Never AgAiN

The imporTANce of A proper profile

By Mike OBrien PhOtOs cOurtesy Of the AuthOr ecently, a well-known contractor selected the wrong size abrasive for a large tank-coating project. This mistake created excessive surface profile and resulted in pinpoint rusting. Instead of fixing the root problem and using the proper size abrasive, the contractor convinced the coating manufacturer to write a letter, allowing the contractor to apply the coating at 250 percent greater than the dry film thickness (dft) listed on the product data sheet. From this bad start, problems on the project continued to compound. In addition to applying excessive dft, which did not comply with the specification

Above SSPC VIS 2 used to quantify degree of pinpoint rust present due to excessive surface profile or insufficient dft.

requirements on many areas of the tank, runs and sags developed in a number of areas. The contractor never finished the project. Eventually, the contractor and tank owner ended up in costly litigation. The contractor lost the lawsuit and was required to pay a large sum of money to the owner in addition to reimbursing the owners legal costs and fees. In this example, the excessive profile resulted from the contractors selection of the wrong size abrasive. However, in some situations involving reported profile problems, the inspector incorrectly measures a complying surface profile. Many people falsely assume that most profile problems result from the way

What should you do if an inspector reports non-complying profile on your project? first, dont assume the inspector measured the profile properly. Some inspectors are incompetentit is never wise to acquiesce to an incompetent inspector with the assumption that things will get better.

in which the profile is produced. Little or no time is spent determining if the profile was properly measured. Consequently, the immediate and sometimes incorrect solution for profile that is reportedly excessive is to require the contractor to reduce the air pressure and/or to reduce the abrasive size. However, this does not always solve the problem, particularly if the root problem lies with how the profile is measured, not how it is produced. When a profile problem is reported, the first step is to determine if the profile is being properly measured. Most high-performance coating systems currently in use require surface profile for proper adhesion to steel. Abrasive blasting is the primary and most efficient means to produce surface profile. The purpose of surface profile on steel is twofold. First, it increases the surface area and thereby creates more bondable sites for the coating to adhere. Second, it changes the surface morphology and produces a texture, allowing for a stronger mechanical bond of the

80 coatings pro

March 2012

coating to the surface. In abrasive blasting operations, compressed air projects abrasive at a high velocity against the surface. Assuming the contractor maintains the proper blast pressure and distance from the surface, the abrasive removes rust, mill scale, previous applied coatings, and some of the underlying steel, leaving peaks and valleys in the steel. The distance from the top of a peak to the bottom of an adjoining valley is referred to as the surface profile or anchor pattern. Selecting the proper type and size of abrasive to achieve the specified surface profile range is generally the contractors responsibility. A well-written specification should specify an achievable surface profile range (e.g. 1.5 3.0 mils); however, the specification should allow the contractor to select the appropriate abrasive size to produce the specified profile as long as it meets local and national regulations. Several factors affect the surface profile depth obtained from abrasive blasting operations, including the following: (1) abrasive size, (2) abrasive shape, (3) abrasive hardness, (4) steel hardness, (5) distance from the surface, (6) angle to the surface, and (7) velocity of the abrasive. In most cases, the two most important factors are the velocity of the abrasive and the abrasive size. According to the formula for kinetic energy, m(v)2, the velocity with which the abrasive strikes the steel is the most important variable, all other things being equal. Velocity is directly related to the blast pressure (in psi or bar) at the nozzle. A wide variety of abrasives exist from which the contractor may select, including recyclable and non-recyclable, and natural and man-made. Selecting an abrasive that is too large for the coating often results in creating excessive profile and pinpoint rusting, especially for coatings with limited film build properties. When the coating is initially applied and remains in its wet state, the peaks of the profile may be covered. However, as the solvent evaporates, some peaks become exposed, and peak rust, also known as pinpoint rust, develops on the unprotected peaks. Conversely, choosing

an abrasive that is too small may produce an insufficient profile depth, causing adhesion problems and subsequent delamination for certain coating types. Selecting the proper size abrasive for a project is not always an easy task for contractors, especially when two products from the same generic class (i.e., coal slag) produced by different abrasive manufacturers appear very similar on paper at quick glance. Experienced contractors learn what type of profile range is achievable with each specific abrasive size from a particular manufacturer, but sometimes this experience comes at a high cost. Consider the following example of two coal slag abrasives from different manufacturers. Both are marketed as 3060 grade abrasives, and both reportedly produce a 1.0 to 2.5 mil (25 to 64 micron) surface profile. Brand A is manufactured by a reputable, nationally known company. A small, regional manufacturer produces Brand B. Since the selling price of Brand B is less than Brand A, inexperienced contractors Sieve Grade #8 #12 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #70 #100 Pan

Above Cross-section view of surface profile peaks created by abrasive blasting shown protruding above the coating dft, resulting in pinpoint rust.

often select Brand B. However, as many frequently learn later, it actually often costs more to use Brand Bs coal slag when its impact on the total cost of the project is calculated. Although both manufacturers report the same profile range, their published technical literature reveals some significant differences between these two products. The profile achieved from Manufacturer Bs abrasive varies considerably from batch to batch. On closer examination, the reason quickly becomes apparent. Brand B allows for significantly more variability in its size distribution from batch to batch. Obviously, Brand A consistently produces a more uniform profile, since 78 100 percent of the abrasive remains in the #70 sieve. Conversely, notice the large variances in several sieve trays for Brand

Allowable Percentage of Abrasive in Each Size Sieve Brand A 3060 Coal Slag 0% 0 2% 0 5% 78 100% 0 10% 0 5% Brand B 3060 Coal Slag 0% 0 10% 5 50% 10 60% 5 40% 0 20% 0 15%

March 2012

www.coatingspromag.com 81

B. In the #30 sieve, Brand B allows 5 50 percent and in the #40 sieve, 10 60 percent is allowed. Such large variances indicate that the manufacturer of Brand B does not separate its abrasive as well as Brand A during the sieving process. Such wide variation from batch to batch and even bag to bag may result in large differences in the surface profile produced by abrasive blasting. When profile problems are reported, the first step is to determine if the inspector correctly measured the profile. For example, on one project, a contractor purchased 3060 grade coal slag abrasive. The contractor, blasting at 100 psi, used the abrasive to remove mill scale and rust from two new fuel storage tanks. The specification required a 1.5 to 2.5 mils (38 to 64 microns) profile. The owners inspector, using replica tape, measured the profile and informed the owner and the contractor that the profile was excessive at approximately 5.0 mils (127 microns). The inspector convinced the owner to require the contractor to reduce the blast pressure from 100 psi to 70 psi. When the inspector measured the new profile produced using 70 psi, it remained virtually unchanged at 4.8 mils (122 microns). Based on the slight and insignificant profile difference achieved with a significant reduction in blast pressure, an experienced inspector should examine the way he or she measured the profile, instead of focusing exclusively on how the profile is produced. Since reducing the pressure did not achieve the specified profile, the inspector recommended the owner direct the contractor to change the abrasive to a 50/150 coal slag product and maintain the reduced pressure at 70 psi. The owner followed the inspectors recommendation. When this failed to resolve the problem, the contractor, who had been trying to work with the owners inspector, retained the services of an independent NACE Coating Inspector Level III Peer Reviewed. The independent NACE inspector conducted a site visit and observed several major deficiencies in the surface profile measuring process used by the owners inspector. These deficiencies

included the following: (1) using an incorrect burnishing tool, (2) failure to uniformly darken the compressible, and (3) failure to remove residual abrasive and dust from the surface prior to attaching the replica tape. Additionally, during the discovery process in the lawsuit, the contractors expert witness examined all of the owners inspectors compressed replica tapes for this project. This revealed that during a one-week period when the owners regular inspector was on vacation, the inspection firm under contract to the owner supplied a replacement inspector. While this replacement inspector was on site, the profile measurements declined from the 5.0 mils (127 microns), reported by the regular inspector, to 2.4 mils (61 microns). The contractor used the same abrasive and the same pressure; the only difference was the process used by the replacement inspector to measure the profile. The project, scheduled for 14 weeks, took 14 months to complete. In the end, the contractor ended up in expensive litigation

Above Improperly burnished replica tape resulted in the inspector significantly over-reporting the actual surface profile.

to recover their huge loss on this project. 11 practical profile Tips What should you do if an inspector reports non-complying profile on your project? First, dont assume the inspector measured the profile properly. Some inspectors are incompetent, including some trained by reputable, internationally recognized coating inspection programs. Its never wise to acquiesce to an incompetent inspector with the assumption that things will get better. Second, employ a systematic methodology to determine if the inspector measured the profile properly and followed the specified industry standard.
below A properly burnished replica tape that is uniformly darkened or grayed, as shown below, is critical to properly reporting the surface profile.

82 coatings pro

March 2012

Heres a brief list of eleven practical tips to assist you in determining if the inspector is measuring the profile properly: 1. Verify that the inspector is using the correct replica tape grade, based on the profile range listed in the abrasive suppliers technical literature. 2. Measure the thickness of the replica tape prior to affixing it to the surface to determine its maximum foam thickness prior to burnishing. Remember to subtract 2.0 mils (50 microns) for the clear Mylar window. 3. Examine the front of the tape to determine if the entire circular area of the tape is uniformly darkened. 4. Examine the back of the tape. Embedded abrasive on the foam will result in reporting a higher profile than the actual profile. 5. Verify the profile using a recognized surface profile comparator. Take digital pictures with the comparator

on the blasted surface. 6. Verify the profile using a depth dial micrometer. 7. R e a d t he i ndu st r y st and ard s for sur f ace prof i l e ( SP-02 8 7, ASTM-4417, or ISO 8503-5), and verify that the inspector is performing the correct number of tests and is correctly performing them. Ask the inspector to perform three surface profile measurements daily on the plastic Training Surface, (available from Testex), to verify that the inspector is using the proper technique to burnish the tape. 8. Verify the anvil diameter for the micrometer used to measure the replica tape because if the anvil is too large, it will result in reporting inaccurately high profile. 9. Check the blast pressure at the nozzle using a needle pressure gauge with the abrasive flowing and all blast

nozzles functioning. 10. Perform a sieve analysis of the abrasive to determine if it matches the certifications provided by the abrasive manufacturer. 11. Use special indium coated replica tape for laboratory analysis of profile using precision instruments. During 31 years in the coatings industry, the author has served as an expert in several lawsuits involving surface profile. Unfortunately, in all of these situations, the profile problem started small and quickly escalated. In the end, they all resulted in owners or contractors spending large sums of money to defend their companies or to pursue legal means to recover for damages. Using the principles contained in this Never Again article will help you to logically address profile problems when they are reported and possibly save hundreds of thousands of dollars. cp

HEMPEL

Protective & Marine Coatings

Protecting steel assets around the world since 1915

Find out more at www.hempel.us

Houston Office: +1 936 523 5427 hempel.us@hempel.com

Write in Reader Inquiry #222

March 2012

www.coatingspromag.com 83