[article]
| Titre : |
The effect of surface preparation on coating performance |
| Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
| Auteurs : |
Patrick Cassidy, Auteur ; Paul Slebodnick, Auteur ; James Tagert, Auteur ; James Martin, Auteur |
| Année de publication : |
2016 |
| Article en page(s) : |
p. 50-60 |
| Langues : |
Américain (ame) |
| Catégories : |
Analyse des défaillances (fiabilité)
Chlorures
Contamination chimique
Qualité -- Contrôle
Revêtements -- Détérioration:Peinture -- Détérioration
Traîtements de surface
|
| Index. décimale : |
667.9 Revêtements et enduits |
| Résumé : |
This article describes a study of the effect of profile type, profile height, the extent of cleanliness and the amount of chloride contamination on coating performance in an effort to determine the correlation between these factors and to ideally identify whether or not there is a primary surface preparation factor that leads to coating failure. |
| Note de contenu : |
- TEST APPROACH : The effect of profile type - The effect of profile height - The effect of contamination
- RESULTS : The effects of profile type - The effect of profile height - The effect of contamination
- FIGURES : 1. This images shows the final surface profile types - 2. The final panel for exposure with scribes. Note the touched-up areas - 3. This image shows the excessive profile height panel - 4. The final excessive profile height panel ready for exposure - 5. Hand tool prepared panel ready for exposure in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla - 6. Pre-exposure adhesion test results - 7. Post-exposure adhesion results after 1,000 hours as per ASTM B 117 - 8. Post-exposure adhesion results after one year in Key West, Fla - 9. Cutback data by coating system after 1,000 hours as per ASTM B117 - 10. Cutback data by surface preparation, all coating systems after 1,000 hours as per ASTM B117 - 11. Cutback data by coating system after one year of natural exposure - 12. Cutback data by surface preparation method, all coating systems after one year of natural atmospheric exposure - 13. Three sample panels after removal from one year of natural atmospheric exposure. Surface preparation methods were (left to right) power wire brush, needle gun and abrasive blast. Some coating systems performed better than others over an SSPC-SP 11 surface. Note the massive delamination of the coating over the left two-thirds of the center panel. No trend was recognized as to why this occurred - 14. Excessive profile panels after 1,000 hours as per ASTM B117. Film thickness increases (left to right) at 10 mils WFT, then 11 mils, then 12 mils and on the far right, 14 mils WFT - 15. Average rust-through rating by primer thickness - 16. Average blister rating by primer thickness - 17. Final results of coating performance for all exposures (100 cycles GMW14872/six months natural atmospheric exposure, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.)
- TABLE : Surface profile type |
| En ligne : |
http://www.paintsquare.com/archive/?fuseaction=view&articleid=5870 |
| Format de la ressource électronique : |
Web |
| Permalink : |
https://e-campus.itech.fr/pmb/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=28421 |
in JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS (JPCL) > Vol. 33, N° 7 (07/2016) . - p. 50-60
[article]
|
Aller sur edunet
Accueil
The effect of surface preparation on coating performance in JOURNAL OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS & LININGS (JPCL), Vol. 33, N° 7 (07/2016)
