.hly 197C and omvarC.s) non-pr::-pr~c:!=_?-E-"Y_

coating systems fer (a) the painting, or (b) re-coating o painted,
structural steel offer the most promise to illeet the project objective?
(~~t~:
"~on-proprieta:ry syst~-ns"
is meant to define for'S"i.UlatiDns r,~hich

Such systems should be
defined by specifications which allow formulation by more than one
paint mar.ufacturer~
If appropri2.te, certain curren::.ly '\1evelopmental:!
systeres might be b1cluded in che study if there i3 evidence that they
'v-Jill be non-propriet.2.ry, by che:: abovE d.r;f:i_:-dtion, upcn cc'::"._,_"!:erci.<l.liz-qt::_orL)
arE available from. more than one sou1::-ce.
An Equal Employment/Education Opportunity Institution
_______________________________________P_a~ge ___
2 _______________________________________
(2)
Please provide summaries of your experience or references to the

advantages and disadvantages of application of your coatings
suggestions in terMs of the following factors:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(3)
surface preparation
application
thickness
cost
durability
exposure conditions
environment and health
Please provide relevant literature which can assist us in implementing this project.
Use of Your Information

Your information \Jill be combined \vith other responses, (a) to
prepare a state-of-the-art report and, (b) to determine a selection of
coatings for field evaluat ion and accelerated . testing.
Since we are on a tight schedule, your prompt response to this
questionnaire will be appreciated.
Please duplicate this questionnaire if
there are others in your organization who might care to contribute their
opinions.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel J. O'Neil, Ph.D

(404) 894-3095
DJO'N/FAR:bn
Frarik A. Rideouc
Senior Research Scientis~
(404) 894-3375
Appendix B
Trip Report:
NACE
Conference~
Houston!!
March~
1978
ENGINEERif'<JG EX:PERIMENT STATION

GEOr1GIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332
March 22, 1978
Mr. Harry A. Smith

Staff Engineer, NCHRP
Transportation Research Board
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D. C.
20418
Project:
NCHRP 4-14, FY'78 "Coatings for Old and New Structural Steel"
Re:
Trip Report - F. A~ Rideout to Corrosion '78
Dear Harry:
I attach a copy of Mr. Rideout's report on his trip to the meetj_ng of

the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Corrosion '78, for the
period 7-9 March 1978.
vle have concentrated heavily on eliciting informati.on from industry
and tl1is conference provided an opportune mechanism for obtaining the views
of a wide cross-section of industrial and other specialists on NCHRP 4-14.
I hope that this submission

furnish additional information.
meet~>
NCHRP requirements.
If not, we will
Daniel- J. o 'Neil
Principal Investigator, NC}ffiY 4-14
and
Chief, Chemical and Material Sciences
Division
DJO'NEIL/gwn
..f1.. ttach!:nent
An Equal Employment/Educa~ion Opportunity Institution
Ei"-JGif',_IEER!I'J(~
r-><PER IME NT
Sl~~-fii!N
GEORGIA INS T ITUTE OF TECH~iOI_OGY ATLANT!\, GEORGI A 30332
1'1arch . 1 (), 197 8
MEMORANDUH
TO:
D. J. O'Neil
FROM:
F. A. Rideout
RE:
NACE Meeting:
FOR:
Proj ect-EES A-2092, NCHRP 4-14, "Coatings for Old and Ne\v
Structural Steel"
CORROSION '78} Houston, March 7-9, 1978
HIGHLIGHTS
1.
Continuing Surface Preparation Study (T6Hl5) at six year~ panel

exposure at five severe chemical plant locations for five types of
coatings, clearly shows protection is most influenced by method of
surface prep a ration, second by expo sure location and least by primer
type. Present over al l rank is:l)post-cured zinc-rich, 2) self-cured
zinc-rich, 3) vinyl, 4) chlorinat e d rubber, and 5) epoxy. This
detailed NACE-funded computer pro g ram, as well as the panels themselves
are available for our ovm direct analysis.
(Report attached)
2.
An NACE Regional meetin g in Cleveland October 10-ll, 1978 was planned

to bring together twelve paint industry specialists to discu ss how to
comply vJith Rule 66, California Air Resources Board, OSHA, EPA, FDA
and TOSCO by review of coating forms, ingredients, surface preparation,
~ppl ication tools, flammability, etc.
Chairman is T. P. Wilhelm of
,lidden vlho has also agreed to give us a detailed reply to our paint
upplier inquiry.
DuPont, Mobay, and others foresee catalyzed high-build urethanes
proving economy ($/ft2/year of service) and compliance, especially as
topcoats over zinc-rich.
OTHER INTERVIEHS
1.
Carboline (John Montle-TD, Herb Tarles-V.P., Stan Lapota-Pres.) has

replied negatively to our inquiry but has agreed to help no\v that he
understands we do not intend to conclude with composition specs. for
bridge coatings.
2.
Amercoat (Dan Gelfer-TD) \vill reply to our inquiry.
3.
Napko (Mal Henry-TD) will reply to our inquiry.
An Equal Emrloyment/Education Opportunity Institution
March 1 0 ~ 1 9 7 8
Page 2
Re:
NACE Meeting (Houston)
11
Subject:
Coatings for Old and
Ne~V
Structual Steel
4.
ICI America
(G.G.C. Stepto-Development) will reply to our inquiry.
5.
Mobay Chemical Co. (Jack J. Bracco-Dev. Super.) will reply to our

inquiry and send report on economic study, overall costs review Golden
Gate bridge experience and data on performance over various surface
preparations.
6.
Asarco (Willard Lance-Mkt. Mgr.) will reply to our inquiry--re: zinc-rich.
7.
Porter Coatings (Gary M. Zinn-Mkt. Mgr.) will reply to our inquiry.
8.
DuPont (Ed Zinzer-Mkt.Mgr., and Walt Pregnon-Lab. Head) vlill reply.
9.
SSPC (Dr. Joe Bruno) will cooperate, send attendance lists from last
annual meeting, PACE, surface preparation and Golden Gate update.
10.
Imperial Coatings ~nd Chern. (Tom Bauer-S.M.) was negative to inquiry, but
will seek our help for NACE Pro gr am in 1979 ~n Atlanta.
11.
Prufcoat (J. W. Rumbolt) will reply an d suggest systems.
12.
Sherwin-Williams will reply but it may not be Steve Brotzman.
13.
(Bill Wallace) feels government regulations will make all systems obsolete
except epoxy.
14.
Hisconsin Protective Coatings (Halt Singleton.) \vill give some guidelines

and material types to study but his company works only with each individual
coating job.
15.
Fluor Corp. (Al. Roebuck)

ner,.; to add nO\J.
\voult~.
revie\7 our findin gs and comment but have lit:.t1e
The contacts made at the meeting and the copies of relevant investigation will prove
invaluable to the performance of NCHRP4-14(A-2092)
FAR/gwn

PROGRESS SCHEDULE
p Project No. 4-14:
COATING SYSTE~1S FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
Fy 78
Month April '78
ch Agency
404-894-3095)
)al Investigator Dr. Daniel J. 0 'Neil (Telephone:
1978
ARCH
ESTIMATED%
1979
~J~-F~H---A~}-f~J~-J~-A-~-S~O~-N~-D-f--J~-F~r-:!~A~-M~-J~-J~A~-S~-0-r-N-~!D~COMPLETION
ES
rent
ctlces JJJ 20i
4( 1oO
60 i YO ll.Ul
~ .1-1. 4
>
~.1-2.2
;
~. 3-2.4
2.5
lines
lC 20 4t 6(
t)Q
YC)lOOI
ld
rogram
10 ')5.
sc:
I_
iti.es
-1 98 <)-
;
/5 ~lO C
4(
~LL%
3 6 12 1a 24 28 3:.. 36 3~ 42 45 48 50 s~
97 9910C
10 2()! 4(
I
Report
.ETION
l
l
I
9 C1 1QC
~ 0100
I
I
62 6S 7 7; 8 ' 89 9
9~ 9 5

15>U

,'(.
13 510
Actual Gross Expenditure '
Planned
Salaries
and
Wages
(Gross}
12 C_ _ ....:.,. Actual Salaries and Wages
X
,,..
-..:'
100.-.--.-.--r-.--.~--~~~~--~---
90
w
....
BOr-~~--+--r--~,_-+--+-~~~4-~
10 -c;
~ 70~,_~--+--r~r-~-+--+-~-~--4-~
..
:;:
..
9u
(.)
75
6c
4 c;
-3 c
v
o/
1 c:
c..QJ.
0
. /v
,-
~y
~ ~
~
~ 40~1-~--r--b~r-~-+--+-~~--+-~
w
>
FIG.
30r-~-r_,~+-~-+--~4--+~--+-~
20r-~-n~--+-~-+~~4-~~--+-~
lOr-~~_,--+-~-+--~4--+~--+-~
so~,_~--+-~~r-~~--+-~~--4-~
~~
60~,_-+--r-~~--~~~--+--b~~
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
B-CONTF1ACT FUNDS
--'
27
Funds Expended
% 12 6%
ContractAmount
S 149,23_1__
Expended this Month S -~' 35Q__
Tctal Exp. To Date
$ 18,750
Balance
,_s130, 421
!/2/7 5
Salaries and \\'ages E$timated This Month

Salaries and Wage:; Spent This Month
Accumulated S(ilaries and Vvages To Date
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24- -- --2 .
Months
Time Expended %
13 2%
Starting 0 8 te
January I, 1978
Coillpletion Date Harch 31, 1980
$_4,785
s _l2_4_5_ _
$ 10,516
20.0008
ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332
June 30, 1978

Harry A. Smith
Projects Engineer, NCHRP
2101 Constitution Circle.N.W.
Washington DC 20418
Reference:
NCHRP 4-14, FY '78:

Structural Steel."
"Coating Systems for Painting Old and New
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are three copies of the Quarterly Progress Report for June 30, 1978.
The remaining 42 ~opies are being sent to your attention under separate cover.
We are proceeding to order raw materials for making up the paints for the
Experimental Phase, Task 2, of our project. There are several alternatives
for applying these topcoats to old intact painted surfaces and we should be
able to report our plan for this portion of our study.
Your comments and those of your panel will be'appreciated as soon as
convenient, if you have changes to suggest.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. O'~il, Ph. D.

and
Frank A. Rideout
GUARTERl Y PROG~ESS REPORT

to the
on Project
NCHBP 4-14 FY ZB
Coating Systems fo_r Painting Old, and New Structural Steel
for period
/
April 1, 1978
to
June 30, 1978
from
Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil (Principal Investigator)
Chief, Chemical and Material Sciences Division
Tethnology and Development Laboratory
Atlanta GA 30332

PROGRESS SCHEDULE
p Project No. 4-14: COATING SYSTE~1S FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
fy' 78
Month June 78
chAgency
>a! Investigator Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil (Telephone:
1978
A.HCH
ES
reot
ct~ces
F H
l_U
ll' 4 ( I! oO
t5 0 1~0
404-894-3095)
19/9
'
D
M A
ESTIMATED%
D COMPLETION
1 ()(
80%
L1-1.4
l
1.5
tl.
Eva1n.
1( 2( . 30 4(
50 6( -6-c; 1r 7r;. Rr
q(
10%
g r;llOC
I
! 1-2. 2
~.3-2.4
2.5
I
lines
1C 20 40 6( 00 90 lQO!
ld
rogram
10
')C:,
l
I
i.ties
5a 7511oo
10 2C 4( 8( 10(
.:...1qR )-
{e_port _4 ( grnoc
3 q 12 18 24 28 3~ 36 39 42 45 48
\LL%
.ETION 97 99 100
st
5~
6~
68 7 . 7 ~ 8
89 9L 94 95
27%

I
l5\...
.,

:<.
L3 5'0
Actual Gross Expenditure '
L2 0
r- - - - Actual Salaries and W2ges
..
c;
X
LO
; ....
~ 70~1--4--~~-1--+-~--~~-+--~~
sor-,_-+--~~~--+-~~~4--+--~~
~
~ ~
50~,_-+--~~~--~~--~4--+--~~
9u
60
4::;
:
~
3c
1 c;
C-J
0
,..,. /v
~ 40~~-+~~~~--~4--+--~~-+~
~ 30
20r-~~~--+-~~--~~-+--~4-~
10r-~+~~4--+--~4--+--~~~~
~~
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
FIG. B-CONTRACT FUNDS
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
/2/75
SOr-,_-+--~~~--+-~~~~#+--~~
w
~
?~
Planned Progress
- - - Estimated Progress
90
,,
75
100~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~
27
%2 7 9
S 149,231
$ 11,769
S 41,6 7 2
$ _107, 559
Salaries and \\'ages Estimated This Month

Salaries and VJages Spent This Month
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
0
Time Expended % .,.,...2_8__
_____
Starting Date
January 1, 1978
Completion Date
$ 3, 600
$- .9~4_}9___
$ 22,334
March 31, 1980
20.0008
Second Quarterly Progress Report to NCHRP June 30, 1978

Project 4-14 FY'78:
1.
Objective:

(Georgia Tech #A2092)
To prepare tentative guidelines for the use of. existing and
recently developed non-proprietary coating systems for the painting of

structural steel, with emphasis on such considerations as:
(a)
health
and environment, (b) exposure conditions, (c) application requirements,

and (d) economics.
2.
Statement of Work
PHASE 1.
Current Practices
TASK 1.1
82 Articles have been retrieved and studied after selection from
219 abstracts which were selected from 1382 reference titles from literature
on painting steel structures published mostly since 1968.
TASK 1.2
Most states like New York and
Ne~r
Jersey use an alkyd paint system
with basic silica lead chromate after wire brushing rust and steam cleaning
tight paint.
TASK 1.3
Raw material suppliers are making recommendations to support the
work at Phase II.

TASK 1.4
SSPC and NASA have provided some of their literature.
More data is
needed from the PACE committee.

TASK 1.5
State-of-the-Art Report will be delayed from the original schedule,
as agreed, while we develop more effective communication withi .the state DOT's.
This task work will be extended throught the whole project term and included
with the effort of Phases 3 and 4.
PHASE 2.
of budget.
T.he experiment.al evaluation of re<::.ently developed systems is ahead

The criteria used in selecting the candidate systems were:
.:.;
TENTATIVE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF :EXPERIMENTAL COATING SYSTEMS

1.
Surface preparation - at least good conrrnerical blast cleaning
2.
Application - easy for experieneed painter;
3.
Materials commercially available;
4.
2
Reasonable initial cost (Less than or equ~l to $2.00/ft );
5.
Recoatable;
6.
Minimum content
of compounds containing lead, mercury, cadmfum
chromium, amines etc.;

7.
Minimum level of solvent and acceptable by Rule66 and 442.
8.
At least one successful field trial of two or more years duration.
An additional restraint was placed on the selection process in that the

systems chosen were to be suitable for the marine environment at the Brunswick,
Georgia exposure site.
It is doubtful that an all latex system is economically
justified in the marine cLi!J?.ate at the present state of development but this
should prove suitable for rural environments.
syst~
The coating systetns chosen for the
experimental program were selected by consensus of the project team.
For new
structural steel, the matrix of coating systems is:

Topcoat \srimer Zinc-Rich Inorgank
ZnP0 /Acrylic Latex

4
Epoxy Tio
Polyamide 2
X
Polyurethane*
Chlorinated Rubber
.x
Epoxy
Acrylic Latex
Vinyl
X .
*Includes epoxy-polyamide tiecoat

The coatings systems for old structural steel will be the same as the coatings
for new structural steel where cleaning removes old paint and rust down to bare
metal.
For painting old structural steel in which the weathered paint is still sound
and intact, only the topcoats will be used.
,.
The coating systems given above will be used in a fractional factorial
design to study the effects of surface treatment (e.g. commercial blast and
wire brush) film thickness, substrate (new and old structural steel), and
pigmentation as the performance of the coatings in an actual weathering
environment and an accelerated weathering environment.
The c.ontrol coating
' system for new structural steel that is blast cleaned will be AASHTO standard
specification M 229-74, type II (medium oi.l alkyd with basic lead silico
chromate
corrosion inhibiting pigment) with New York State Specification 708-12
Topcoat (alkyd).
For the wire brush cleaned substrate, the primer control
will be AASHT,O Standard Specification M229-74, type I (long oil alkyd) and the
topcoat again will be New York State Specification 708-12.
PHASE 3.
:Preparation of Guidelines - to oHgin in February 1979.
PHASE 4. Design of Field Evaluation

PHASE 5.
Progrc~
- to begin June 1979.
Priorities for Needed Research- to - begin August 1979.
FINAL REPORT:
Draft copy due
,/
Dec~ber
31, 1979.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332
August 7, 1978
Mr. Harry Smith
Staff Engineer - NCHRP
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Re:
NCHRP 4-14, FY '78, Coating Systems for Painting Old and

New Structural Steel
Dear Harry:
I enclose three copies of the monthly progress schedule
for the month of
July, 1978 on the subject project.
I regret the late submission and hope that it does not

seriously inconvenience you.
On an overall basis we are proceeding on schedule.
While
we await a final decision on actual coating systems, we have

progressed into phase III ahead of schedule.
In fact, this
is a logical consequence of our work under Phase I.

We are preparing a response to panel comments and are
reevaluating our initial recommendations in light of their
comments and as a result of recent findings from Frank Rideout's
recent meetings which included an evaluation of the PACE
program.
You will receive our response within days.
We will look forward to your comments.

Yours
~incerely,

Attachment
lRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

PROGRESS SCHEDULE
? Project No. 4-14: COATING SYSTEMS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL

Fy' 78
Month July '78
:hAgency
al Investigator Dr. Daniel J. 0 'Neil (Telephone:

~RCH
1978
:s
F }1
reot
:.t1.ces 101 201
404-894-3095)
19/9
J J
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
oU bO t'::JU U.UU
14(.
1.5
4.5
.1-2.2
.3-2.4
2.5
-
Lines
10 2 c 4( bl t)OI _ljU.lUU!
I
Ld.
50
I
I
/~100
lC
~ogram
?tj
Lties
10 2C. 40 8C 10(\
teport
40 9( 110(
~ 12 1~ 24 28 33 36 39 42 45 4-s
~LL%
6~
7 . 7I
85 89 9
94 95
97 991loa
,_ETION
5~ 57, 62
.SC
32,0
LS u
.~
X
L3 s~
0
Actual Gross Expenditure 1(
L2 a
- - - - Actual Salaries and Wages
X
J~
LO c;
4 c;
3c
1 c;
7
4~~
c~'~
0 2
'
,_.- ,......
601--+-~-+--~+-~-+~~4-~-+~
~ ~
~ so~~-+--~~-+--~~-4--+-~-4~
~
~ 401--+-~-+--~+-~-+--~4-~-+~
~ 30~~-r~F-~~-+~~~~-4--~~
10r-~~-+--~+-~-+--~4-~-+~
~,
aor-~-r~--+-~-+~~4-~44--~~
20r-+-~r+--~+-~-+--~4-~-+~
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
~/2/75
0(.)
6a
1...
Planned Progress
- - - Estimated Progress
90
~ 70~,_-+--~~-+--~~-4~+-~-4~
75
100r-~~-r~--~T-~-r~~--~~--
:E
9 l,j
27
0 2
%
31 7
S 14'1. 23l
S _.....,-6,-L,-_ii-a...,.....1,_
S 47; 232
$ 101, 999

24-:
4
Months
Time Expended %
31. 5
Starting Date
January I, 1978
$ ---3~,,rs~9~1....
S -~3~_.....
I,9ZI!$
25,176
20.0008
to the
NATIO ['!AL CO OPERATIVE NI Gli \:'1 AY fl ES EARCH PR 0Gf:A rt1
on Project
NCHRP 4-14 FY'78
-----
for period
July 1, 1978
to
September 30, 1978
from
Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil, Princip~l Investigator

Chief, Chemical and Material Sciences Division
Technology and Development Laboratory

PROGRESS S CHEDULE
1
p Project No. 4-14: COATING SYSTEMS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL

Fy' 78
Month
ch Agency
1allnvestigator
IJ
~RCH
:s
404-894-3095)
Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil (Telephone:
1978
A
i'-1
1979
'
N
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
D
i
reot
CtJCCS
10 20
Sept. 78
86.0
4(Jb0 bOI\}0 lL Ul
:.1-1.4
1.5
rr:--Cvaln.
l(
')
so
10 4(
?(
-~ (
r,c: 7r
-7 ') 8(
(_)C) 11 ()()I
q(
28.3
.1-2.2
. 3--2.4
2.5
Lines
-' 1(
Ld
zc li"C
6C 0
l . ')
:-ogram
Lt ies
-lCJ 8i0-
~eport
~~
\LL%
ETION
c;
sa
3L.L._JJ 515'
lS 24 28 3::: 36
6 lL
97 99100
7 s1oc
10 2C ! t, c
~(
lOC
-
9~
95
62
68 7 . 7 I 8
12.0
--
_4_0l__ g_~,J: lD C
17.5
901001
89 9L
I
39.0

LS,u
--- -
~~
~

)(,
L3 5iActual Gross Expenditure ~
Planned
Salaries
and
Wages
(Gross)
L2 (._
- - - Actual Salaries and Wages
X
0
.0 5 ---
4 c;
30
1 r.;
4_/ . /
../ /
r"'
/7
/2/75
(..)
~. ~
i -J
> 30
27
V"
.//
f'
}~
20
___j
,v
50
! Ul
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
$
$
$
60
C>
70
I ~ 40
a:
-- ~-
.. .
I _J
--
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Ex;~. To Date
Balance
I -
.:~
?
4
---I
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
~-
0(-
q~
I LU 80
f-
_.J
0...
.---
90
"~
---
LU
75
6l
-~
9u
100
~~-
10
40. 6
l~ 0 ,2.3_1__
__.. _5_,~4 ._!!0
//
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
- ---
Time Expended %
40. 0
Starting Da~e
January -r, 197 8
Completion Date i~n-:-1980
60.631..._
88,600.
Salaries c:md VVagE:s Estimated This Month

Salaries and Wa~}es Spent This Month
$ 2.400.00
$ __:L.l_O~
$ ]_L_234. 7 3
20.0008
- ~~
27
Third Quarterly Progress Report to NCHRP September 30, 1978
Project 4-14 FY'78:
Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural
Steel (Georgia Tech #A-2092)
I.
Objective
The objective is the preparation of guidelines for the use of existing
and recently developed non-proprietary coating systems for the painting

of structural steel with emphasis on such considerations as:
II.
(a)
health and environment
(b)
exposure condition
(c)
application requirements
(d)
econom~cs.
Faithfulness to Working Plan

We report our work about 40% complete through one third of the contract
duration as we gather data on present practices and new coating technology.

Once the experimental paints are prepared and applied to the steel test
panels the manpower assignment will be reduced in the monthly schedule
to fit the overall plan.
Recent effort has concentrated on the selection of coating systems
to be tested in the marine atn1osphere near the Sidney Lanier Bridge in
Brunswick, Ga. with particular emphasis on health and environment restrictions anticipated by the early 1980's.
Acceptable systems for less severe
exposure conditions will be easier to select even though the same future
health and environment restrictions will still apply.
The application
requirements and other economics will also pertain to all zones of exposure
besides Zone 2B defined on page 11 of NCHRP Report 74, ''Protective Coatings

for Highway Structural Steel."
Our evaluation of current practices and experience (Phase 1) is not
completed as originally scheduled.
The questionnaire will be made easy
for the state DOTs to answer by asking them to update the information
on their state specifications from the NCHRP Report 74B.
This Quarterly
Progress Report will be included with the questionnaire to solicite their

'
experience and comments.

Our preparation for Phase 2, Experimental Evaluation of Recently
Developed Systems has gotten us into Phase 3 Guidelines and Phase 4 Design
of Field Evaluation Program sooner than shown in our original working
Elements of our state-of-the-art report (Task 1.5) are to be found
plan.
1n all of the other phases of our report.

We now expect Phase 1 to continue to the final report Phase 5.
III. Progress by Phase
Task 1.1
With emphasis on publications s1nce 1968, literature refer-
ences have been selected and reviewed for our possible use and listing
1n our literature update bibliography.
A card file (5" X 8") with abstracts
is being built and classified 1n the same arrangement as the NCHRP 74

report.
These include:
Government Reports
Journal Articles
State Specifications
Task 1.2
65
170
10
Preliminary contacts have been made with eleven state highway
agencies and eight Federal agencies concerned with paint specs.

contact 1s the most effective method of communication.
get a questionnaire out to all the states
Personal
We must now, also,
(see proposed example attached).
Task 1.3
Our literature survey has produced few articles giving
case histories of latex coating systems.

in by supplier product literature.
This scarcity has been filled
At the present, latex coating system
development is a very active field; chang,es in pigment grades and resin

improvements require constant updating.
The status is given in the discus-
sions on Phase 2 Report which follows below.

Task 1.4
Our most fruitful contacts with other laboratories have
been with NACE Task Group T-6H-15 on Surface Preparation and
with SSPC
to review the latest PACE two year exterior exposure results on new corros1on
inhibitive pigments in latex, alkyds, and vinyls.
Task 1.5
As discussed above and agreed with by Harry A. Smith, NCHRP
Project Engineer, the State-of-the-Art-Report will be extended to the

final report.
Phase 2.
Experimental Evaluation of Recently Developed Systems
The selection criteria, originally listed in the Second Quarterly

Progress Report (June 30, 1978), have been expanded after further study
and analysis of Phase 1 and the initially proposed experimental program
and review of the panel's comments.
Information gained in the PACE program
has also influenced the experimental revisions.

The criteria used 1n the selection of the experimental coating systems
follow:
1.
Projected Service Life
2.
Cost/Service Life Ratio
3.
Commercial availability
4.
Availability of a non-proprietary formulation
5.
Ease of application
6.
Surface preparation requirements
7.
Acceptable initial cost (less than or equal to $2.00/sq. ft.)
8.
Recoatability
9.
Minimal solvent levels (acceptable by Rule 66 and 442)
10..
Toxicology (minimum content of compounds containing lead, mercury,

cadmium, chromium, amines, etc.)
11.
Reasonable field experience (prefer one successful field trial

of two or more years duration aB a minimum)
12.
Resistance to a marine environment (project performance equal

to but preferably better than the alkyd control)
The experimental program is divided into two sections:
coating systems
for new structural steel and coatings for old structural steel with intact,
weathered paint.
About 184 test panels are to be prepared for the total
experimental phase to test 19 coating systems and an alkyd/lead based

pigment control.
New Structural Steel
The coating systems (primer and topcoat) selected for new steel are
given in Table 1.
The surface treatment fo:r the new structural steel
will be at least near-white blast.
Table 1.
Coating Systems for New Structural Steel
Primer
Topcoat
Zinc Rich
Inorganic
Latex/Zn (P0 1~)

2
3
Polyurethane
Xa
Acrylic Terpolymer Latex
Epoxy-Polyamideb
Acrylic Copolymer Latex
XC
High-build
Vinyl
Vinyl/Zn (P0 )
4 2
3
Epoxy-Polyamide
X
:Requires a tiecoat
Non-chalking type epoxy resin
cA total of eight systems are counted here to evaluate several different
corrosion inhibitor pigments
The tests to be used in comparlng these varlous candidate systems will

be natural exposure weathering ln a marlne environment near Lanier Bridge
(Brunswick, Georgia), salt fog resistance, and accelerated weathering
(Weather-o-Meter exposure).
The systems will be evaluated for corros~on
resistance, chalk resistance, color retention, and adhesion.
The marine
environment testing will be performed with the systems at two film thickness
levels:
3-5 mils and 6-8 mils.
The salt fog and weatherometer testing
will be done on the systems at the lower film thickness in order to obtain
early results.
(We recognize that in actual bridge maintenance recommended
paint thickness ~s approximately 10 mils or more.)
The control coating
system for the tests on the new structural steel is to conform to AASHTO
standard specification M 229- 74, type II for the primer (medium oil alkyd
pigmented with basic lead silico chromate corrosion inhibiting pigment);
the topcoat is New York State specification 708-12 topcoat (alkyd base).
The test program for the new structural steel is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2.
Test Matrix for Coating Systems on New Structural Steel
Test
Film Thickness
Marine Exposure
one coat primer

one or more topcoats
ru 3-5 mils total
one coat primer

one or more topcoats
ru 6-8 mils total
Salt Fog
Weather-0-Meter
:Lanier Bridge area, Brunswick, Ga.

5% NaCl, 95-100F
cXenon Lamp:
102 minutes of light followed by 18 minutes of darkness with
water spray; panel temperature to be noted.
Zinc phosphate
~n
~s
the only new
corros~on
the test program represented in Table 1.
inhibiting pigment included

Other corrosion inhibiting
pigments will be evaluated using the latex topcoat/latex primer for the
inhibitor pigments compatible with water--borne systems and the vinyl topcoat/
vinyl primer for those inhibitor pigments that are not compatible with
water-borne systems.
Alternate pigments include a
z~nc
phospho-oxide
complex (Nalzin SC-1, NL Industries, Inc.), a barium metaborate (Busan

11-M1, Buckman Laboratories), basic zinc-calcium molybdate (Molywhite
212, Sherwin-Williams), calcium borosilicate (Halox CW-2230, Halox Pigment
Division of Hammond Industries), water-dispersible aluminum flake,
barium
and/or strontium phospho silicate (Hammond Industries) and micaceous iron

oxide.
Seven of these will be evaluated as part of the program for new
structural steel. ,
Review of Table 1 shows that chlorinated rubber has been dropped
as a topcoat in the experimental design reported in the Second Quarterly
Progress Report.
This was done since more emphasis on water-borne systems
was desired in Phase 2, consistent with the overall objectives of the

program.
Further, it was felt that the attributes of chlorinated rubber
based paints are well documented in the literature so that little new
information would be generated by its inclusion.
The conventional epoxy-
polyamide topcoats, of course, are subject to the same analysis.
The
recent development of non-chalking epoxy resins is the reason for their

retention
~n
the program.
to be readily recoatable.
Coatings using these epoxies are also claimed

Epoxy
res~n
technology alBo has a greater prob-
ability of development into a high-solids coating system than the chlorinated rubber.
For new structural steel, a total of nineteen coating systems will

be evaluated as outlined in Table 2.
Since a control coating will be
included and the tests will be performed in duplicate, a total of 160

panels of new steel will be coated and tested.
Old Structural Steel
The evaluation of new coating systems for painting old structural
steel with weathered, intact paint will encompass the topcoat systems
listed in Table 1.
Surface preparation will entail cleaning and removal
of contamination, dust, and chalking residue.
Near-white blast cleaning
of the old steel as a subsection of the experimental program will not

be done since it 1s felt that such a surface will so closely resemble
new steel that little new information would be obtained.
Loose paint
will be removed by wire brush but rust spots, if they are present, will
be blast cleaned to a near-white condition and the bare areas spot primed
with organic zinc-rich.
The test panels are now expected to be cut from
sections of an old bridge located in the Atlanta metropolitan area.
The
Georgia specification coating on these piec,es will be identified when

the exact bridge sections are obtained.
The coating will be representative
of the type used on most existing highway bridges, at least in the eastern
part of the country.
If the bridge sections cannot be obtained old, coated
KTA panels from earlier exposure tests at Georgia Tech will be used.
The candidate topcoats plus the New York State specification topcoat
will be evaluated at two film thicknesses at the marine environment exposure
site.
The thin films, as with the tests on the new structural steel,
will be thick enough to have the same film structure as coatings at recommended film thicknesses (maintenance practice).
to provide a measure of acceleration to the test.
The thin films are used

The coatings will be
evaluated for intercoat adhesion,

and chalk resistance.
rized in Table 3.
corros~on
resistance, color retention
The test program for all structural steel is summa-
Formulations are in Table 4.
Table 3.
Coating Systems for Old Structural Steel
Cleaned, Aged Primer:

Refinish
Georgia Specification Alkyd/Lead Pigment

one coat, 2 mils
two coats, 4 mils
Polyurethane
Epoxy/Polyamide
Acrylic Copolymer Latex
Acrylic Terpolymer Latex
High-Build Vinyl
Panel Preparation
All flat panels for exterior exposure will be checked carefully for
cleanliness contamination and defects.
Thickness of coatings will be
measured in a pattern over the whole panel and a profile recorded.
The
coated panels will be allowed to dry for a minimum of 14 days in the laboratory before testing.
all coatings.
The same conditioning period will be used for
Panels will be coated with primer on both sides and over-
coated on all edges with tape or a vinyl paint, such as SSPC-Paint 9-64,
in the manner recommended by SSPC.
This will minimize the premature failures
due to exposed or sharp angles and other so-called edge effects and permit
evaluation of a replicate section of a normal painted surface.
Table 4.
Some Candidate Formula Compositions
All formulations will meet rule 66 or 442 CARB regulations and will use
the minimum volume of organic solvent for satisfactory application.
A partial
list of compositions follows: (References are from supplier's literature).
REFERENCE
TYPE
MAJOR COMPONENTS
WEIGHT
RATIO
PIGMENT VOLUME
CONCENTRATION
255142A
POLYURETHANE
(MOBAY)
DESMOPHEN 650A65
MULTRON R221 75
DESMODUR N75
Ti0 2 R-960
313
30
285
248
14
F 125-25
EPOXY/
POLYAMIDE
SHELL: UNION CAMP
SHELL DHH151.3
UNIREZ 2188
Ti0 2 R-960
A1 (Si0 )
4 3
2
238
233
407
102
26
31226-94-1
LATEX PRIMER
AROLON X-820
AROPLAZ 1271
RED IRON OXIDE
Ba ME TABORATE
CaC0
3
500
26
100
80
100
26.2
31226-103-1
LATEX PRil1ER
AROLON X-820
AROPLAZ 1271
Ti0 2 R-901
MOLYWHITE 212 (S-W)
MICA
Caco
3
535
27
240
83
23
50
30.4
46-3
LATEX PRIMER
AROLON X-820
AROPLAZ 1271
RED IRON OXIDE
ZINC PHOSPHO OXIDE
MICA
Caco 3
500
26
100
80
36
100
26.6
Table 4.
REFERENCE
Some Candidate Formula Compositions (Continued)
TYPE
MAJOR COMPONENTS
WEIGHT
RATIO
PIGMENT VOLUME
CONCENTRATION
P-23-1
LATEX PRIMER
RHOPLEX HV-23
Ti0 2 R-960
Caco
3
ZnO
667
151
53
12
19.3
CHH766
LATEX PRIMER
AROLON X820
Ca BORO Si0
4
Ti0 2
CaC0
3
583
105
50
110
26.1
MP-3513
INORG. ZINC RICH
ZINC DUST
MCE SILICATE
1132
698
61.0
HP-3662
ORGANIC ZINC RICH
ZINC DUST
PKHH PHENOXY
1198
123
63.0
VP-3708
VINYL PRIMER
VMCA
DID PHTHALATE
TiOz R-966
zn 3 (P0 4 ) 2
207
52.
108
85
19.4
VP-3604
VINYL HIGH-BUILD
VMCA
DID PHTHALATE
Ti0 2 R-766
210.
52
147.
12.7
PWB-23
LATEX ALUMINUM
MV-9
ALCOA PASTE 830
870
200
27.1
Table 4.
REFERENCE
MIL-P-24441/1
Some Candidate Formula Compositions (Continued)
TYPE
EPOXY-POLYAMIDE
(PRIMER)
MAJOR COMPONENTS
EPON 815
VERSAMID 280B75
MgSi0
4
DIATOM Si0
2
Ti0 TT-P-442
2
WEIGHT
RATIO
500
280
600
150
100
PIGMENT VOLUME
CONCENTRATION
14.8%
Phase 3.
Preparation of Tentative Guidelines
Task 3.1
The experience of Florida, California, Texas, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, and Georgia
supports the surface preparation, material selec-
tion, application and control testing
selected in the preceding phase.
Our tentative guidelines are evolving out of the detailed experience and
continuing discussion with suppliers, corrosion engineers, panel members
and DOT materials people.
The work of the PACE committee, the NACE Task Force T6-H-I5 and the
new specifications of various branches of the Federal government are fitting
together and promise to form the basis of our guidelines.
The results
of our questionnaire 1n Task 1.3 will bear heavily on our conclusions.
Phase 4.
Design of Field Evaluation Program
Task 4.1
Our critical review of past and present field evaluation programs
promises to be one of the most interesting aspects of the project.
For
example, the Massport Authority in East Boston had chosen a chlorinated

rubber based coating to paint the badly corroded Tobin Mystic River Bridge
because of chlorinated rubber's reported tolerance for limited surface
preparation.
Initially, the specification for surface preparation required
commercial blast quality (SSPC-SP-6).
For 1978, the surface preparation
quality was increased to near--white blast {SSPC-SP-10).
This change,
of course, requires a reevaluation of the tnost economical coating system.

Local pollution regulations coupled with complaints from area residents
about blast debris have lead to the use of a vacuum blast system.
The
vacuum blast system supplants the use of conventional equipment with which
blast debris was to be isolated and contained by a polyethylene walled
structure that surrounded the blast area.
This approach was only about
80% effective in containment..
The field success of the vacuum blast equip-
ment will be interesting to monitor.

We plan to review other case histories of new coating systems such
as the Nitro Bridge in West Virginia, the Florida test bridges and the
1968 paint evaluation sponsored by Georgia DOT.
Future Work
The major tasks for the next quarter are the preparation of panels
and the questionnaire.
The literature collected will continue to be criti-
cally reviewed and compared.
ENGINEEF~I~IG
EXf=>ERIMENT STATION
September 21, 1978
William L. Pollock, Asst. Division Engineer

Division of Bridges
Missouri State Highway Department
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Mr. Pollock:
Georgia Tech has begun a two year project (4-14) "Coating Systems for
Painting Old and New Structural Steel" for the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program and we would appreciate your help.
Attached is a copy of our third Quarterly Progress Report that includes
our coating selections and plans for a modest test panel evaluation. May we
have the benefit of any experience your people have had with systems like
these and your comments?
Have there been any changes in your state's coating specifications
since the NCHRP Report 74B prepared by SSPC in 1968? For your easy reply,
we attach a copy of your state's 1968 sunnnary. Please indicate any changes
and return it to us. Thank you.
Yours sincerely,

(404) 894-3095
Frank A. Rideout
(404) 894-3410
Attachments
FAR/ml
From Page 20 NCHRP Report 74B
.E8
E HIGHWAY SPECIFICI\TIONS ..EQ~ __

PAI'NTJNG . STEEL, PART 1-SuRF.ACE PREPARATION AND p AiNT APPUCATION
SOLYPT
IWID
19 1
.
: uus11 (4)
l'aus"
SPUY (SIIOP)
All . , .
JOSTY
toOt srr..ctrtm
cUD& or aun
suuACES .JOlNErl
1: aMtDClAI.
WlTII MlCH TDfSlON c:UNI111C lltQ\JlU 011 ~
1
I
--~~--~------~--~--T-~------------------~-----------L----~-------~------~--L-~--n__.n
___
'u_~
__~'-uu__~
___ ~------------:sroN AS OF October 1978:
23
From Page
NCH&f Report 74B
.E 9
E HIGHWAY SPECIFICATIONS FOR PAINTING STEEL, PART ll-PAINTS
..
- .
1-~ ~
...
JW) LEAD
tw:;IIIEStlt SJUCAn
- ........
L\11
LJ~[EJ)
OJL
--
..
ID t.r.AJ)
lUll. UEm OIL
SPAifiSK Oil UD U.
OXlDI:
Jill
- -- "
AUMIJrtnt POWDD
PASTt
oa
VUl
ItA& VA&NtSK
ClAPlltTt
1961
)W;XI$1~
AUnCI:ruH
LEAD
Al.ltliiUM STUIATE
JW)
IWI LlNSUD OlL

AI.IC'tD U$1111 IOLlDS
StLJCATt
snA&An
21.4
'
:SION AS OF October 1978:
environmental regulations now apply to your painting?

new research can you tell us about that will impact your present practice?
Reply over or attach sheet.
'PLICAnOII UQUI&.m WD DICUDI CU.IDUS RUt IMUniPAC!'DaY.
'PLlc:Anc. UQUlJUl) ro& SW.PACII UIM:CUiliU '10 11111181
.!QIJtiiED POl IIIACCUitllZ IUUACD.
'PLICAnC* dQUIIWI POl. nEU COAD.
CLI:AiflJIC DOME Vlnt COASOLIR, IDIZIIII, ~.
.AJfliiC DONI Vlt'H VIU UUSliEI, ICIAPUI, CllliiU, 1K .
.EN! UIC ACaltiPI.ISIIED BY PASSIIIC OXYAC:rrn.zlfE PUME OVD SURFACE .
at.AST CLUIIED '10 JAI.t METAL.
TUGI.Iff c:uAI UIC ACCXlMPLUHED II USE Of nEAK IJIII)D. PUSSUU wnH N1 ADIIED DETUG!n CLI.Aifl!:l..
Ur:YED THAT THE.lill STATU AU: COISIDDDIC THAT ILlST O.L\11111: U aP.nUII.m Olf AU. ~lrnJIIII'I . ........,_
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
roje{;t No. 4-14:
COATING SYSTE:.-1S FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
Fy' 78
Month Oct. 1978
~
Georgia Tech Resea~ch Institute (Engineering Experiment Station
~~nCY------~--------------------------------
.nvestigator Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil (Teleph~on~e~:__!~0~4~-~8~9~4_-~3~0~9~5~)----------------~--~-----~

1978
:;H
J
19i9
'
N
1-I
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
,::. .
)t
Lor 4U -60 oOt 9 u lOU
1.ces lu
88.0
_-1.4
I
.5
aln.
J nt ?O! -301 4( !
')
sn 6T~
651 I
o- 7 C.,l
8(] : g r:
C)t;ll()( l
35.3
L-2. 2
~-2
.4
.5
I
I
nes
~c
2q -~~
_6C .
sc 9( tlQ(t
a
~~
1 (" ') : :; , SO 7 51IOO
.gram
ies
-~
~port
qsn-
40 go:lor
~ 12
.L%
97 99j10C
TJON
f() 20!
11.
3-~ i
2E
3-E
:!
3914tl11J 51
22.5
L~Ci
15.0
HOfbo .
7,8,89 9191
6. 6E 7 ;
95
43.0
1-
'
..
IPlanned Gross Expenditure

X
3
0
Actual Gross Expenditure :<
Planned Salaries and Wages (Gross}
20- - - Actual Salaries and Wages
:-
-'
J.
c
,r,
~~
t"'\
c:::
"I
(i)
;~
c:
cY
0
l~
./
_/
,
-~
100
90
- ---
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
l\1onths
-1
~ "40
Funcls Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Totat Exp. To Date
Balance
2L~
:30
~.,
./
~v
)'
'I''
27
~ -:::.o
o"'- 50
..J
>
0
'
I-
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
20
. I
L.U 80
tw
~ 70
2
0 E30
(.)
10
% 43 6
S 149 ,_231
S 5. 649
~~
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
Time Expended %
StartingDa~e
Completion Date
41. 7
January I, 1978
Harch 31, 1980
$ 66,852
$ 8?, 37 9
$Diaries 0nd \Vag8s Estimated This Month

Salaries
~nd
vVages Sp ent This Month
Accumulated Salaries cmd Wages To Date
2,lf00
2.722
s .34 '770
20.0008

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ATL.t,,NTA, GEORGIA 30332
December 1, 1978
Mr. Harry A. Smith

Project Engineer - NCHRP
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20418
Re:
Report of November 1978 on NCHRP 4-14, FY'78, Ga. Tech A-2092

"Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel"
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 3 copies of the November monthly progress schedule.
We are pleased to report that 22 state DOT's have replied to our
questionnaire so far.
We have looked into the cementitious coatings, especially the more
recent work, and find that indeed coatings for steel can be formulated
that show remarkably good salt spray and durability on panels.
The
last report on Georgia DOT test panels at Brunswick was good and we
will check them out when we prepare to expose our experiment panels.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee of the
Southern Society of the Coatings Technology, I will continue to monitor
coatings for concrete and coatings using portland cement, so we may
discuss this subject again before this contract is completed.
Note all of us working on the project, including Dan O'Neil, are now
located at our Cobb County Research Facility. Our address remains
the same for mail, but our new phone number is 404/428-9053.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
FAR:gp
An Equal Employment/Ed uca t ion Opportunity ln s~it ut io n
_ _ _ . . . ~.
, '-vLMrt\...n
DUAKU
NA.TIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
Project No. 4-14:
COATING SYSTE~1S FOR STRUC~URAL STEL
Fy' 78
Month Nov.
Agency
Georgia Tech Resea'tch Institute (Engineering Experiment Station
Investigator
Frank A. Rideout
(Telephone:
404/428-9053)
CH
1919
1978
J
FM
AN
FHA
'78
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
88.0
l-1.4
.5
43_. 0
23.5
l C. 2 C 4 C 6 C. 9 0 901 0 O
nes
1;-:A
Q.ram
l.
9'-i 95
46.1

U
~I

x
~
5Actual Gross Expenditure :<
""
Plai1ned Salaries and Wages (Gross)
..)..._ - - - Actual Salaries and V>.1ages
x
o
. -' i=
~-+--+--+--+--r--~~--~~-+
1:
.
1 QQ
90
I
f--
.I
---
I-
(P
L__
~
r--r--r-~--~~-4--~~/4--4--4-~---0
_.L_~~v
, (
0
u
70
~ "40
cr.
tU
~>
10
0
i75
% _ _ __
S l~ 9, 2 ~L___
S _s____,li9.l.____
S 7 l _420
I
/.'
"
-I
L
0 2
Months
FIG. B-COrJTRACT FUNDS
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Moilth
Tot2! Exr-. To Date
8z.:lzmce
/;v
20
27
I/'
30
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
,/
I
_/
~ 60
I ~
~ 80
_d~
0
Prograss
Estimated Progress
~~-4~-T-~--~~,--0+---+--+--+--/+~~j 50
Plann~d
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Mo;Yths
FIG. C-CONTR.4CT PERIOD
Time Expended %
4 7. 0
St2rting Da:e
J a.nu2.ry I, 197 8
Comp!eticn Dcte }1arch 31, 1980
7 7 811 .
S-3laries and \\12ges Es:imated This Month

Salari:::s 2nd V-.'ages Sp2nt This lvionth
.C...ccumt.:!ai.ed Salari~:~ a;1d \\'ages To Date
s ___1_~88_.
s _ __2902.
$ 37,511 .
20.0008
to the
NAT I0 ["~A l C00PEt1 AT IV E HI GHV'! AY RESEAR CH PR0 GRAr.1
on P"roject.
NCHRP 4-14 FY'78
)
for period
October 1, 1978
to
December 31, 1978
from
_ _ _ _ _ _.:;_Fr;;..:a;:..:.n.:.:;,;k~A,:_..;:,R;;.;;i~deo u., , Pri nc i p a 1 Investigator

Senior Resea~ch Scientist
Chemical and Material Sciences Division
Technology and Development Lab
Cobb County Research Facility
-1-
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
p Project No. 4-14: COATING SYSTE:IS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
Fy' 78
Month Dec 197 8
ch Agency
Georgia Tech Resea'tch Institute (Engineering Experiment Station
'a! Investigator ..Erru1k A. Rideout _(Ac~=o...:..:n=e-=-:~40~4~/'--4~2::...::8:.._--"'9...:::0'"""5-=..3)'--------------19/9
1978
ESTIMATED ':
~RCH
::s
~1
-~-':"A~/......---__.- :/'"'"~~~ ~
LL
_1 ( ) 1 /1: 4 ( 'JU t\ () I '-1
reot
ctlces
:.1-1.4
fJ
'
~l.
89.0
_J_
I
.......... -v--,- _.....----~J

I
L<O! 50 1 6(~ '~(I -7 ( i 7c:;,1
80
Q()l
OC)!lOO
.1-2.2
__J_
.3-2.4
I
I
2.5
oo
b(
lC
9U 100:
')s so
t
_ qqc)() _
1() 20
L1 C
3~
36 39 42 45 48 sq
6..:: 6~ 7
51
51
7~
b( 10(.
24 28
3 ~ 1 i
11
97 99 10
20.0
5;100
4 0' 9 i.rlOC
24.0
--
10: 20 4C
Ld
:-ogram
~~~~
lines
I ,..
i
I
62 .. 0
ETION
COMPLETIO ~ ~
51 1 () ') n ~() i
\LL%
~//V_./"/...---:::-....-_,........-/
Lva1n.
~eport
1.5
lt ies
3.0
89 9L 9lj 95
52.2
FIG. A--OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE

LS u
.;
:<.
l3 S'Actual Gross Expenditure :<
0
L2 c~
;~
w
.._
______...
()
7 -'t;
(f
//
6c
~~
4 c;
1 r;
(;)
30
/~
/
i::~
c~ ~
0 2 4
_,V
..-
I.
__...
'
...
,
//
,,
~ so
..J
, ., ...
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
---
80
/.-
..J
/
<l: '40
a;
LU
>
30
0
20
.'
/
10
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
27
./
0 2
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
/2/75
!!
0 60
(.)
w
~ 70
~.
9u
90 .._
-~
_Q c;
100
% 53. 0
S 14 9, 2 "31
S
7, 43 6
S _ 79,1:3 6
$
8 10 12 14 16 13 20 22 24
Months
Time Expended% 52 1
Starting Da ~e
J...-a-n_u_a_r_y_l_, 19 7 8
7o)oqs
Sataries and \Vages Estimated This Month

Salaries and Wages Spent This rvlonth
-2-
2 '888.
3 894.
$ 41. 60!1.
20.0008
Fourth Quarterly Progress Report to NCHRP December 31, 1978
Project 4-14 FY'78:
Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural
Steel (Georgia Tech A-2092)
I.
Objective
and recently developed non--proprietary coating systems for the painting of

structural steel with emphasis on such c.onsideration"s 'as:
II.
(a)
(b)
exposure condition
(c)
(d)
economics
Progress Toward Completion

The laboratory work plan has been revised to more closely fit the needs
of the whole country while maintaining our emphasis on marine exposure.
Bridges
near salt water were taken as the most demanding for coating system performance
but our exposure panel series will now include more alternative pigments in
alkyds and coatings for possible use over brush blasted and wire brush cleaned
deteriorated paint.
These changes evolved in our September Quarterly Progress
Report and in two revisions, October 24 and November 10, 1978.
Minor changes
also follow in this report.

The questionnaire to state DOT's and other members of AASHTO Operating
Subconnnittee on
~1aterials
was specifically brought into focus by a cover letter
request by K. W. Henderson, Jr., Program Director for the Transportation

Research Board.
At this writing, 24 replies have been received.
-3-
Excellent specimens of "old steel" have been cut from a 1958 highway bridge
beam for us by the Georgia DOT.
The beam was replaced in Atlanta in August,
1978 during construction for MARTA, Atlanta's new rapid transit system.
Some
panels will represent 20 year old paint, still intact, needing a refresher
coat and
other~
showing considerable rust and underfilm corrosion lifting the
painSwill be wire brushed to

inland service.
~est
new systems for economical refinishing in
Those will be cleaned and coated to two paint thicknesses
and exposed on test racks in the Atlanta area.

Most of the test paints have been prepared in our laboratory and all
primers have been applied, all by spray.
To insure proper drying before ex-
posure to the marine environment, it will be toward the end of January before
all the panels are on the racks at Brunswick, Georgia
Task 1.1
Selected articles have been collected which we are abstracting
for updating the 1969 NCHRP Report 74A.
Collecting continues from current
literature.
Task 1.2
24 replies have been received, as of December 20, to our
questionnaire to state DOT's mailed November Jrd.
A preliminary review shows
the growth of zinc-rich primers and a growth in the use of vinyls for long
range economy.
Recognition of the value of better surface preparation also
is evident.
Task 1.3
Paint manufacturers have not been forthcoming with non-proprietary
formulations although their recommendations are helpful when applied to the

generic type.
Raw material suppliers have been most cooperative in furnishing
"starting formulae" that is the foundation of our work in Phase 2.
-4-
Task 1.4
SSPC and NACE committees give strong support to our programs.
Task 1.5
The State-of-the-Art-Report is extended throughout the life
of the contract.
Phase 2
The attached annotated Table 1 from our last Quarterly Progress Report
as revised November 10 summarizes our plan for Phase 2.
We have added 6
more pairs of panels, S36 through S40, which are the same coating systems as
S23 through S28c on new "White '' steel.
For the contro-l alkyd panels we
have submitted Ga. DOT 870 .. 02 No. lC and 3A.

Type I.
The primer is AASHTO M229-74,
In system S23 the topcoat is coriected to read T-7.
The Molywhite
formulations will use No. 212 in water-borne coatings as shown, but for
alkyds we will use Molywhite No. 101 as recommended by the manufacturer.
~W-9
will be used instead of MV-23 in System S31 because MV-9 is the Rohm and
Haas latex used in the recent 1000 gallon bridge trial by California DOT.
We were trying to have all panels to be exposed on exterior racks in
Brunswick and Atlanta in place by the year's end.
Now we expect it will
be toward the end of January before all will be ready for exposure.
Salt
spray and weatherometer testing will begin soon thereafter for the accelerated
testing.
All of the KTA panels of new steel and the series of alternate pigments
in alkyds (S23-528C, S36-S40) are primed.
The old flat steel panels will be
identified individually and photographed after cleaning and before priming.

Attached is a complete formula sheet for Primer P--12, used in system
S24 and S37 as an example of our operating procedures.
-5-
_ ..... _ .... , ....... . ...... v .... ,
TOPCOAT
3-5 mils
........ u<-.J..vu.M.Ll
6-8 mils
SYSTEM
STEEL
CLEAN
PRIMER
S1
S2
53
S4
55
New
New
New
New
New
White
White
White
White
White
Pl
P1
P1
P1
Pl
Inorg
Inorg
Inorg
Inorg
Inorg
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Tl
T2
T3
T4
TS
Urethane/TiOb (tie)
820 Latex/Ti
Shell Epoxy/Tto
2
MV-23 Latex/Ti0
2
Hi Build Vy/Ti0
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
56
S7
S8
S9
SlOC
New
New
New
New
Nel.Y
White
White
White
White
White
P2
P3
P4
PS
P6
820 Latex/Busan
MV-23 Latex/ZnO
VMCA/ZnP0
4
Mil-Epoxy
Alkyd/Lead pigt
T2
T4
TS
T1
T6
820 Latex/Ti0
2
MV-23 Latex/T10
2
Hi Build Vy/Ti0
2
Urethane/Ti0
2
Alkyd/lead p1gt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S11
S12
S14
SlS
S16
New
New
New
New
New
New
White
White
White
White
~'hi te
White
P7 820 Latex/Nalzin
P8 820 Latex/Mb-212
P9 820 Latex/Halox
P9 820 Latex/Halox
P9 820 Latex/Halox
P10 H 0 cure PU/Ti0
2
2
T2 820 Latex/Ti0
2
T2 820 Latex/Ti0
2
T2 820 Latex/Ti0
2
T10 820 Latex/Al paste
Tll 820 Latex/Mic-Fe o
2 3
T1 Urethane/Ti0
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S17
Sl8
519
S20
S21
522C
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
T1 Urethane/TiOA
T2 820 Latex/Ti~
2
T3 Shell Epoxy/T10
2
T4 MV-23 Latex/Ti0
2
TS Hi Build Vy/Ti0
2
T6 Alkyd/lead pigt
c:
1 '1
U'-.J
0'\
intact
intact
intact
intact
intact
intact
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lead
X
X
X
X
X
GEORGIA TECH CAMPUS
523
524
525
S26
527
528C
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
P11 alkyd/Busan
P12 alkyd/ZnPO
Pl3 alkyd/Nalzin
Pl4 alkyd /Hb- 101
PlS alkyd/Halox
P6 alkyd/lead
529
S30
531
532
533
534
535
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
PlS
Pl5
P15
PlS
PlS
P15
PlO
alkyd/Halox
alkyd/Halox
alkyd/Halox
alkyd/Halox
alkyd/Halox
alkyd/Halox
H20 cure PU/Ti0 2
* S36-S40 same but on new steel
T7 alkyd/Busan
Tl2 alkyd/ZnPO
Tl3 alkyd/Nal:zin
Tl4 alkyd/Mb-101
TlS alkyd/Halox
T6 alkyd/lead
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TlO 820 Latex/Al paste

2 3
Tl6 MV-9 /Al paste
Tl7 MV-23/Mic-Fe o
2 3
Tl8 4358/Al paste
T19 4358/Mic-Fe o
2 3
Tl Urethane/Ti0 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FOG
WEA-0-M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t:
---------
A-2092
: t:
GA
DOT - lC Orange Primer
liDS
NDS)
(GALLONS)
- -- - + - -- -
2.8
TT-R-266-Typ_ e -I---- -- --
- - - -- - - --- - - + - - - -- - - ---=-
1.7
+----
---
30.79
EXP . NO.
- + - - - +----
Air Dry:
--------
KXDe'\:
-- - - - -
Spray _ ok
- - --
-- - - -
- - --
- - - - - - - r - --- - -- - - - -- - - ---Reduction:
Blend 5 min.
- - - - t - - - - - -- ---- -- -- - -- --
~2---+---L-'2,_,5_..__+--......
l,~ec:i th...._in.....___ _
50
COST
- ------- i--
__________
------ --- --- - ----- 1 ------t--+-------~- -- ~ ------- -
Methanol
-- - - - - - --
.25
NO.
LH-2
Application:
Bentone 38/MS
- -- - -- - - - -- --
- - - - - +-- - - - -- - - - + - - ---- -----
UNIT
PRICE
MATERIAL
8.3
7.00
-- - -- -+ - - - - - --- --
~~T CH
TANK NO . [
---- ~j_f} __gt_! -1a=b-f----r----
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --
14.50
~~~Tg~~;~s)-
- - - - - -- - f - -- ---- l--- -- - 1 - - - t --
----- - - - - -----,-- ---- - - --t----
M- 50_;::._ _ _ _ ___ ____ _____
None
- --- --
- - - - - --
-+----------
- - - - - -- - -
Thinner:
---
+ - - - - - + - --
--+---+-------~N=o
~n._._e-"=-----------
Disperse (Grind to 4+N S )
41.50
~--~-~~~-~~R=a_wLinseed_O~i=1
.9
_____ ____ _ F~---~--~-C-au_t_io_n_s_:__S_t_a_n_d_a_r_d_ _ __
.0
.25
6% Cobalt
.4
.25
24% Lead
.0
.so
-~-~-6~%~o_M_a_~g~a~n___
e_s_e______________+------r---~--~----------------
.0
.25
--r-----~-----
.7
5.75
.8
101.29
---
Vise:
Anti-Stin~~~
Agent
R/66 Mineral Spirits
- -- - - --
70-75 K.V.
Wt./Gal:
Grind:
Gloss:
--- - - - - - --
14.8 min.
+ - - - - - -- - - - ------ - - - - - -- - --
- -- - - - + --
- -t---
4 +
N/A
+-- - - -- - -- - - - - - Dry:
18 Hrs.
pH:
N/A
Red Lobel
Lllrt~K~--=-&. _Qy_J.J~
Pf/C - % by Ht
---=--2_3_._8 _______ __ ____ __________ ___________ _____________ -----r---- 38.2
---- - -- -- - - - - -- - --- - ----- ---- ---
- - ---- -
D Yes
D No
- - - -- - -- -- -- -- - _ _
Hiding:
O.K.
--- - -- -------- ----- -- ------ ---- -- - - -----r- ---- - ----- - ---- -----F o 1r;1 u I <1 1 or:
~~sol~ds_1_b),Jit[-_9L6-===---==-~-=-~-- ~~-=- .~.
.__ ~D.~-_1~ 9--~;~ -=--.

RMC:
-7-
ENGINEERINC3 EXFJERIMENT STATION

January 26, 1979
Mr. Harry A. Smith

Project Engineer - NCHRP
Washington, D.C.
20418
Re:
Report of January 1979 on NCHRP 4-14, FY '78, Ga. Tech A-2092

"Coating Systems fo:r Painting Old and New Structural Steel"
ojt.-c
~gen1
:wes
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 3 copies of our January monthly progress schedule.

You have the copy of my notes prepared for the January 17 presentation at
the TRB annual meeting. Since then we have also received an answer from
the Georgia and New Jersey DOT.
-l.[j
1ln.
I hope you can arrange for some kind of a reminder to motivate the
remaining eleven. Attached is a copy of Mr. Hay's reply.
Bernie Appleman
said we should not expect them to ans\ver the questionnaire for the District
of Columbia.
I enjoyed my two days at the TRB meeting and feel it will enhance our
work on this project. Naturally, I am disappointed that I could not tell
our story. Next time I vJ"ill have the essence of my remarks on slides to
show with appropriate speed.
:rram
~-
Sincerely,
port
L%
Frank A. Rideout
Acting Principal Investigator
liON
FAR:dm
Enclosure(s)
An Equal Employrnen:/Educ<Jtion Opportunity Institution
PR<)GRESS SCHEDULE
p Project No. 4-14:
COATING SYSTE~1S FOR STRUCTURA.L STEEL
Fy' 78
:::h Agency
Georgia Tech Resea'rch Institute (Engineering Experiment Station
al Investigator _Frank A. Rideout
404-428-9.__0:_5_3___.!.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(Telephone:
(Art-ing)
1979
1978
\RCH
ESTIMATED '7
~J~-F~M~-A~-}-1~J~-J~-A~-S--r-O-~-N~D~rJ-~F-.-}-f,_A-.-M-.-J-.-J-.-A-.-S-.-O-r-N~D~COMPLETION
:s
cent
:t1ces
10 20l 40-60 t>O 1<.10 llUU
91
.1-1.4
1.5
:_1.
::valn.
10: ?O 10 4C 11 so 6C
70
6'>1 7n 7r:...
sn
.9_0
10 L(
4Q
60, cO' 9QJOO'
gc,noo:
.1-2.2
.3-2.4
I I
2.5
.ines
:ct
:ogram
10
24
I
50 7Sfl00
?C:
.ties
20
10 20; 4.a_
~ClOO
0~-~--+--+-+--+--+--+--+--.t~'l'---r_,-~-+-+--+-+--+-+i-~4-
:eport ~~-~l~q*S.
{0 9()110(
.ETION
_LL-%~~3~~~-1~2J_l_~-2~2-.8~l-3J~3~E3~9-4~2.~5~5~
97 9911og !
J
._j_J_J I 1 6~1 6~I 7:
7t 8jl89 9
9~
95
55.3

.5 u
'
1----r
.... 100
',

x :r
.3 5Actual Gross Expenditure .-<
Planned Salaries and \'Vages (Gross)
2 c_
X
0
90 fI.lJ
1-
t.-
c;
9c
j;:
6c
<~
c;
"
(~
3c
(~
Lr::;
(~
~~
/v
.-
/_
~/
......
8
l-----"
..,...
70
,
60
cc
~~
LU
/,
20
/
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
27
r-
,/
~'
/"
10
,.
_.'/
30
0 /
0
,_,. /
,,
Funds Expended
% 58.4
Contract Amount
S _l.l.9_~3.LExpended this Month S
7, 71 9
'2/75
~ '40
>
0
_,.-
/v
. Total Exp. To Date

Balance
,....
;
.J
.J
d ~
80
~~ 50
~~
0 2
---
I.
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
~~
.I
UJ
Cis
75
/'
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
FrG. C-CONTRACT PERIOD
56.9
Time Expended %
Janeary I, 1978
St
.. a rt .mg 0 a~e
Ccmp!eticn D~te 11arch 31, 1930
S ___1iL._l83 _
62,048
Salaries and \'\'ages Estimat2d This Month

&llaries 0nd \Nvges Spent This rYlonth
Accumul0ted Salaries and \Vages To Date
s 2,888
s _L_B04$~4.15_
20.0008
ENGINEERING EXF=>ERIMENT STATION

February 26, 1979
Mr. Harry A. Smith, Project Engineer

NCHRP
Re: February 1979 Report, NCHRP 4-14, FY'78. Ga. Tech A-2092
Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel"
"Coating
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 3 copies from February monthly progress schedule for
NCHRP 4-14.
Since you received our notes for the January 17 TRB presentation, we have
answers also from Georgia, New Jersey and Oregon.
We will appreciate your assistance to encourage the remaining 10 to send
theirs in too.
February 13 r met with Joe Raska and Donnie Kilgore in Austin and discussed their questions and comments to the satisfaction of all. Joe would
like to have had us do more work with rusty steel, various other levels of
surface preparation and with organic zinc-rich and urethane primers but
understands we are now committed in our experimental work. He was especially
helpful in explaining how to correct "mud-cra:cking" of zinc-rich coatings
and how wind velocity effects corrosion.
February 14 I visited Al Dunn at Baton Rouge (DOT) and learned of his experience with vinyls, zinc-rich pr~mers and new urethanes. No one has a complete set of answers but we seem to be~ working along similar lines. Al offered
a wealth of case histories for when we can study the performance.
February 19 and 20 'tve put 84 KTA panels on exposure at Brunswick. We
plan to make our first inspection March 19 and .put out some repainted old
steel systems.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
Chemical and Haterial Sciences
Division
FAR:dm
Enclosure(s)
NAIIUNAL COOPERATIVE HIGH'~Y.AY RESEARCH PROGRAM

TRANSPORTATION RES EARCH BO.fl.RD
PROGRESS SCf1EDULE
>Project No. 4-14: COAl'ING SYSTE}1S FOR STRUCTURJ<L. STEEL

Fy' 79
Mon'thFebruary '7S
h Agency
1978
lRCH
.S
~ eot
~ t1ces
lU ' 201 40 60
}1
~0 I ~U
-~
1.5
~-
J,
!->J
:J
t-A
C-
f,
:.f p E
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
92.0
~+
- ..
~~n
. -L)-I'i' "G-o 'h"<"t
7_()!
--~ ~ -
I
75.0
--7 c,( Ef(): g(y--gs-rfoo

I
. 1-2.2
,4 / / :d
iliJU
. s ~ - Io:-/OI-30
~va1n.
}1
}1
.1-1.4
!,
1979
'
rv..:. '.
it 04 -S.94--J0'95)
al ln..vestigator Dr. Daniel J. 0' Neil (Te1ephon e:
I
I
.3-2.4
I
2.5
ro 2c
_ines
_d
~ og_r
am
I 10
Lt ies
r
I
v~
24; 28 3J 36 39
4~rJ SJ 531 5162
20.0
2 Cj 50 /5 lOQ__I
lg8 )l
teport 40 9 CY.lOC
3 ~ 12
~Ll.%
Ell ON 97 99j100
37.0
4-C 6 . "80 9QlO_OJ

I
0.0
1() 20! 40 SOlOO

1
3.0
7 . 7 I 8 . ' 89 1 9
94 95
'I
60.7
l5 u
Planned Gross E~penditure

~
iC
Actual Gross Expenditure )l
Planned Sal2ries and \JVages (Gross)
.2 Or- - - Actual Salaries and \\'ages
:_3 Sr-
90 f-
t~
9u
6c
c~
c;
II
,i
....
.J
~)
h -- /
c
;
(~
t'p
~";'
_ _v
~~
..J
_.
!<!
I
i ex:
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
.L
60
50
40
l>0
:A
-~---:._J
27
30
:....-
'""""
li
'/
~,
II
L-~
10
0
-~
,
~"
}/
20

Funds Expended
% 62 5
Contract .Amount
S ..1.!01, 2 31
Ex pc:1ded this Month S
4, 555
Total EY.p. To D3tc
S 93,208
Ba!ance
S 56. 023
2/75
8 10 12 14 16 18 2 0 2 2 24
Moraths
---
w 80
tw
..J
0.. 70
Iu
0
4:,
')
75
1~
0 r;
100
5-?lurics a:-~d \V;:.,oes E stim ?.ted This M on1h

&;! dri ::: s <!rHi V-log2~ Sp e nt This i.io:1th
.1\ccumu: :,t e d S olaries and W~ges To Da:!~
k
2
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Months

Time Expended % =-5=-6~.,_.9,__--..,.-_
St a rting D 2 te
Compl~tion Oa{e
J a. nuary 1, 1978
Harch 31, 1980
s 2888 s J317 -
~_2_,--'-'1_
48_ _
20.0008
---
to tile
on Project
NCHRP 4-14 FY'79
for period
/
Jan. 1, 1979
to
March 31_, 1979
fro rn
~~------~~ra_n_k~A~~R~ideout, Acting Principal Investigator
Senior R~s~a~chScie~ti;t =sc=--~~~~

Chemical and Mate~ial Sciences Division
Cobb Cou~ty Research Facility
: ..' .r\. i I u \' ;\ L
l~ 0 0 ;-~
r: I~ /\ . i I Vl:
l 11 G l i \ \' /\ Y I~ L S 1: 1\ ~~ C H P R 0 G n A.t'v1
T R /~J\' SP 0 R l i\ T I 0 :\l R F. S r: .A. r1 C H P 0 /.~, R 0

[\! ;'\ T I 0
["b ) [:;\ 0
1
i\' A L R ESE ARCH C 0 U ~ -J C l L
"
\ __]
R"'\ Lc 0(" s
C'
0
c _J L::r: D LJ I
J
I I
1
-I_
Proj f:- ct No . I~ -14:

COA "l I!\G SYSTE>lS FOR Sr~UCTL: R/\1 .. ST_EEL
Fy' ~ - r-. ~on"th March '?_2_
/\s-:-:ncy
Gc:orgia Tech Re~c3rch In ~ ti_~~(Er:g~2:e e r_in g L : periment S~~ -~on _ ~-__ _ _ _
1 lrl.-vt: stig J tor rrC!_nk:-A. -Rideout_ '(Acti!lgr
~ I.
- -
-y-- - - - - - - -.~
PI anne d Gross r: ;~ p e il cit u r e

0
~,ctual Gross Ex penciture
<
Plc;nned Sal2ries a nd 'yV2.ges (Gro ss)
~--- Actual Salari es and \Vc:ges
-
100
~-----~ --~-----t---t---+---1
~ ~~1' _ _
< .''
cP "
..
__ ,_
., ..
_L-r
6
--
--c--
~-~-~r::::
8 10 12 14 16 13
:(Q
~~
70
Io
Go
i~
I{.()
-- -
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
27
//
v -
# 7
v ---'----- ~- _ L_~--~
---~ - -~- #/-
L-~
~2 --~--- 6----~-L8 10 12
Q
~= IG.
r=-uncs E x p E- nd e d
% __6_8_2 _ ~
Cc; nl.r 3ct /,;~-:ount
]_!i_ 9_ J- 3~-
[.:-: pc:Hkd th !s r/i 0 :11h $_l_,_059__
TClt:~r Exp. To D~tc
$101,860
I
I
----r -- .---- -
. __
1/ v
jl ~ :: :JVIJ!-~
____
2 2 24
Fl G. B-COi1TRACT F Ur-J OS
-------
' -- - - - -
- ~ :_...J..._
- - - --
14 16 18 20 22 24
Months
C - COi\lTR.W,CT ?E!iiOD
---
r irne Ex p ? nd ed %
St ~ r ti ng DJ~e
Ccn:;J 191; c: n D2:e
e~:C"!nce
/v?-~~~ 5o
p /7y~:J
I~ 30
D:
'-
- -
_ _ _ __ _
iw
~J-~r
I
90
-- ____ -
S~_ll_
S _.2" 8.8_8____
s __ :}_,_~2_?.__ _
s 52, _4 1_7_ _
75
?
20.0008
..
---
Fifth Quarterly Progress Report to NCHRP March 31, 1979

Project 4:14 FY'78:
COATING SYSTEMS FOR PAINTING OLD AND NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL
Ga. Tech Project A-2092
I.
Objective
and recently developed non-proprietary coating systems for the painting of

structural steel with emphasis on such considerations as:
II.
(a)
(b)
exposure condition
(c)
(d)
economics

All exterior panels in our plan have been prepared and put on test racks
at Brunswick and on Ga. Tech campus.
KTA panels (88) were put out February
20th, and 20 year old steel cut into 12 x 12" panels
(81) from a Georgia
bridge beam were coated aecording to our plan and put out March 19 (Brunswick)
and March 21 (Georgia Tech).
Service experience and possible guidelines for the various systems have
been discussed again with state engineers and suppliers with special help from
Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida DOT's and Mobay1 NL Industries, Mobile
Paint, Rolun and Haas, and Union Carbide.
In the survey of the state DOT's to update the NCHRP Report 74B on
''Protective Coatings for High~:.;ay Structural Steel" we have now received 42
replies.

Phase 1.
Current Practices
All states have replied to the attached November letter signed by

K.W. Henderson, Jr. Program Director, NCHRP, with the attached questionnaire.
A summary of the 42 replies received to date follows with a tabulation of
the replies appearing in the first row of boxes.
By April 15 we will try to make telephone contact with the states of
Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Hississippi and
Wyoming to encourage their replies.
Phase 2.
All of the panels planned for exterior exposure at the marine site in
Brunswick and the inland site on Georgia Tech's campus are completed and in
place.
An additional S41 set was made with a different filler (T-8) and an
additional S40 set made with late
MV-9/aluminum paste similar to Tl6 used
in S3 to allow a comparison with the recent California
br~ge
trial of 1000
gallons of such a system.Alternate pigments were also applied to new KTA's.

Shown in the attached revised Table 1 are all the panel systems Sl
through S41.
There are 3 surface preparations:
1)
White metal sandblast,
2) light brush blast and handw:ire brush to clean and roughen intact paint
and 3) brush blast to remove only loose rust leaving hard rust and mill scale.
There are 15 primers and 19 topcoats used in 36 combinations plus 6 of
the topcoats are applied over cleaned old intact paint as a one paint refinish.
All paint systems were sprayed at 2 thicknesses.
coated in duplicate except S40.
The control was Georgia DOT specification
870.02- lC primer and 3A topcoat.

of
th~
All systems were
They were used three times, once on each
surface preparations including the intact old paint when just the
topcoat was applied.
These control panels were prepared at two paint thickness
and in every case in duplicate.

on exposure:
A total of 166 variations on 139 panels are
88 new KTA panels and 78 variations on 51 panels of "old" steel.
Attached is a sample cost calculation using as an example the formula

shown in our December 1978 Monthly Progress Report.
The second page of the
calculation shows how we will arrive at cost data for our cost/performance
analysis in generating guidelines in our final report.
Phase 3.
Tentative Guidelines for Selection and Application of Coating

Systems
Data from our survey will be useful in the preparation of our tentative
guidelines due _by Septenber of this year.
Phase 4.
Design of a Field Evaluation Program
Consistent with these guidelines our design will not be a radical departure from the trials now underway in several states.
Solvent types and
amounts and pigment selection will be in compliance with expected near-term

regulations.
Performance should not be disappointing if surface preparation
and application specifications are

Phase 5.
hon6r~d.
Guideline Revisions and Research Priorities
To begin in August ..
IV.
Future Task Schedule

By April 15 the 8 remaining state DOT contacts will be made and all
replies will be further analyzed.

Abstracts will be prepared of the most significant articles from our
continuing literature survey and used to build our tentative guidelines as
well as the final report on the state of the art.
Steel panels for laboratory
testing are now being prepared for t h e salt spray and weatherometer.
The next inspection of test panels at Brunswick is scheduled for

April 23.
(63 days exposure should show any major defects at this windy
marine location).

COMMISSION
ON
SOCIOTECHNICAL
2101 Constitution Avr-nu~
fSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
S)'STEMS
November 3, 1978
Chairman and Members, AASHTO Operating Subcommittee on Materials

JECT:
National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Project 4-14, FY '78
The objective of the subject project is the preparation of tentative guidelines

the use of existing and recently developed nonproprietary coating systems for
painting of structural steel, with emphasis on such considerations as (a) health
environment, (b) exposure conditions, (c) appl:Lcation requirements, and (d)
>nomics. Work on the project will include the updating of current practices as
;cri.bed in NCHRP Report 74 prepared by the Steel Structures Painting Council and
accelerated testing program using recently developed coating systems.
A 6 item questionnaire and copies of the appropriate portions of Tables 8 and
from Report 74B are enclosed.
Success of the project will be substantially.aided by your assistance in proding the following information:
1.
Response to the questionnaire.
2.
Copy of current specifications covering materials, surface preparation, and

painting of structural steel.
3.
Reports and information on coating systems covered by research, fie~d

tr.ials, or other experience since Report 74B that are not included in
current specifications.
All information should be sent directly to:

Mr. Frank A. Rideout
Principal Investigator, NCHRP Project 4-14
Chemical and Materials Sciences Division
Atlanta, GA
30332
Many thanks for your continued interest and support of the program.
Sincerely,
K. W. Henderson, Jr.
Jr:kl
losures
Progr2.m Director
)l!al Rcsearc1t Council is the principal operating agency of tl1c 'f\:.:;tiorl!ll Ac.:;dcr:y of Sciences and the National Acr.demy of Engineering
to serve government and other ory,an::arions
QUESTIONNAIRE
NCHRP Project 4-14
11
Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel"
1.
Have there been any changes in your state's coating specifications

for highway bridges since the NCHRP 74B report (see attachment for
reference)? If so, please indicate what changes have been made.
2.
If changes have been made in your state's coating specifications, why

were these changes made?
3.
Does your state use a zone system to classify exposure conditions and
select appropriate surface preparation and coating systems? Describe.
4.
What impact have new environmental and safety regulations had on the
selection of coating systems and practices in your state?
5.
What aspect of the coating operation is the most critical for achieving
a durable system?
6.
What area of bridge painting needs the most research or revision of

specifications?
I
1
I
I
I
.I
,,
"!
!I
I
8
.I
:!
~1
STATE
42 Replies
I
i Yes:
Is B:
1.
37
')
.),
Longer life
(H87,)
...
ZONES?
(17%)
REG. EFFECT CTC.?
5. NOST CRITICAL
Yes: 15 (36%)
Surface Prep. 36 (86%)
Minimal: 4 (10%)
Application:
23 (55%)
21 ( )07.:)
Zinc: 13 (31;~)
[Vinyl: 12 (291.)
A- 5~8: 7 (_pl.)
SB - S.:11Hlblasting
Abbreviations. OZ- Orv..::mtc Zinc
ILZ
- inorganic Zinc
PU - Polyurethane
'
2. WHY?
C!W!C:!~S?
Regulations: 12 (29%)
Fast dry:
5 (12%)
16 (38i.)
6. RESEARCH NEEDS?
Material: 22 (527.)
Inspection: 6 (14%)
Regubtions: 13 (31%)
Surface Prep: 16 (38%)
Water-borne: 4 (10%)
j Pb -
Lc>ad
Reg - Regulations
'W-B- Water-borne
Arizona
No
Arkansas
Yes: Zn,
sn,
Vinyl
---
No
I Easy
No
_j
l
I
! California
I
i
I
1
Yes: Vinyl
I
Colorado
I
I
IConnecticut
iO
i
I
application
Fast dry
I Rule
I
I
66 - No Pb
No
No knowledge
No suggestion
No
Surface preparation;
Thickness
Chalk, weather, color

stability
After 9/82 only Zn,

W-B, HiS
Surface preparation
Prepare for September 1982
Surface preparation
Materials Stability
No
None
Surface preparation
Applications of Primer
Surface preparation
Repainting
I Yes: SB dry thicker

; chromat<.:s, vinyl
I
I Application
problems
I
I
I
I
_____
. _.
_.._.._ . .......... _, ...
. . .
....
- ----- .,
-----
..
Idaho
. . ... . ...
'
Illinois
Yes: Zn 7 SB 7 M-50
Yest HS Weathered
. . Steel . .. . .. .
n&\. .L I
Available Lower Cost

..
... . . . .. .. ...
Yest M-50
tol
"ft
l'-.:.V o
~.:.1
Use Zn in
W-B teste
.. .North .... .... ... ...... .. \!'
\1.
''W.:JJ,.MU.,V'
Edges and Corners

Relates to type
Surface preparation
PACE (Zn
A,lwi~IJoJ
Poor Application)
Compliance; guideline-s
No Pb & SB to be
limited
Surface preparation
Durable/Environment OK
No
Application
W-B
Cleaning
Shoes, Rockers, External/

Dams
No Pb, longer
I Kansas
Yes: IZ , Vinyl
Longer life
life
Yes: M-50, Zn,

Vinyl
VL\..L.A. ... Voi\..U
Surface preparation
Yes: IZ, Vinyl
Maryland
&LV..JJ,.
No
Iowa
oz
.J.
Longer Life
Yes:
Surface prep
Yes: Vinyl
Louisiana
.... .I.Vt
nz
Yes: SB, A1
.... J.
Indiana
II Kentucky
~.:.
oi.VLH.:...J I
n1
..
Performance
(re: NY)
Indiana
..
..Jo
No Pb, adhesion
---
Cost
Pollution
No Pb
life and Color

change
Yes, No Pb
3X
New Coating/Surf. Prep.
II
Application
Generic specs, PU
..
Surface preparation
Profile and applic'a tion

..
.,....
,I
..
.... J.n.J.u
--
Hichi'gan
'
Minnesota
J.,
Yes: ASTM/A-588
Steel
Yea:
I..Llf\NI..rl:,
oz
. WHY7
..
3 ZONES? j4
. REG . EFFECT CTG...'I
5 MOST CRITICAL
I ..
RE sEARCH NEEDS?
Cost effective;
No
No; Research for

Non-proprietary IZ
Cleaning
Conformance
No Pb, longer life
No
Minimal
Application
Edge coating; Wash

Primer
No Pb
0 (IZ In
Yes
Surface preparation
Non proprietary for regulations and durable,

apply easy ond minimum
surface preparation
Missouri
Yes.
I .
Montana
Yes: M-50, Zn, P0

4
Nebraska
.Yea: pigments
Nevada
Yea: Vinyl
New Hampshire
Yes: ASTM/A-588;
.. Vinyl
x~so, UVI..
over oil
Leas water soluble

Some no Pb
Convenience
No
No
Surface preparation
None
No
Yes
Surface preparation
solution
Cleaning; no Pb
I
I
None
Cleaning, application
No
u~
New Hexico
No
---
No
None
Material quality and

application
He tal Temperature
Regulations
---
Yea
Cleaning
---
I ..
Ne...., York
Yes:
(OSHA)
'
.
..
STATE
1. CHANGES?
North Carolina
Yes: Zn
Weather Steel
inland
2. WHY?
Longer life
Shop application
..
'OK EPA
14.
3. ZONES?
Coastal and
inland
REG. EFFECT CTC.?1
Yes
5. MOST CRITICAL
Mixing application;
thinning, temperature,
humidity, thickness
. More colors
Yes: alkyd
Ohio.
Yes
Better protection
and cost
Oklahoma
Yes: M-50
Use new materials
Yes
Longer life, color
'l'o1
Pennsylvania
I
I
~ro
6. RESEARCH NEEDS?
Training
Program
..
North Dakota
No
No
Surface preparation
EPA Regulations
No
Difficult to SB
Cleaning
Compliance, easy
application
No
No
Application
New Coatings
... ~...'c;
I0
I Surface
preparation;
Application - Inspection
Non-polluting
cleaning , longer life
and data to justify cost
No
----
No
No
Shop Coat
Service life
Yes: IZ, Vinyl,

Epoiy
Longer life
No
None
Surface preparation
and primer
Cost effective
SDuth Dakota
No
---
No
None
Sur~ace
Tennessee
Yes: IZ, HiS, Vinyl

SB, Weathered Steel
Fast dry,
fewer coats
No
Minimal
Rhode Island
South Carolina
"d
PJ
00
ro
,1--'
N
preparation,
thickness
Cleaning
Recoating
...... ..
~"
~.
...
YIUl.VW.._,
nuL I
...
L~Vn.&:.J:
.J.
l\.C..\.Jt
c.rrui...L
IJJ.v.:
;).
l"IU.:!l
o.
I..IU .LJ.I../\L
IU.::>t.I\KL.tt Nt.t.U::> [
I Tt:xas
Yes: Cleaning and

application
Upgrade
Coated and
other
Minimal
Surface preparation
W-B; Education
I
Utah
I Yes:
SB, N-50, thicker
Longer life
No
:I
Verraont
! Yes:
~I-50,
alkyds
No Pb
Surface preparation
and vr :!..mer
Performance
No
No Pb; EPA
Surface preparation
!Cost effective coatings.

!Meeting rcgulations,Surface
preparation guidelines .
Better preparation
No
No
Preparation and
application
Coatings to meet regulations
Yes, no red lead

collect residue
Application
!High performance coatings

easy to apply. Qualify
painters.
None
Surface preparation
I
:
Georgia
Yes: SB, no mill scale
I
I
l Oregon
I
:I
I Yes:
Use less lead; better

control
~~-50,
Znr.ro4
control steel temp
Yes: 5
I
I
r:c..: Jersey
I
L-.11
:-.t-50
Yes:
/I mp~ ov ed
corrosion
res 1s tance
~_.,.
IEnviror:ment
IRed lead not
Maine
I
I
I
Yes: NCHRP
jR eport 7 4 Zones'
for new steel
Yes:
A-58i1 3tecl
Virginia
Washington
~I-50
available
Yes: 2
Cleaning, application
and protection during
construction (1 year)
Yes
.a1!rvrl
Yes: some --"'J-,
Vinyl
rzl
Yes: M-50, Zn, WP,

phenolic
Fast
life
rlrv
~J,
longer
Fast dry: longer

life, no Pb cost
I Surface
preparation
and inspection
None
No
I
I
!
!
I
~Alternate
coating and
lreparation surface.
!
:
\Field application and touch

especially with high
!humidity and low temperatures.
fP
i
I
Compliance, surface
preparation
I
No
None
Surface prepa ra tio'n
W-B
Some
Surface preparation
Surface preparation and

inspection
No spray or SB over
'Water . little Pb,
Cleaning: Hand =
20 years
9 yrs/SB
Cleaning application
conditions
Non-toxic durable
coatings no/SB
---West Virginia
Yes - SB, Vinyl, IZ

Thicker films
Research findings
No
Wisconsin
Yes: Surface
condition
3 coats
no'W 4
ASTM/A-588 Steel
Durability
No
51
52
53
54
ss
56
57
ss
59
SlOG
Sll
Sl2
Sl3
Sl4
t-'
.p.
'1\cw
i-inite
}lew
\.Tni~c
:\12\.J
~ew
\{l1i t e
\~hi te
White
};'ew
};'c.,.;
;.;cw
;.;cw
New
White
White
"h hite
White
White
0ew
l\cw
};cVJ
~~ C\.J
~C\.1
c
.l.)
0: (?.\.J
Sl6
Kew
Sl-7
Sl8
Sl9
Old
Old
Old
s'")l"\
t..U
Old
S2l
522C
Old
Old
Tl
T2
TJ
T4
TS
Urethane/Ti0 (tie)
820 Latex/Ti
2
Shell Epoxy/TI0
2
MV-23 Latex/Ti0 :
2
Hi Build Vy/Ti0
2
P2 820 Latex/Busan
P3 XV-23 Latex/ZnO
P4 vt1CA/ZnP0
4
PS Mil-Epoxy
P6 Alkyd/Leadpigt
T2
T4
TS
Tl
T6
820 Latex/Ti0
2
:MV-23 Latex/T~0
2
Hi Build Vy/Ti0
2
Urethane/Ti0
2
Alkyd/lead p~gt
White
\.Jhi te
\.Jhi 1: e
\.lhi t e
\rr\ it e.
White
?7 820 Latcx/Nalzin
P8 820 Latex/Mb-212
P9 820 Latex/Halox
P9 820 Latex/Halox
P9 820 Latex/Halox
PlO H 0 cure PU/Ti0
2
2
T2 820 Latcx/Ti0
2
T2 820 Latex/Ti0
2
T2 820 Latex/Ti0
2
TlO 820 Ln te x/Al paste
2 3
Tl Urethane/Ti0
2
Brus:'1
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Tl
T2
T3
T4
TS
T6
Pl
?l
Pl
Pl
. Pl
Inorg
Inorg
Inorg
Inorg
Inorg
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
intact
intact
intact
intact
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lead
alkyd/lend
alkyd/lead
int~ct alkyd/lead
intact alkyd/lead
Urethane/TiD
820 Latex/Ti
2
Shell Epoxy/T~0
2
MV-23 L~tex/Ti0
2
Hi Build Vy/Ti0
2
Alkyd/lead pigt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'&
X
X
;c
S29
S30
531
S32
533
S34
S35
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Hard
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Rust
Pll alkyd/Busan
Pl2 alkyd/ZnPO
Pl3 alkyd/Nalz~n
Pl4 alkyd/Mb-101
PlS alkyd/Halox
. P6 alkyd/lead
T/ alkyd/Busan
Tl2alkyd/ZnPO
Tl3 alkyd/Nalzin
Tl4 alkyd/Mb-101
TlS alkyd/Halox
T6 alkyd/lead
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
.x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Old
Hard Rust
PlS alkyd/Halox
TlO 820 Latex/Al paste
X
Old
Hard Rust
PlS alkyd/Halox
X
2 3
Old
Hard Rust . Pl5 alkyd/Halox
X
Tl6 MV-9 /Al paste ; .
Old
Hard Rust
alkyd/Halox
Pl5
Tl7 MV-23/Mic-Fe o
X
2 3
Old
Hard Rust
PlS alkyd/Halox
Tl8 4358/Al paste
X
Old
Hard Rust
PlS alkyd/Halox
Tl9 4358/Mic-Fe o
X
2 3
Old
Hard Rust
PlO H20 cure P~/Ti0 2
Tl Urethane/Ti0 2
X
,"836-539 same but on new steel (KTA panels).
841 same as S3 with a .different inert pigment (T8).
84.0 same as 831 using MV-9 (T9).
X
X
X
GEORGIA TECH CAMPUS

S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
COST CALCULATION
Paint No. P-6
Batch No. LH-2
r Spec. lC: Orange Primer (Oil/Silica Lead Chromate)
(a)
Gallons
Unit
Price
$ .453
14.50
TT-R-266-Type I Alkyd Resin
7.00
Bentone 38/Mineral Spirits
. 7725
Methanol
.165
.25
Cost (b)
Properties
$ 51.10
Air Dry
37.31
. 28
Blend 5 Min.
. 23
30.79
Application - Spray
Reduction - None
Lecithin
. 365
. 73
M-50, Basic lead silicochromate
.6075
637.88
Thinner - None
Cautions - Standard
Disperse (Grind to 4+N.S.)

41.50
Raw Linseed Oil
.373
120.44
.25
6% Cobalt Drier
2.63
5.26
.25
24% Lead Drier
. 67
1.61
.50
6% Manganese
. 61
2.44
.25
Anti-Skinning Agent
1.015
2.03
Viscosity: 70-75 K.V.
.154
5.65
Wt./Gal. - 14.8 Min.
5.75
Rule/66 Mineral Spirits
$864.7 3
101.29
Grind - 4+
Paint Composition
Raw Material Cost 1 Ga. =
$8.537
Thinners & Driers % by Wt.
23.8
Pigment Volume Concentration

(PVC %)
38.2
Total Solids % by Wt. of Paint
91.6
Pigment % by Wt.
66.7
Vehicle% by Wt.
33.3
M-50 %- by Wt.
99.3
Gloss - Not Applicable

Dry - 18 Hrs.
pH - Not Applicable
Vehicle Composition, % by Weight

76.2
Non-Volatile Vehicle
Hiding - O.K.
!Date: 11-29-78
ads to make approximately 100 gallons.
ts as of March 26, 1979.
15
COST CALCULATION (cont'd).

Paint No. P-6
Batch No. LH-2
Spec.
~C:
Orange Primer (Oil/Silico Lead Chromate)
Gallons
Solids Only
8.92
TT~R-266-Type
.40
Bentone 38
. 23
Lecithin
I Resin Solids
30.79
M-50
41.50
Raw Linseed Oil
81.84
gallons (Volume of solids in formula)
L. solids
L. batch
81.84
101.29
.808 Gal. of Solids in one Gallon Paint
e Calculation
1 x .808
= 186.6 cubic inches, Solids/Ga.
6.6 X 1000
= 1,295-8 Sq. Ft. Coverage at 1 mil Dry Film Thickness (D.F.T.)
144
assumes average margin for manufacturing costs, freight, packaging, selling, etc., is
raw materials, the $8.537 raw material cost/gallon becomes $14.94/gallon contractors
$14.94
1,295.8
$. 0115
Coating .
Cost Sq. Ft./Mil.
Ga. DOT - Specifies 2 mils dry film thickness

for this paint.
Assuming 30% Spray Loss - 2.99/sq. ft. @ 2 mils thick
16
ENGINEEF~ING
EXPERIMENT STATION
April 27, 1979

NCHRP
2101 Constitution Avenue, N. W.
Re:
April 1979 Report, NCHRP 4-14, FY '78. Georgia Tech A-2092

Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 3 copies of our April monthly progress schedule for
NCHRP 4-14.
Last week we put 64 panels of flat .064 steel, (6" x 12") on the Brunswick
racks with the first 16 systems shown in our Table 1 that appears on our
last 3 quarterly reports. These panels face south at 45 and serve as a check
on the KTA panels. Each system is applied at 2 thicknesses and each in duplicate.
The KTA panels, now exposed two months, all look good except for small
application imperfections that have now been corrected. The 12 x 12 x 1/2"
old steel panels after a month shows rusting where the panel numbers were
punched and both latex systems over the old alkyd show signs of early failure
by several red rust spots appearing on the face. Our present plan is to inspect
panels monthly unless the report appears to stabilize.
Our contacts with the states that did not reply to the November questionnaire
has brought brief replies from Mississippi and Massachusetts. Eight more to go.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
FAR:gp
Enclosure(s)
P fi 0 C~ R ESS SC~ f-1 E D lJ L E
- - -
Mor.ths
FIG. 8-COiJTRACT FUf,JDS
Funds Expended
i"ime Exp?nded%
70.6
St Jr tir1gDe1te
.Jo.nuary 1,1978
Cornpl~~ tion Da'Le ~-C'h-3~1980
Contr(lct Amount
Expended this MO ilth

Total Exp. To O;:;tc
Ba!11nce
f~lurics
12/75
Months
FIG. C-CONTRACT PEiiiOD
and ~V;,ges Estimt1ted This r\'ionth
&:! C~ri es <m d 'vV agee: Spent This i~:i on th

P.ccumu:;:,ted S0laric:s t:nd Waucs To Oat~
s _288JL__Q_Q__
S _) _?_~ ~ _!_O_Q_
$ ?_34~~Q_O_
20.0008
t.NGI
JEE:F~!~l
1-; f--O RCIA lr-l '->1-I Ti Jf E OF TECH'J IJ LOG Y
ATLA NTA. G t O R (; iA 3 0 332
J un e 8 , 197 9
rv1 r. Harr y A. Smi th, Pro jec t
Er. inee r
N C HR P
Trans portat i_ n e sea rc h oa rd
2 01 Constitution Avenu e , N. "Y .
Was ington, . C. 20418
Re :
May 1979 e port, NC HR lf-14 , FY '7 8. Ga. Tech A-2092, "Coating

Sy st e ms for Paint in g Old and Ne w Struc:ural Steel
Dea r Har ry:
NC HR
ncl osed are 3 c opies of

4-14.
~.
a y rn on thly pr ogress sch edule for
L abor a t o r y salt sp ra y test s of th e 16 syst e ms (all in duplicat e) show
l.i stering
a t 192 hour fo r System 12 on one pa nel. At 2 6 ho urs blis t e rs ap peared bn Syst rn s

2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 nd 15. These all .inclu de a latex in the system. Rust has a ppea re d
on Sy stem s 3, 4, 6 and 15 in sm a ll a m ounts a n d Systems 2, 7, ll, 12, 13 and 14 in sub st a nt ial

a mounts. Syst em 12 has now failed. The we atherometer samples are all good at over
1000 h urs.
O ur inspecti on of pa ne ls a
from ou r la st review.
Br-unswick on l'v1ay 22 sho wed essenti a lly no change
So we do have tools workin g to show differences and we plan to do some preliminary

a n a ly is of t hes e res ul ts for our Quarterly Progress R eport next month.
We oc k forwa rd to ur joint vis it to Br un wi ck J rne 26. I have m y r s -- r vat i on
on your s c e ule At an t a to St. Sirn ns an d ba c k which will ke e p until a ul Haw ley's
ins pec t ion and ns t a ll at io of the sec o nd se t of KT A pane ls J un e 22 t ur ns up a pr o blem.
Since rely,
t a r k A. R ide out
1 cti ng Principal Investigator
Cl :n ic a l a1 d Ma t er ial Sciences
L a o rato r y
Encl s ure (s)
.. _,
' ,
. ''. i
~~ 1 :
:_ ' I .
-
~ ~
: -,{'
],
I. ~ .
'
--~
..I
~;
May, 19 79
/3
1 .:
96
95
~~ ~; t.: -~ :.; 1~
>: { ~- c-;: i:..: c)
% -- - 78 _. 0
s 14 9 , 251.,
( ' ( ~ '; : : ' ~ l .:. ; ; ,_-, . : : : t
:::)
r-; . ' ~ .-;
~-,.-~ ~ ~~ ; :~ ~ r-r i ~l ;, ~~ ;,~ (
l-. _! i ~ i
~ ~- <
~ ~ /~
:- :; ce
r; .
-rJ
-:....' .
'
t --: l
,:._. - ,
'. :. i
. :..,.
., r
S . .
~
20 8.
t.
. -!; -
'
..
_I -
75.1
... ' .
'
. ~
i ' ) . ' ' .. ~
I ,~ .1
'l ) _:
i .
3787.
116,399
$ ... 35,824
~~)
'
3487.
59, 904.
'1
:8
')
ENGINEERING EXF>ERIMENT STATION

June 28, 1979

NCHRP
Re:
Quarterly Progress Report June 30, 1979

NCHRP Project 4-14 FY '78, Georg:ia Tech A-2092
Dear Harry:
Enclosed is one copy of our sixth Quarterly Report amended from the rough
draft I left with you last Tuesday. The rating I assigned S-18 and S-20
systems certain panels of on old stee1 after one month at Brunswick should
read 9 not 7.
45 copies are being sent under separate cover. James Gammage of
Florida DOT has promised an answer to our questionnaire and we will phone
Wyoming and Puerto Rico again. The new summary of replies now includes
48 replies with little changE~ in the concensus: their major problem is
surface preparation and in one form or another they know it.
This month the complete new set of KTA panels were put on marine exposure. I enjoyed our inspection trip to Brunswick and your clarification
of details on our final report. We appreciate your efforts to permit us
to gather further data before we prepare our proposed guidelines.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
~~rincipal
FAR:dm
Enclosure ( s)
cc:D.J. O'Neil
R.L. Yobs
L.E. Henton
C.J. Ray
P. Hawley
P. Zapf e
Investigator
QUARTERLY PROS~ESS ~EPOflT

to the
r~ATION AL COOPERATIVE HI Gli ~~~A Y n ESEARCH PR OGRAF~1
onProject
NCHR P 4-14 FY'79
for period
April 1, 1979
to
Jyne 30, 1979
fro rn
Frank A. Rideoul,. Principal Investigator

Atlanta, Georgia. 30332
\lit ~ , 1 .' ,1_ l_l. li ; ' : .~ . \I lVI

~-n ,'\ :.~:::-L 1
!~! < i : .": i\Y f\1 ~~ ~ .".i~C: H; i~t'l~l~,'\~,1

R :- ~ lJ. ~-; c: t :. or~ !l D
:-n /\ r 1c :0
: . ~,.\-& - 1(' :,' /\L nF~~!-/\~) t ~l l l~()l': .' Cll
l\
_; 1 I I . ~ .) ,(""'; { ....~ ~r }I L:. II .)' l_. J r- r:
1(0;\'', 1:c sysr-,-, s :-(1R s ~ -,H
~ -JT!t. L sT;i.- L
.
..
. ~ :; () ( ' f~ 1:=- ~ ('
'\ . , t ' : : : : l ~
~ :'
: :-:
' I
l.
! .1 ~~
~..
.
l - ( .
-r-y
.
I
I.
73
c i .. i
rJcil-tn-l'une
~979
.-, l l
ICO
..:
00
L' l
1-
:J)
UJ
_j
n....
70
(~ 0
...'--;.::_
u
--
~ ,o
t..'
I __j
I
-'
rr:
'.(_)
[ .' J
I
I
~0
>
~- 'J
/
I
J
/ l
l- iG.8
:)
. ;"'''
,,
)
COi-:1 :~/:. C II - t;:,'r~ S
F u ric s [ >T ~ "} . d

Con t r act I, ; ~-~ (; : ! , t
'')
s J '. J . ;; n
_?_,14~ Expended this r.1o;l <! 1 s _
Total Exp. To D~tc s l~.!----~_71_ -s 27.660
Ba:ance
~furies and \"/~ges
&:!~rics ;md 'Ni1~~4i
12/2/7S
78.2
('.' 81.4
Estim<"ted This Mont~

SiJE:nt This ;,-~onth
ft.ccJmubtt?d S::.far iES ar:d Wa~~s To Da~e
( ' .
I I ,' :
! ) : ; ~~
s 2888.
2663.
5
s 62m-_ ____-__
. I; . .
' .'
:~., r. - ~-.
;1
j _: , :~
1 ,1
-~
, .-
'J
29.0008
Sixth Quarterly Progress Report to NCHRP June 30, 1979

Projec~
4-14
FY'7~
COATING SYSTEMS FOR PAINTING. OLD AND

. NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL
Georgia Tech Project A-2092
I.
Objective
The objective is the preparation of guidelines for the use of existing and recently
developed non-proprietary coating systems for the painting of structural steel with
emphasis on such considerations as:
II
(a)
(b)
exposure condition
(c)
(d)
economics

The experimental work plan of laboratory formulation is virtually completed
and results are being compiled.

The schedule of work will be completed and reported on time and be within
the budget. We would be on a more solid footing for our recommendations and guidelines
if more time and budget were available .
All 20 systems on old steel (in duplicate and at two thicknesses) appear still
to be candidates. After 2 months in the salty atmosphere of Brunswick, 10 panels
are unchanged and 14 show rust spots at edges and at breaks in the film. The differences
at Brunswick should become more apparent by November 1979 (7 months) but a longer
time will be needed to weigh the performance of these paints on our test racks on
the Georgia Tech campus.
The set of K T A panels of new steel which we exposed at Brunswick starting

February 20, 1979 showed premature spot rusting in the pocket along the weld
lines and in the crevice due to insufficient paint applied to these problem areas.
The effort to get the planned thicknesses (3 to 5 and 6 to 8 mils) resulted in remaking
several duplicate sets. To avoid putting on too much paint for our test, the
critical corners and intentionally poor welds that make up the K T A panel,
were starved. At the end of March we attempted to correct paint starved
depressions by cleaning off the rust with phospheric acid, rinsing with alcohol
and filling the voids with an artists 1 brush.
Most systems suffered from this inadequate applications so at the beginning
of the second month the series made another start free of visible rust. At the recommendations
of SSPC a second set of 6" x 12" flat panels were prepared as a control, a complete
repeat of the K T A series. These were put out April 20, and show very little deterioration
after two months.
To benefit from this experience and to avoid any doubts about the effect of
the patching done on the first K TA series, those panels were made again and another
set of 64 K T A panels were put on exposure at Brunswick June 21.
We plan to inspect and rate all the panels with the 3 starting dates each month.
The inspection cycle and travel expense is more than we originally planned. The
changes we have observed dictates this greater ,[nspection frequency.
Proposed Extension to Present Program

The value of our work to date will be enhanced by adding and extending some
of the present tasks. The guidelines will be more useful if some of the tasks listed
below could be investigated in greater depth.
1.
Repeat salt spray tests of selected systems after a washing (as from a
light steady rain) is applied to the series containing latex paint candidates. A week
exposure in the weatherometer would give a controlled washing. This is a controversial
procedure at one time used by the SSPC latex paint committee. The difference
before and after a washing is easily apparent by drying and noting how a drop of
water wets a horizonal paint film using various latexes. We have used 14 days air
dry in the lab to condition panels before testing but the washing step may be more
realistic for average exterior exposure.
A logical next step in our test program would be to expose selected latex systems
to environments for film exposure less aggressive than marine atmosphere yet with
abundant rainfall.
2.
Florida DOT has recently repainted at least 4 carefully selected steel
bridges with latex paint systems that proved promising in bridge beam tests. An
inspection trip within the next few months in company with the sponsoring chemist
from the Florida DOT Materials Lab would be illuminating especially since a variety
of Florida environments at different distances from salt water was included. Although
not specifically detailed in our Work Plan, we had this series of trials in mind to
follow originally. Our travel budget for this project has already been exceeded and
we must rely on telephone and correspondence to gather the new data but this important
phase of developing alternative paint systems needs the personal interview. The
Acting Principal lnvestiga tor assisted in the Florida program even before our participation
in Project 4-14.
3.
Louisiana DOT has a number of problems and case histories that were
discussed last fall in Baton Rouge. Another visit would be helpful and bring new
insights. Carboline Corp. has been involved and has offered to put their personnel
and files at our disposal to pursue a. more practical specification for coating coastal
bridges. This visit to St. Louis lacks only budget.
4.
The weatherometer time specified for our Task 2.4 (1000 hours) is now
approaching 1500 hours with little difference showing among the 16 systems (and
duplicates). We would propose to continue this test until greater differences are
evident. Only the epoxy shows a substantial loss of gloss.
5.
The panels on exposure on the Georgia Tech campus appear to change
more slowly than we expected. Additional months will be especially revealing for
the coatings over old painted steel.
6.
The latest panels exposed at Brunswick will require until June 21, 1980
to show a years' weathering. We especiallly chose 3 to 5 and 6 to 8 mils for our test
instead of an expected recommendations for practical bridge coating of 10 mils in
order to accelerate rust formation. Even these thicknesses, necessary to assure
complete coverage and good film formation, appear to be more durable than the
months remaining in our contract.
7.
New bridge trials of urethanes on rusty steel in Pittsburgh and on clean
steel on the North Carolina seacoast are good examples to witness or inspect
personally.
8.
Our DOT contact at Delaware points to a new vinyl trial near the coast,
which has invited our witness.
III.
Progress
Phase 1.
Phase
Current Practices
A summary of the 4 additional states, who have replied to our questionnaire

follows with a tabulation of the replies. By June 30, 1979 we will try to make telephone
contact with the remaining departments: Florida, Wyoming, Puerto Rico, and the District
of Columbia.
Phase 2.
The inspection and evaluation of the K T A panels at the marine site at Brunswick,
Ga., after four months exposure, showed all systems are remaining stable except
for small application imperfections. April 21st we placed on the racks at Brunswick
an additional set of flat .064" steel (6" x 12") with the first 16 systems shown in our
Table 1 to serve as a check on the KT A panels . We also placed a duplicate set of
the K T A panels on exposure at Brunswick, Ga .. on June 21, 1979. Each system was
applied at 2 thicknesses and in duplicate.
All the recoated old steel panels appeared to be in good condition except panel
183 (Sl8) and panel 203 (S20). Both of these panels which used latex paint, have rust
blooming giving a rating of "9" at the end of one month at Brunswick. Some of the
old steel panels showed rusting, where the numbers were punched. This was noted
and recorded.
For the laboratory accelerated weathering tests, all systems were applied
to steel panels, using previously outlined methods and weatherometer testing begun
on April 20, 1979. Gloss and tristimulus (color) readings were taken before testing
and are being taken every 500 hours and recorded. All systems appear to be in good
condition, after the 500, and 1000 hour periods. The 1500 hour period will not be
complete until July 2, 1979.
The salt-fog spray testing was begun on May 28, 1979. Rust spots appeared
in 24 hours on panels made from systems 52, 512 and 513 and by 216 hours the following
systems were judged more than 10% rusted and removed from further salt spray
testing: 56, 7, ll, 12, 13 and 14. All these included a latex paint yet 3 other latex
systems (52, 4 and 15) showed less than 10% rust until 504, 504 and 600 hours respectively.
REVIEW OF STATE DOT REPLIES TO NOVEMBER, 1978 NCHRP 4-14 QUESTIONNAIRE
48 Replies
Abbreviations
1. CHANGES?
2. WHY?
Yes: 41 (85%)
SB:
23 (48%)
Zinc: 16 (33%)
Vinyl:l4 (29%)
A-588: 8 (17%)
SB - Sandblasting
oz - Organic Zinc
IZ - Inorganic Zinc
PU - Polyurethane
Pb - Lead
Reg - Regulations
W-B - Water-borne
Alabama
No
Alaska
Solvent remove oil

or grease
Com'l SB(SSPC-SP6)
Delaware
STATE
4. REG. EFFECT CTG.? i
3. ZONES?
Longer life
25 (52%)
Regulations: 12(25%)
Fast dry: 6 (13%)
9 (19%)
5. MOST CRITICAL
Yes: 16 (33%)
Surface Prep. 42 (88%)
Minimal: 6 (13%)
Application: 18 (38%)
6. RESEARCH NEEDS?
Material: 25 (52%)
Inspect ion: 6 (13%)
Regulations:l4 (29%
Surface Prep. : 19 (40%)
Water-borne: 4 (8%)
i
I
A-588 Steel unpainte:l.

Zinc over SSPC-SPlO
IIJinyl near coast. Repaint alkyd: Tie coat
and Hi Build Vinyl.
Blast to SSPC-SP6 for
No
Longer life, Unifonn
bidding,Aesthetics
Longer life
No
General and
Yes, fast dry near

water supply
Surface preparation paint

quality
Better paint
None
Surface preparation
Primer application
Application Limitations
Metal Preparation
Materials & methods for

old and new steel to meet
environmental needs.
MinLual
coastal
1M-so.
Primer for surfaces

not properly prepared
Hawaii
Zinc,wash primer new To try new systems

alkyds and pigments.
Tighter federal specs
No
Massachusetts
Yes, M-50, more alkyd

Trials: Zinc, Vinyls
Easier application
Less weight
Yes,General Formulating non-Pb

Industrial & and non-Cr04. Blast
Coastal
cleaning limited.
Surface preparation
Repainting and cleaning
Mississippi
No
None
No
Cleaning
Cleaning
None
None
Workmanship in surface
Preparation and applicatio[l

August 3, 1979
Harry A. Smith, Project Engineer NCHRP

2101 Constitution Avenue NW
Re:
July 1979 Project Report NCHRP 4-14, FY'78, Georgia Tech No. A-2092
Dear Harry:
We enclose 3 copies of our July Monthly Progress Schedule.
The Florida DOT reply to our questionnaire came in with thoughtful
.ans\vers. For fu-ture research: " . .. economics in painting needs research
as to best systemchoice, guidelines for choosing between touch-up and
repainting, effect of future regulations on cost, choosing low cost paints
for limited service, etc."
The June 23 inspection of the original KTA set of panels, now exposed
5 months, shmv-ed no substantial deterioration except for tiny pinpoint
rust spots. None is worse than 2% of the area rusted and other properties
of blistering, cracking, peeling and chalking have not appeared on any of
this series. The replacement set of KTA panel put out June 21 showed no
change.
The set of 12" x 12" panels cut from an old Atlanta bridge control
cleaned and topcoated with the alkyd control and the five "new" topcoats
indicate after 4 months at Bruns'\vick that urethane, epoxy and alkyds make
better refinish coats than latex or vinyls. Only the 9" square in the
center of the 12" x 12" panel is used for this evaluation because of the
rough edges and oil contamination during cutting. It is still too soon
to draw conclusions.
The set of old painted steel on the Georgia Tech Campus test fencw
sho~s no sign of deterioration after 4 months exposure (45S) except one
panel of S32 that shows tiny rust spots noted at the third month.
Weatherometer testing shows the loss of gloss no'\v at 2000 hours, which
is sometimes compared to around 5 years of real sunlight. Attached is a
table of our raw data. The breakdown since 1500 hours for the control, the
~rcthane and the vinyl formulations is more than we would expect.
Harry A. Smith
Page -2-
Salt spray tests show systems Sl 9 53 9 55, 58 9 59 and Sl6 still rated
7 or better at 1572 hours.
Sincerely.
Frank A. Rideout
CMSL
FAR:gp
Enclosures (3)
...
. ' .
~ t_ . ' \ . . \ I
(.....
' . )
l" 1 :
. t
r I
~ ,
-.
' .
tJ
'
. ',
F r :1 n k A :\ i ,1, ,1 11 t ,
f i G. B - C C ~- J l ! \ t'. C T I l :; : I ; S
f1;1;~;::; [>Td'\.~~d
C>
.:(!;.-~ /.: .(.: ;;:t
c,~
r:,,.:
84.2
I-'. I . .
q -
~ -.
r>:, :.,:._ d : .: ~ ~: .., ,., 7!l s 4 04 8

T: L .1 r _, p. r o 0 .. ~ :! s 12 s , 6 4 9 .
!
:~ . -: . :}~.t'!
.:! \/: ..~ ~

;:) :. '_,. .
,"". _...... , _. : - .
_I"'
L>r :- ;,~d
::~.- ~ [)~:~)
C-~; ,:,~l~:!r
_
$ . 23.582. __ _
:~ !.. i_:. s. .
~ -!: : ~;
:~. ::. ,.~ ~ \J : ~ -,j:, ~-~; _ ; a~~'l

~~ . . ! i ~.: .. ~.~'. - \~\
..
,t,.
i-~.,f' . ::J
!'I
2888.
2098.
$ 64,402.
ss
:x,
f);<'!
80.7
.J::.: !l!.:ry
~~::1rh
r;
1'}/.<3
-~l, _:_ :~_~)
GLOSS RATING VS. TIME IN WEATHEROMETER .
34.61 31.3
. 29.81 23.6
25.31 20.7
23.71 19.4
2000
A I
13.41
26.81 34.4
.24. 91 28.1
21.51 i3.5
19.91 21.1 .
13.61 11.8
81.31 83.9
43.51 45.4
25.31 33.9
19.5/ 27.5
'11.41 23.4
17.21 21.7
15.31 20.5
13.91 19.8
13.91 18.6.
7.4 I
8.2
15.81 11.3"
15.61 12.6
15.41 12.3
1~~.81
6.1 I
6.1
41.51 45.1
33.61 30.2
29.41 24.6
26.71 24.1
24.:31 13.6
18.81 21.5
18.11 19.9
17.41 20.0
-17.21 17.9
11.61
7.5
29.21 15.4
18.61 11.3
17.01 10.2
10.51 10.0
-1.61
4.9
55.61 50.9
45. 41 35.5
"37 .61 29.6
33.81 26.9
24.91 10.9
19.21 19.3
9.0 I 13.1
8.3 I 9.1
5.4 I
0.9 I
29.11 29.9
-25.31 23.9
23.4/ 20.6
22.11 18.8
16.81 11.2
38.01 37.8
34.11 29.4
30.0/ 24.9
27.71 21.5
-25.51 13.9
40.91 45.8
'37 .51 31.4
32~0/
32 .. 1
30.11 28.6
26.51 17.7
14.61 15.6
13.21 13.9
.11.2/ 11.0
10 . 71 11.4
3.5
3.5 I 3.6
3.9 I 3.8
4.0 l 4.0
3.8 I
. 3~;7
-5.01 -1.1
51.31 46.5
40.41 38.6
33.81 32.1
31,,51 32.1
20.31 21.7
500
0
A
.1000
A
1 .5 00
11.9
7."5
'DO.
B
8.6
2.0
6.8
hrs.
ENGINEERING EXf:JERIMENT STATION

August 31, 1979
Harry A. Smith, Project Engb1eer NCHRP

Re:
August 1979 Project Report NCHRP 4-lj~, FY '78, Georgia Tech Project No.
A-2092, "Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel"
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 3 copies from August M011thly Progress Schedule.
The August 17 panel inspection at Bn1nswick showed no substantial
change. One of the original KTA panels of System S6 had fallen to the ground
due to a bolt rusting through and two chips came off the topcoat based on
Latex 820. We restored the panel but will have to rely more heavily on the
results of the other 3 panels of this system. All these three are rated 9
or 10, nearly perfect at this 6 months exposure.
Please note the error in my last month's report. The third paragraph
begins "The June 23 inspection" and it should be July 23 for the fifth month
of the first KTA test series. Please correct your copies.
We are now using a grid to measure the area of the panels rusted in the
salt spray cabinet that gives a more precise rating. The alkyd control, SlO,
was more than 25% rusted at 2000 hours and removed but systems Sl, S2, S3,
S4, SS, S8, S9 and Sl6 remain on test at 2.341 ho1,1rs.
Sincerelv ..
Frank A. Rideout
Chemical & Material Sciences Laboratory
FAR:gp
Enclosure(s)
T H:
~_:_: : ~ C:i-1" ,'\ r!f'' ! ::::-~~~ - .. \ ; : e l l :- (, _

,-..""7.0
t' ! ,~_-i- ~ C' .. ."- I_ ; u-S c , ;:~C. ! t ( t"; t : ; .'r. I L
4-f--+--1---=-t~~D~if ---~.-:;c:f-~: ~--1~~ ~~~iJt-r~-(J~~;,~ ~j~~; ~;_~) ~~r~-:-;/-~-:~}-i
t.
-' a J n.
-t-+--+--~----1-:=-1----+-+
1-2.2
3-2.~
- - --
t--rI
f--
.nes
f=:==l_ j ---F-- l- H=t$ +-+
: ' 1-~-+-~ --j--j-l--r~--t--=r=F

f---1-+---r---r~~ l
.5
I
I
~ ~ r2;:1
t_
iest---=il_q_E,il :-_1
port ~Q!__2_( ~ j r) ()
--~ - ~ -~- <.<.
L%
TION
Ll
TOh-d__ LiOI60
r 319~jl0q
6j p
91
I .
l,
--+---~-:-~_{_1pQ!o __ _
-'--- -
i I
I
I
I
-H--- ------ ---j

--
1'
o09li1@~
!
L,~-=L~-J ~;J..
711~
l () ? S___j_!)~~1J)_9-!
+--+ t-t
- -- , - - , - I
i 1 o 2 Oi 4 o
_. -
--J
_:_6Q%__ __
.-;111 0 ()
313
314J 451 '1 5151_IT]~~ /18Y 89: 9,,95

--L
--
jJ
FIG. A-OVER /J.LL PROJECT SCHEDULE
!W
._..
80
!w
! 0..
_J
7 0 l -----+--'----'----l--1
i2
! 0 GO
lu
~~
i _J r-:o
'-'
~-+----l-- --4---
f...J
!<!
;r.c
. l!.J
i>
0
21
FlG. 8-COirrn/.CT
FG,..,ds E >:p t: nc.:; d
C - -CO~~Tf1.~'\CT
% . 88.2 .
l .',), )~' L __
T0t ~: ! E::p.
P.?: il :lCC
_ 5,197 __
131,652 -17 ,57.9 - -
s
~ - l ~;- i~S
/75
fiG.
D~t;!
()
ru:.'r~ s
f~< ;' r::l (! : (f ~~~ ! s r.:(' ; i~!l
To
50% .
t--+ 1-~~ -+-~~-1-+-TI-_-+=+-t--t---t~----f-=- ____gl_____
! 2 I 2 :-I.
Cc;: i r;:c t /,; n 0 :.1 n t
---- J
;:: d '',' :. ~ - ~ S
.:::: ! ~r i ~ : , . ) '.: ..r_ ~ ':
;"-.r.:'..'l : ~- ~~ . .. '"~ :_: .!:. ~
[ -_ : : ; ; ; :--~ -~ tJ
l:,j<;
~ , - -. ~. :1
~;~ . - ~ ! ., ~ -: is;.~~ : ~ ~1
~ ,.
(: . . =~ f
~,, . .
: ~ r ~
.' r: : : ~
s
s
.2,880
2, 630
67,107
PERIOD
83 ._9%
ENGINEERING
EXPEF~IMENT
STATION
September 20, 1979

Re:
September Quarterly Progress Report NCHRP 4-14, FY '78, Georgia Tech

Project No. A-2092, "Coating Systems for Painting Old and New
Structural Steel".
Dear Harry:
Attached is 1 copy of our September Quarterly Report.
We are asking our Reports and Procedures people to make necessary
duplications to send you . 45 copies to reach you by September 28th.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
Chemical Material & Sciences Laboratory
FAR:gp
Enclosure
t a the
NCHRP 4-14 FY'78
Coating Systems for Painting Old and Ne';v Structural Steel
for period
July
1~
1979
to
fro rn
Frank A. Rideout, Principal Investigator

Chemical and Material Sciences Laboratory
Engineering Experimenb Station
, I
,
I
'
''
. '\ ~
. ~ <.
: ' il
'(
.-.!
. : 'i
' '
l '; ~
, ! , .
'
. ; . .
, ,1
I '.
:;
( '(
. 1
C~
, .
:, 1)
: ' ..
. II_
' ; 1 . ...
I
..
0 -. T
/8
:y'
r,
'
I l l ' J"
-- .I
: li
- I -
:; i
- i -
Fl;',)i ~ ! . d
F'r
L-s~i;;~; , ~ ..: d
I i
,;:)Sept., 1979
.
I
' 11
I .. - l
C:jri :<;S
:>rourcss
! ! '1 ::o
'!
I-
: ){j
! ..J ;o
;~
: ..-::_
:()
' U
r~ o
~ ::-~
!:. i)
I .. .J
: . .I
:c:( /i_')
. 1(
IU
:>
()
:~1 )
!) -
/I
:- ' :: . '.; 1- - i .: 1., ~. : d
c,:~
(' . :. ~. ' L / ; : ,, : ; : t
,-.)
l
. . I .~
_!
91.1
I
~-
' :
: :; l.
4 , 300.
135,905.
s
:; 14,126
'.
('
.)
, ...
('
)
; ,
'' '. : ' .i -'
';
, r-,
"
()
:.
.)
-1-
:~
, .;
. , I
2880.
2225.
69,333.
. '
86.9
GjO
~
; . .: ' . ' : ! ._.1
' ' : , ('1. : ,
.'
'I
>
1 ) . i '
'
, )
! ::
_: ;-3
Seventh Quarterly Progress Report to NCHRP September 30, 1979

I.
Objective

II.
(a)
(b)
exposure conditions
(c)
(d)
economics

The laboratory testing of the coating system selected for evaluation
will be complete by September 30.
Results will be correlated in a common
listing with test fence results both from Brunswick ocean exposure and Ga.
Tech campus.
Results of recoating old steel will tell about the new systems
exposed at Brunswick and about new pigments in
standard alkyd exposed in
Atlanta.
By mid December 1979 the test fence panels will have been exposed
as shown;
-2-
Initial Exposure
Panels
February 20, 1979
88 new KTA
Brunswick
10
March 19, 1979
4 old 12"xl2"
Brunswick
April 20, 1979
64 new 6"xl2"
Brunswick
June 21, 1979
64 new KTA
Brunswick
March 21, 1979
26 old 12"xl2"
Exposurt:~
Site
Atlanta Campus
Months by December
One half have coating thickness close to 4 mils and the other half
about 7 mils thick in order to see the differences earlier than when the full
10 mils normally recommended for marine exposure is used.
Little change is
evident since our June 30 report.

Through the cooperation of Dick Ramsey of the Florida DOT, on August 20
we were able to see the excellent condition of a three coat latex system on
the "I" beams of Route 138 bridge over the Swannee River.
The green 9 mil
coating is about 35 feet above the water and showed no rust spots or any other
fault after 15 months.
Florida has at least 3 other bridges including marine
exposure coated with all latex or latex over zinc rich primers that we plan
to follow.
An interesting guideline suggested by the Carboline Company in our visit
to St. Louis, August 14, refers to visible red rust appearance after abrasive
blasting.
Don't paint if you see _t.ny!
It is okay to go ahead if you see no
red bloom, the surface is dry, you have the profile and clenaliness specified,
the temperature is above 50F, the wind is below 12 miles per hour, and there
is no sign of rain.
This recommendation for inorganic selfcuring zinc rich
may be good advise elsewhere.

III.
Progress by Phase
Phase 1.
Current Practices
Replies to our questionnaire are in from all states except Wyoming

and Puerto Rico.
Contact has been made this month by phone and agreement
has been received from each to reply promptly to a new copy we have sent.
-3-
Phase II.
All exterior exposure panels were prepared and put out by June 21
but the data comparing the different systems will be 6 to 10 months duration
by mid December, the present termination before preparing our draft final
report.
All of the laboratory tests will be complete by September 30.
Phase III.
Tentative Guidelines for Selection and Application of Coating

Systems
Our survey shows about 20% of the states use some kind of a zone system
to classify exposure conditions and specify surface preparation and coating
system.
No single state breaks down their uses into as many classifications as
published by NCHRP Project 4-14 in 1968.

Zones Used by States for Painting Specifications in 1978-1979
Delaware
Massachusetts
California
Idaho
Missouri
N. Carolina
Oregon
New Jersey
Maine
Florida
General
Coastal
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Industrial
Special
North
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inland Wet & Inland Arid

Individual
Individual
We will propose tentative guidelines to fit present practice and try

to define the areas more specifically.
Phase IV.
The new coating systems which show the most promise in approaching the
objectives listed in Section L, using the m:lnimum amount of the least objectionable solvents using acceptable pigments and practical economics, will be
suggested for more pilot bridge coating trials.
Phase V.
Research Priorities
Application and surface preparation will be prominent in our report with

the need for long lasting systems evident.
-4-
ENGINEERING EXFJERIMENT STATION

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3_0332
October 24, 1979

Re:
October l-1onthly Progress Report NCHRP 4-14, FY '78

Dear Harry:
We are planning the presentation of our exposure data for our final
report when the differences among the candidate coating systems are still
small. For the final we expect to show 8 months exposure at Brunswick of
the 6 coating systems for repainting old intact paint. Attached is our
suggested presentation of the facts at 6 months for your comments.
We will comment on the edge rusting where the primer was damaged by
the cutting torch. By hindsight, I wish we had ground the edges smooth
and primed them with alkyd but that really is outside the agreed Statement
of Work. All other observations of the exposed panels are favorable or
unchanged since exposure on March 19, 1979, except chipping. Some small
pieces of the paint curling back (old with new on top) with all systems
as far except Latex 820 and Epoxy. The worst is latex ~N-23: one panel is
rated 7 on the 10 to 0 scale.
We are skipping October for a visit to the Brunswick test fence because
of our overr~n travel budget and feel justified because the change each month
is now quite little.
We also enclose a revised example of a formula 1 T-l, for your approval.
In our Quarterly Report for December 1978, we attached a detailed formula
sheet, P-6, in the same form a~ we used to make the paint and in the March
1979, QPR we included a Cost Calculation for this paint, but no reaction
has reached us from the panel. Right now with prices escalating so fast
and relative costs are so much alike and small as compared to total service
life costs that we propose to omit the individual Cost Calculations. All
candidate paints are comparably priced when measured on a mil-square foot
basis.
The third attachment is one of 4 charts we have prepared to plot the
color change. All 16 systems show less color change than the alkyd control.
Harry A. Smith
Page -2Thank you for your work of proposing the funds for a follow-on supplementary
project and the support it has so far. Are you now in a position to give us
something like a "letter of intent" I can use to take to our financial people?
It probably will not change anything that will get into our December 31, 1979
preliminary Final Report but we could get started on the additional latex panels
we want to test and thereby get a more meaningful exposure duration.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
FAR:gp
...
REFINISHED OLD BRIDGE PANELS WITH PAINT INTACT EXPOSED AT BRUNSWICK SEACOAST
Listed in order of increasing observed corrosion.
Scale 10 - 0, 9 is 1% rusted or less.
6 MONTHS EXPOSURE
One Coat (3 to 4 mils)
Sl9
Improved Epoxy/Ti0
2
(Shell DRH 151.3)
S22C Control Alkyd/Lead

Sl8
Acrylic latex X820/Ti0
Sl7
Urethane/Ti0
S21
HiBuild Vinyl/Ti0
520
Acrylic Latex MV-23/Ti0
2
2
2
Two Coats (6 to 7 mils)
3.8 mils
3.2
9
10
6.9 mils
6.8
9
10
4.1
3.8
9
10
7.5
7.6
9
10
3.4
4.1
10
7
6.7
6.5
10
8.5
2.7
3.5
9
8
7.6
6.9
10
10
4.6
4.8
8.5
8.5
7.6
6.8
8.5
9.0
3.3
3.5
8
7.5
6.8
6.5
8.5
8
Tl
TWO CO}WONENT URETHANE/Ti0 TINTED BLUE TOPCOAT
2
Reference:
Hobay NB/J255142A
Jmponent I
Supplier
Pounds
Gallons
itanium Dioxide
DuPont, R 960
247.57
7.260
:tthalo Blue
DuPont, BP 366
0.51
.038
arbon Black
Cities Service, Raven 450
0.51
.034
Jlyester
Mobay, Desmophen 650 A 65
313.05
32.120
Jlyester
Mobay, Nultron R 221 75
29.87
3.260
1tifoam
Byk Mallinckrodt, Byk P 104
6.19
0.790
Byk Mallinckrodt, Lac timon
6.17
0.810
:tixotrope
NL Industries, Bentone 34
5.15
Jrfactant
Byk Mallinckrodt, Anti Terra U
2.58 51.53
6.500*
43.80 1.53*
6.500*
Aid
~veling
flol
10% in
Cell solve acetate
Lnc Octoate,
~llosolve
Acetate
>tal Component I
2.09
0.250
137.48
16.950
795.02
68.000
285.22
32.000
1080.22
100.000
>mponent I I
Lipha tic biuret
isocyanate resin
Mcbay, Desmodur N75
3 Components predispersed
:ight I gallon
10.8 lbs.
scosity 77F #3 Zahn
37 sec.
lids by l?eight
65%
lids by Volume
.52.5%
gment Volume Concentration
14%
tlife
8 hours
oss 60
80+
------.., . ---
.......
-.. ~~
-....
....
..
--~ -
________________________________
,..
_ s ,,..-...
Co/or
- -;-.-
r- -
- --- ..
~
- - - - - 1 t
! -
' '\ .
'.
.L . --- \
- - !
$...,
_ QJ
~ i
- (\J
- -- . --.
.\
: -
-C\1 ~- -
. "]
'
. -~ '!_.: _- : .. . ''-: ---__-_- -~J--~---~~~--_--_-L----~- -~.:.~-~-~-~-~~-~------~'- ---"'-_:_ __ ______
(\J
. .
- - .,._,
o .I --E-;1
'-.._
(\J
()
OJ
..
I
t.> ,
,,
I
t:i::; I
'
I
I
E-;
'
l
\
___ ______ _ _J
.~ l
'
\
'\
t.
~
'
'
----------
Ti02' Nalzin PRIMER
'\..
/Ooo
- ~ ----
- --------
t.> '
----- ----------1
------ . .
....
.- ~--~ ~ ~-:-~ -i
.::,t-
/~ ~to/~
- - - --- -~ -~- - -
- -- - -
--~- - -
.. !
- .-t
----
. . .. -
- .-!~ : . .: i .L -
i
f
. ...,
. - ..
~~-:-:-F~~~~-~-:-.:~-: :
!-
r - i -.
. -l ..
I
.. . - 1
I
-~---------- ~ -- -
l.
,I . .
1
I
~ r
l ___- - ------ '
- . . - -- -- ----- ---- - ____ _I __ _________ --
t -
.I
-----r
f
1-
-----------,!
;
I
.!
.
+-I
--~ - ---- .t-~~-~ -~ --~- -
--+--
l . ... . -
}_
--
__.;._ -.
t---
- -- -- ----- - ----L--- ---- - -
.r
_ -_-_r----
- ~- -~-- - -~--
1
I
l
!
(OOv
. _,
I
-,
~-
- - - - -- - - ...
~-

T6ANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
, Project No. 4-14: CO:\TI~;G SYSTE~tS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL
fy 78
Month Oct 1979
h Agency
Georgia Tech Research Institute (Engineering Experi=lent Station
II Investigator
Frank A. RiQ.eout (Telephone: 404-424-9651)
1Y78
RCH
ESTIMATED~
1979
!--J---F-p--~r---.--A---~[__,_J--.....-J~-A---r-S--r--0--r-N---,.-D-+-J---r-F -.,---M---r--A...,-M-.~..J-,..--J-,--A--,--::S--,--:-O~N.._,f-D---t COM P L ETrc
100
.l-1.4~-'--~-+'--~:--~~~-4J--+--+--~~-4--+--+--~~~--~-+:--+--+-~-----1
I
l. 5
:
I
!
;
~ ~ ~~~
~
~
~
-~
- -- ~~~
: --~~~--~~--~~~~~~--:--T---------,
I
i
'
100
I
5 1 r ' 01 J f\ 4 r~ 5 1 6 6 s; 7 75 80 go c 5ll ):)
1.
valn.
o o
.1-2.2
. I
.3-2.4
~.
~--~~~~--~-+--~-r~--4--4--+--~-~~--~-+'--r-~--~~~'-----4
I
1 c 2 o 4 c 6 o o ~
ines
d
~-
ogram
J
!
c:o1 o_o:
I l
ties
SC:
=)
70
5100
HI. ?Q; 4
85
80100
3 6jl2 lfl 24 28 33 3E 39 4~
97 99!10C
I
LL%
:TION
45141
sq
J . - J
51
5~
62 6E 7 . 7 J 8
60
i.
30.
0919
88.5

5IU
,~-
')to-

~
3 s~
Actual Gros.s Expenditure ,cP
Planned
Salaries
and
Wages
f(iross}
2 o_
- - - Actual Salaries and Wage~ o
X
0
J 1:;,
\.
/7
i..
c;
c
6
c:;
6~
./
/
/_,;
l,.c.: ....
-----
'"'" 50
<l: 40
a::
w
> ~~0
20
Fu:1ds Expended
Cc,ntrJct
t~rnount
21
lL
92. 2
S - ~5L . 2.ll_
ExpPndcd this ('.1onth S -~~_L_
2/75
Total Exp. To Date
S 137.591
B(llance
/1/
..
10
Months
,
,~
A/
v
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
~",,.,-
I, v
/ '/
.J
...J
q_!.J
.I
..
.............
,/
'}
"o""o
.r
'70
0 60
(.)
Vrv
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
1
tw
sv~
Cl,
(J
w 80
0:
o II!C
90 ~---
v
)
100
I
I
8 10 12 14 16 lo 20 22 2?..
Months
Time Expended %
88. 0
Starting D~tc
Janu.J.!..Y 1, 197S
Ccmpl~tion Date Harch 31, 1980
1 1 , 64_Q_
SJta:-ics and \Vi!g~~s Estimiltcd This Month

Sa!aric:; and VlJges Spent This Month
Accumuloted S::~IJrics and Wages To Dato
2880.
14 66.
$ 70,193
20.00~8
'
.L

November 28, 1979

Re:
November 1979 Monthly Progress Report, NCHRP 4-14, FY 1 78

Dear Harry:
Your letter of November 13 arrived November 20 because the envelope
showed our zip code as 03332. As you know, I was making the final panel
inspection at Brunswick November 19 and 20. If I had known of your visit
I would have made the inspection one day earlier and been back to see you.
This inspection was the first 2- month interval and the ratings declined
as would be expected from the previous observations, except for chalking
which seems to have started in earnest. It is interesting to note that
the gloss ratings in the weatherometer also took a jump between 1500 and
2000 hours.
Thank you for your further words on the possible continuation. If
the funds are approved early next year, even though not available until
October 1, 1980, we will request per1nission of Georgia Tech's financial
management to maintain our work 'vith a minimum of interruption. In any
event, I will do what I can personally, to ma.i ntain a record of weathering
data on our panels.
'
Sincerely,
Frank A. Rideout
FAR:gp
~--
.. -
-~ r
..
"r
'
\.
' T
1(
l ( ' ': /\ I. . \ ;
:' ' .. \ I
'
: i -~, _.. \ ~~:-.l-\
:J
>~ I
~ ' :
~ -~ ; - ~ ( -~ ( i "~ ..:- ~.: <....""

~ t ~ -'
- 1 i I , ' . )
. .t~'o./, . ]1+:
: ' i
:_.\.
,~.: :
I ' :
~ , (~ I
"i , r ! ! :
: ' : . .. :, :
'
I : : ~
( ~ ;
<: ~ .1
:--:)_:-:-::o
t ' :{
J :. i
IL
l j l. .J f _ I,-.:--
: 1.. : l ' _ . .
U!.\!r: :c ~:y~; l :: ::s : c~ si.:~-~~:- i~~:._ L _>;,: ::~ L __ - " ______ ry_73 __ - ~-~cl;th~ov. 1979
C>:.~: ~: . . r -: _._1_2_ )~::?~~~-~;'~Cilt_~__r~_.:t ior~ .
, . I '~
I'((J: ~ i;l Tc C)) :~. : - : ,-,J_~-~;_.: :. t:_~-~- ::1;~
I\"' :_. . c:y
1 0 0 .--~----,--1-----r-
Pla~ned
Progress j__
Es!Jm3ted Progress
Mcni.hs
ri<"J. l3 -- cni1T!\J\CT
Ft:: ,:~s
c,-.
I
' :
l~
r:--: ;:u:r~ ..::d

0
<
I
- ll
: _: !
! ~.
% 9_5. 8-1 '; ') 1 ? 3 l
l / '. ; ; , ', : ; l t
I
i \~ ;
\.~
'l ". ,. \.
:.
~~
' :
'
!l
~ ~ . : : ;.;
' t. (!
: ~ :! . i
~
I
'j
:'
>!.. ~ i .
i: ..
rur~cs
. t
. :
s
s
_
4863.-
~~
142,970.~
.s
6,261 ..
~~ ~ .. { : ; : -~ f.... . : : ~
~~
.': 'r'.:. ' .,-, :- . : I . ; ~ \

,_ } .: ~ '. ~ ': .~ ; t I ~ . ; .~
I
&
..
I . .
91.4
li : ~>-~ L-:p :-- ,1:. ~-d%
' .;
' l
f \ . .
~I i '.)
-
:". ~ ~ .' . ~1
.
~l
s
s
s
I.
> :) ~ \ < j~
2880.
2515.
72~970.
_i :.._ <
! - ~I
l ; 1 ,-, i ;)
.,; c >, q
J
-- -: r.<r)
/-1 -d) 0 9;2._ .
ENGINEERING EXPE:RIMENT STATION

December 18, 1979

Re:
Eighth Quarterly Progress Report for December 31, 1979, NCHRP 4-14,
FY '78, "Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel"
Dear Harry:
It had become apparent just before I phoned you . .last week that we would
not be able to finish our preliminary draft report in time before the Georgia
Tech staff goes on an 11 day leave. Let's hope your associates and members
of the panel are as understanding as you.
We will try to get in another panel inspection at Brunswick over the
holidays.
As you will note in the attached report we have now spent all of our
funds except about $1700.
Thank you for your cooperation, and best wishes for the holidays.
Since:rely,
Frank A.'Rideout
FAR:gp
Attachment - 45 copies
. _ .~.=...
to the
onProject
NCHRP 4-14 FY'78
Coating Systems F.or .Painting Old and New Structural Steel .
for period
October 1, 1979
to
pecember 31, 1979
fro rn
Frank A.
Rideout~
Chemical and Material Sciences Laboratory

_ .~~
. : t
;'n.
. ~.,-y
/1
]/,:
:.--,~~;
i ' J-;
l'(l.\!
{ ', (
' -
,,- .. S .
r :
'
~~:>
i ",
! I :
' I. .. .. ./ ' - )
'
::,J!r>
94.3
i ']
~-:-- ... ~-::t!~:.- i ~!1~s r::~~:1 ;!1
r .- . 1 r-: ~ 1"\ . -co :; .: ~ ;-~

.<:C
<:-
! -;
\,_ "' t ' :

I
I'
i '.
,
\ 0
' 0 ,
! ::
'' ,
: , ~ : ~ r ~/
~?!. . I i ; , _l ( ~ : ~ :!
:3 \.. ,' ' . ; :- ~-:. i
i:
. ' -
sl::::L
__ ______ Fy'_ 73 __ ;,~ 1 ~!tth Dec. '79
(:~;~-:~:--:(~ - ~~1;~:; ~>_:~:_,ri":"i' _: )_L -~~ -~ ;-~- ~_ !L'l~--- --- __ - --- ----~ -
s 1 ? ll .
s 4,397 .
s 14 7, 511. -s 1' 7 20. -
( \ .;(!.'it:t ;._;;-.):;,)[
r I,
l ' ( -, :
'
98.8
f>:p:t , ci ..:_ri
I - . ~ t.."'
I ' - J
c~~\ t;t~:~. -li -~-: \L
_ ~, .1::~i.1 T:1 ~~:c .,f: : ;1 )-::t
:-t::
C r
; ..
~ -: ~
'i '; ,. . , ' I: l
t ""' '
/""
'. t
-1-
1
)
..,
s
s
: /
_ -,
2,880.
2,198.
73,106.
~ ~
. ' ' ,.1.
1 ,~
: 1'
1 ~: i :~
. ,. ')
. I'
EIGHTH QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT TO NCHRP DECEMBER 31, 1979

Project 4-14 FY'78
COATING SYSTEMS FOR PAINTING OLD AND
Nl~
S'J;R_l.TCTURAL STEEL

I.
Objective

II.
(a)
(b)
exposure conditions
(c)
(d)
economics

The laboratory testing and panel evaluation is complete for the time
assigned.
The original KTA panels were put out at Brunsvlick February 1979
and the most recent evaluation was made on Nov ..:_.21 (9 months). These panels
showed premature failure in the channel welds due to insufficient paint in
the depressions, so the second set was prepared and exposed June 21, 1979
(now 5 months old).
The old steel panels were exposed at Brunswick March 19, 1979 and in
Atlanta, March 21.
respectively.
The last evaluation was after 8 months and 9 months
Our plan called for at least 12 months exterior weathering.
None of the systems could be judged failed at this point.
Our draft of the
final report will show rust beginning at pinholes and edges for initial
comparisons, which will give some basis for comparing systems.
-2-
The worst
rating is a "7", meaning that rust or rust spots covered about 5% of the
panel.
We have requested the funds to continue to monitor the paint performance both at Brunswick and on Georgia Tech campus.
The preliminary final report is due this month in Washington but
our best present estimate for shipping 20 copies is January 31, 1980.
The
delay is due to (1) one of the author's being out this month for an unexpected operation, (2) analysis and writing is taking longer than expected,
and (3) all of Georgia Tech staff has 11 days leave starting December 21.
We are sorry for any inconvenience which may result.
III. . Progress EY_ Phase
Phase I.
Current Practices
Replies to our questionnaire have now been received from all 50 states
and the tabulation shown in previous Quarterly Progress Reports is being rearranged and completed for the final report.
Phase II.
The coating thicknesses chosen for the marine test site were less than
guidelines recommend but such that performance variables would probably be
evident in about one year.
The nominal thicknesses chosen were 4 and 7 mils
compared to 10 mils usually specified for moderate to severe marine exposure.

The 8 and 9 months exposure is hardly enough to draw conclusions except that
the beginning of rust spots is consistent with other data and experience.
Phase III. Tentative Guidelines
Based on the three zones reported in common usage in our last quarterly
report we are suggesting surface preparation, generic type and thickness.
Re-
finishing is reviewed with the thesis that usually the best recoat is the same
type of vehicle as was used before as long as any of the previous paint remains to be topcoated.
-3-
Phase IV.
The program we have to suggest is similar to that now practiced in

Florida.
Phase V.
Research Priorities
Waterborne systems (including paints containing portland cement) neM

more study especially the impact on surface preparations which may have gotten
off on the wrong foot in some locations.
preparation.
-4-
We recommend the most careful surface
1-!- ~ () '1 ).._
OUARTERL Y PROGRESS REPORT

to the
on Pro ject
NCHRP 4-14
COATING SYSTENS FOR PAINTING OLD AND NET..\f STRUCTURAL STEEL
for period
April 1, 1981
to
June 30, 198 1
from
Engineerin~
Experiment Statjqp
0eorgia Institute of Technology

NATIONAL BESEARCH COUNCIL
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
oject No.4-14 Coating Systems for Painting Old & New Structural
~gency
nvestigator
Month June '81
Charles J. Ray
1979/1981
1978/1980
:H
J
lt
10 :LO
~ ces
Fy' 78
Georgia Tech Research Institute (Engineering Experiment Station)
14U bU I)U :fU
F!M
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
11C:}78
100
!UL
lo
1 E1 al.
~nd.
St;: lrt
19, I~
h QA
10()
-. 1
) 2
3 -
.5
~linE
' nd
Sta rt
11
O""'IO
i Pr< grc m
citi
?1:,
QA
::Jta !r"I:
~na
20
qR
1Q7~
St. End
_._,
25
1b70 ~ QQ
~
50
i.e..pn r
_%
"ION
..
85
FIG. A-OVERALL PBOJECT SCHEDULE
b 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
)r0
Actual Gross Expenditure X
- - Planned Salaries and Wages (Gross)
)r - - - Actual Salaries and Wages
'"I
cp '~
I'
.,
I
100
-~-
90
U.l
I-
~:>
...,
"'
. It
...J
...J
.....
>
(i)
,'
.,""
""
/
/
l:L 16 LO
L4
L.l)
jL
...,~b
41J 44 48
....
!--'"
~~
I ll'
v:/
/I
30
20
(I
1/.
Months
Funds Expended
ContractAmount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
vv
I.
50 --
v v
I-""
60
10
(~/
_, /
/v v
0::
80 --
<! 40
w
.....
{p
c
c
:,.....
,. .... ,...
(.)
'"
---
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
w
...J
a.. 70
c>
J _ _ ,_
'-
%_..:;;..9-=-9-'-.=-5__
$ 199,231
$ -------"--'-$ 1 gA 301
L 16 i
. '4
i~
__, b
4 U 44 4 8
Months
87.5
Time Expended %
Starting Date
January 1, 1978
Completion Date December 31, 1981
$ --~'9,_,3~0

~)
$
$
$
0
10?,117
Quarterly Progress Report

April 1, 1981 - June 30, 1981
NCHRP 4-14 COATING SYSTEHS FOR PAINTING OLD AND NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL

and recently developed, non-proprietary coating systems for painting bridge
structural steel with emphasis on considerations of health and environment,
exposure conditions, application requirements, and economics.
2.1
Phase I -Current Practice
The replies from the fifty states concerning their current painting
practices, the impact of current and impending health and environment regulations ' on these practices, and thetr judgement as to research needs in
painting bridges have been assembled.
of these
r~plies
The draft of the review and analysis
for the final report is being revised.
The second set of KTA panels exposed at the Brunswick, Georgia test
fence site now has two years of exposure.
nine months of exposure.
The original set has twenty-
The steel panels on which test coatings were
applied over either old, intact paint or rusty surfaces have a total exposure
duration now of twenty-seven months.
j
The effect of these exposures on the durabiliiy of the coatings tested

will be tabulated in the final report.
of the accelerated, laboratory
~est
They will also be analyzed in terms
results and results _for similar systems
reported in the technical literature.
The initial draft of an appendix to the final report describing the

experimental program and the exposure results has been revised.
The latest
exposure data remains to be incorporated.

2.3
Phase III - Tentative Guidelines
The preliminary draft of the guidelines has been reviewed critically

in-house.
Revisions are needed which will be made in the drafting of the
final report.
Designs
so far have not been developed in detail.
This will be
done in the preparation of the final report.
2.5
Phase V - Research Priorities
The research priorities have not been finalized.
This must wait for
the final report draft and an analysis of it in toto.
3.0 Future
Work
Quarter
-,--- - -for
- - -Next
------Prepare draft of final report and submit it to the review panel and
TRB.
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT

to the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGH,WAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
on Pro ject
NCHRP 4-14
for period
July 1, 1981
to
September 30, 1931
from
Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technoloqy

NATIONAL BESEARCH COUNCIL
PROGRESS SCHEDULE
ject No.4-14 Coating Systems for Painting Old & New Structural
Fy! 78
ency Geo~gia Tech Research Institute (Engineering Experiment Station)
,estigator
Charles J. Ray
1979/1981
1978/1980
M
lU ILU 4U bU tsU
~u
lUl
~t;:
rt
J
es
Month August 81.
A s
1978
F :H
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
100
1-
I.J
5
E' al
~na
1 ~I II:S
100
1 QA
i
I
nd
Sta rt I
inE s
a .,Ia
::>ta rrc
Pre grc: m
ti
OA
35
n qR
35
c.na
107~
St. Rnd
. .:>
1h1n 11
35
OQ
70
nrY t-
'o
90
)N

-~-
~
0
Actual Gross Expenditure Y..
I
100
"'~'--
,.
-~
(~
~~
.._
v ...
....
...
__
"'
,/
/"
.... ....
f'
.)
UJ
> 30
0
//
!'
20
jl
10~-~~--+--+--+-~~--~~--+--+~
"'
4
)"'
(~
70
<t
cr: 40
v ..
..J
,)'
~ ......
u 60
~
50
..J
---t
----
0
.,..,....
(~
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
w 80
w
Q.
(~
1..J
I'
"f'
90
12 16 LO
.1. .4
L:ts
. .d.
b '+IJ 44 4d
Months
Funds Expended
ContractAmount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
2 16 L~.J . '4 l~ JL
4U 44 48
Months
%_9.::;.. .:9;;.. . . ;.. .;;;.5__

$ 199.231
Time Expended %
94
Starting Date
January 1, 1978
$ _ _ _.......
a_
S 1 gA 302
$ _____
' 92~9

.tlrr11m11l~-ton ~~=d~r;..,. ..
_.. _ _. '"'---- ..,._ "'- ... -
$
$
....
\
.
--
--
Quarterly Progress Report

July 1, 1981 - September 30, 1981
NCHRP 4-14 Coating
Syste~s
for Painting Old and New Structural Steel
1.0 Objective
and recently developed, non-proprietary coating systems for painting bridge
structural steel with emphasis on considerations of health and environment,
exposure conditions,
2.0
appli~ation
requirements, and economics.
Progress
2.1
Phase I- Current Practice
The original draft of the review and anlysis of replies from state DOT's
concerning current practice in painting and maintaininq highway bridges still
needs to be revised.
2.2
Phase II - Experimental Evaluation of Recently Developed Systems
The description, analysis, and review of the performance data generated

has been completed.
In general, the extent of paint system degradation observed in salt fog
chamber testing is greater than that seen as a result of exposure to a marine
atmosphere.
The exposure times are approximately 3000 hours and 2 years,
respectively.
2.3
Phase III - Tentative Guidelines
The guidelines are being written to cover three general cases of restraints
on selection of a protective coating system.
use of corrosion inhibiting pigments
oth(~r
One restraint deals with the
than lead and chromate types.
The second category addresses the options when blast cleaning to remove old
paint containing lead or chromate bearing pigments is restricted.
The third
category involves economic considerations only, i.e., no restrictions on

materials and processes.
1
2.4
Phase IV - Design of a Field Evaluation Program

Based on the lack of a national>solvent emissions standard for architectural
paints, the emphasis of the field evaluation program will be an alternative

corrosion inhibiting pigments to lead and chromate ones.
the number of waterborne systems to be included.
2.5
Phase V - Research Priorities
The research priorities have not been finalized.

3.0
Future Work for Next
Quart~r
Submit draft of the final report.
This will reduce

PROGRESS SCHE[)ULE
Project No.4-14 Coating Systems for Painting Old & New Structural Fy' 78
IAgency Georgia Tech Research Institute (Engineering Experiment Station)
Investigator
Charles J. Ray
1979/1981
1978/1980
~CH
ent
lU LU 40 bU
~ices
Month June '81
tsU '::JU
lUl
F !M
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
11 g718
100
tt.1.5
t' 1 E' a_l.
t;na
S_tc: lrt
1~, [ts
-r. 1
100
1 qg
:+~
~2.5
' nd
Sta rt
del in s
11 O""'IO
~ta
ld Pr< 1grc m
oriti
c
qg
?t;
qg
20
c.na
rt
1Q7Q
F'.nd
~t.
. ;:)
1 Q_7_f'l
25
()Q
60
RPnn r
LL%
:TION
87
FIG. A-OVERALL !PROJECT SCHEDULE
00
bJ
-x.
80 Actual
Gross
Expenditure
X
0
Planned Salaries and Wages (Gross}
6 0- - - - Actual Salaries and Wages
'~
40
100
....
'
.....
~~
20
,.... .......
6c
~,...
...... ~-
4c
--"'
70
10
(~/
1/
12 16 LU 1.4 Lts JL .... b 4fJ 44
48
.,.""
/:!__
/I
ljl
1/'
Months
Funds Expended
ContractAmount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
,...
30
"
L~
50
20
2c
/~ .,..""
UJ
>
0
80
<(
cc 40
<p
...J
0..
...J
...J
UJ
.......
.......
~~
f-
---
0
u 60
~K
80
UJ
1-
(~
0 0 __1_
90
Planned Progress
Estimated Progress
%_9.:::.._:9::__::....:::::5'---$ 199,231
S _ _ _....>.Lo_
S 1 98 302
S ___' 92~9
, Salaries and Wages Estimated This Month

L ~)
.' 4
Ll:)
b 4U 44 4 8
Months
8 9. 6
Time Expended %
Starting Date
January 1, 1978
$ _ _____,.0'----$ _ _____;;0;_____
$ 1 r,2, 1 17

PROGRESS SCHEDULE
ProjectNo.4-14 Coating Systems for Painting Old & New Structural Fy! 78
Agency Georgia Tech Research Institute. (Engineering Experiment Station)
1
I Investigator
Charles J. Ray
1978/1980
M J J A
RCH
)
lU
~u
M A
ent
~~ices
MonthAugust 81.
~u I~U
tJU
lUL
1979/1981
! }1
ESTIMATED%
COMPLETION
11 g7R
100
; 1.1l.
_.l,
1. 5
It' l E' al.
j:!:na
St:: r t
~
19
100
1 QA
rL.l
2 2
~.
~.
4
2.5
::.nct
Sta :rt
LdelinE s
::>ta .... 1:
~~ld
Prq grc: m
:_ oriti u
~
'RPnn
?!:\
OA
(\"'7 (]
~na
1Q7Q
20
QR
St. :;:nd
25
1("17("1 1 ("'Q
60
t"
.LL%
ETION
87
00
8 016of-
& 6
(~
...

Actual Gross Expenditure 'X
X
<D
40
I'
~~
(~
20
,....'..,..1'-
--
..-'r'
{~
/
, _,/
'"pv' / "
4
---~
... ,. .
~ 70~~-4-+--+-+--A/~~~,...~'-,...~~-~~~
~~
*u
~
~~
.;-It
!50.._~-4-+-~-~~~--~-4-+-~~
v/
40~4--+~~~~-+--+-+--~-4-+-~
20~+~~~~-+~~+-~-+--~+-~-+~
10
"
---1f---+-~--+--+--+----f
~ '.30~-+-~~+'-,+--+-+--~-4-~-+-+-~---f
II
/
/
(~
BO .._--+---+---+--+---+
~(
c
6c
c
LU
1-
0 60~~-+-~--+-~1~~-4-~-+~~4-~
(J
0'cr---'-
IL
1 oo ,--.,.,-...,..,-l.,.--1,_...,.1-...,..1-,.-l__,...._~..........~v-Pianned Progress
V
HOf- - - - Estimated Progress
V
"
X.
1:L 16 LO
.4
L~
J:L Jo 40
l+lf Z+t$
7.
t
Months
Funds Expended
Contract Amount
Expended this Month
Total Exp. To Date
Balance
%_9~9:......;;....::.5__
199,231
$ _ _ _.!W.,.o_
$ 1 gs 302
$ --~'92..__..9

Months
8 9. 6
Time Expended %
Starting Date
January 1, 1978
Completion Date December 31 , 1981
$ -~\1..__ _
$ _ ____;:0:...,_____
$
_1 Q?, 1 1 7

A-2092 174630 v1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A-2092 174630 v1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

__

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

SPONSORED PROJECT INITIATION

Coating Systems for Painting 'old and New Structural Steel

National Academy of Sciences

COntract No. 4-14

r.Dnthly Progress Schedule; Quarterly Narrative; Final Teclmical.

Sponsor Contact Person (s):

Mr. Ronald R. Wiley

National Accrlemy of Sciences

Defense Priority Rating:

Library, Technical Reports Section .

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

SPONSORED PROJECT TERMINATION SHEET

Coating Systems for Painting Old and New Structural Steel

Sponsor: National Academy of Sciences

~ Final Invoice and Closing Documents

Final Fiscal Report

Res~1rch Security Services

EES Public Relations (2)

NCHRP 4-14, FY 1978

COATING SYSTEMS FOR PAINTING

Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil

This Working Plan

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Dr. Daniel J. 0 'Neil (Telephone: 404-894-3095)

Planned Gross Expenditure

Salaries and Wages Estimated This Month

PHASE !--Evaluation of Current Practices and Experience

Task 1.1--Literature Survey

Task 1.2--Contacts with Public Agencies

Task 1.3--Contacts with Private Industry

Task 1.4--Contacts withOther Laboratories

Task 1.5--State-of-the-Art Report

PHASE 2--Experimental Evaluation of Phase 1

Task 2.1--Review of Phase 1

Task 2.2--Selection of Candidate Formulations

Task 2.3--Preparation of Test Formulations

Task 2.4--Test Program

Task 2.5--Compilation of Results

PHASE 3--Preparation of Tentative Guidelines

Task 3 .1--Review of Guidelines

Task 3.2--Modification of Guidelines

Task 3.3--Final Version of Guidelines

PHASE 4--Design of Field Evaluation Program

Task 4.1--Review of Present anci Past Field Programs

Task 4. 2--0bj ect i.ves of Fi.eld Evaluation

Task 4.3--Final Version of Field Evaluation Program

PHASE 5--Priorities for Needed Research

Task 5.2--Identification of Problems and Problem Areas 14

(a) health and environment, (b) exposure conditions,

(c) application requirements, and (d) ,e conomics.

prime consideration will be g:iven to water-borne coatings containing the

For example, based upon recent

findings on methyl n-butyl ketone and 2-nitroparaffin, these solvents will be

of all ingredients including pigments

and modifiers will be considered for their protective effectiveness versus

Results of the PACE program, among others, will be monitored.

We propose to consider highway structure exposure conditions using

All "zones" will be considered