CoatingsPro Magazine

MAR 2017

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/796818

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 66 of 84

66 MARCH 2017 COATINGSPROMAG.COM Never Again Within five years of the installation, corrosion started to show on the metal roof. Samples of the roof deck were removed and sent for inspection. By Valerie Sherbondy, Technical Manager — Analytical Laborator y for KTA-Tator, Inc. The Case of the Holey Roof Decking C oated roofing materials have come a long way from the beginning of painted metal roofs. at point can be reinforced by the length of the warran- ties offered at the time of installation. e product has to be good to offer a 20- or even 50-year warranty, right? W hen you see that information in writing, it is difficult to imagine that the materi- als have not been tested and proven. It would be hard to choose a material that offered less durability when such a warranty is available. T hat was the belief of an ow ner when a roofing system was chosen to cover a large school. T he building was erected, and the roof was put in place. A ll appeared as if the building would perform for at least two decades. With such a long warranty, no one ever thought that there would be corrosion on the roof and water damage to the interior of the building only five years after the installation of the roof. So what went wrong? The Background e roofing material manufacturer was contacted to examine the facility and provide a repair procedure because the roofing system was still early in its guaranteed service life. It was expected that the manufacturer would cover the expense to repair the defects since the warranty was written for 20 years and currently the building was only five years into the warranty time. at was not to be the case. A fter a quick walk around the roof, the roofing representative indicated that the corrosion was a result of surface damage that occurred during the installation process and that a quick repaint was all that was required. W hile there were some areas of corrosion that could be associated w ith the mechanical damage to the While there were some areas of corrosion that could be associated with the mechanical damage to the coating, there appeared to be many random areas of corrosion that were not associated with visible coating damage.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of CoatingsPro Magazine - MAR 2017