CoatingsPro Magazine

JAN 2019

CoatingsPro offers an in-depth look at coatings based on case studies, successful business operation, new products, industry news, and the safe and profitable use of coatings and equipment.

Issue link: https://coatingspromag.epubxp.com/i/1067504

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 81 of 108

COATINGSPRO JANUARY 2019 81 it was hard to walk around." To handle the lack of heav y equipment issue, the crew used hand tools. "Because of the shape of the roof, we couldn't use any mechanical, big equipment to get stuff off, so we had to use hand tools, which was very time consuming," Johnson said. It also created another issue: flying rubbish. As the crew worked to tear down the existing foam, they had to control pieces of foam from blowing around, which was tricky especially in Hawaii where it is frequently windy. "We had to make sure rubbish wasn't blowing around the base," Johnson said. Weather to Paint or Not Because the building was still being used as the crew worked, they had to plan strategically when applying the coated spray foam system. "We didn't take on a bigger chunk than we thought could get waterproofed in one day," Johnson explained. While people on the mainland may think of Hawaii as a constant tropical paradise, there are lots of rainy days there, especially in the winter when this job took place. at meant the normal workday routine went like this: Check the weather radar; if it looked clear, tear down one section of the roof in the morning until about noon, then clean up and apply the new spray foam in the afternoon. If rain was on the radar, the crew might either delay until the weather passed or not work that day. To apply the foam, Gaco Western F2733, the crew used a Graco 2035 proportioner with 30 feet (9.1 m) of hose and a P2 gun. e crew applied approximately 2 inches (5.1 cm) of spray foam on the roof deck with pourable foam in between the barrel roofs to slope for proper drainage. en the crew applied the coating, Garland 's W hite Knight Plus aliphatic polyurethane. ey applied the coating at an average of 16 mils (406.4 microns) using hand rollers supplied by Kane International. "e arched shape of the roof and the proximity of one arch The building was in use while the crew was working on it. That also constricted the surface area they could work on each day. JOB AT A GLANCE PROJECT: Fix the leaks, and give the building a facelift by removing and re-applying a spray polyurethane foam roof on a building at Naval Station Pearl Harbor COATINGS CONTRACTOR: Pacific Industrial Coatings, LLC 1725 Kalani St. Honolulu, HI 96819 (808) 440-8975 www.pichawaii.us SIZE OF CONTRACTOR: 18 employees SIZE OF CREW: 6 crew members PRIME CLIENT: U.S. Navy 850 Ticonderoga St. Pearl Harbor, HI 96860 (808) 473-2888 www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrh/installations/jb_ pearl _harbor_hickam. html SUBSTRATE: Concrete CONDITION OF SUBSTRATE: Used SIZE OF JOB: 6,912 sq. ft. (642.1 m²) DURATION: 8 weeks UNUSUAL FACTORS/CHALLENGES: » The building was in use when the project was going on, so the crew could only tear down one section at a time. » The crew had to plan work around rain. » The unusual barrel roof shape made coating and walking difficult and the use of large equipment impossible. MATERIALS/PROCESSES: » Removed the existing spray polyurethane foam (SPF) system » Spray applied an average of 2 inches (5.1 cm) of Gaco Western F2733 with a Graco 2035 proportioner with 30 feet (9.1 m) of hose and a P2 gun; put down pourable foam in between barrel roofs to slope for proper drainage » Applied Garland's White Knight Plus aliphatic polyurethane at an average of 16 mils (406.4 microns) using Kane International hand rollers SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: » Wore fall protection 100 percent of the time, and set up guardrails, rope grabs, and delineators for the walk path » Wore respirators while installing spray foam

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of CoatingsPro Magazine - JAN 2019