CoatingsPro Magazine

MAY 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/818907

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 30 of 84

30 MAY 2017 COATINGSPROMAG.COM treatment facility. T he scope of work included abrasive blast cleaning followed by recoating w ith a high-per- formance industrial coating systems. T he customer required a batter y of non-routine tests to be performed, in addition to general coatings inspection requirements. Non-routine require- ments included pH tests performed to ASTM D4262: pH of Chemically Cleaned or Etched Concrete Surfaces; conduc- tivity according to SSPC- Guide 15: Field Method for Extraction and Analysis of Soluble Salts on Steel using Bresle patches; adhesion tests according to ASTM D3359: Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test on the primer and finish coat; concrete surface profile (CSP) according to International Concrete Repair Institute (ICR I) Guideline 310.1R: Guideline for Surface Preparation for the Repair of Deteriorated Concrete Resulting From Reinforcing Steel Corrosion; and dust test according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 8502-3: Assessment of Dust on Steel Surfaces Prepared for Painting (Pressure-Sensitive Tape Method) on all surfaces. On the jobsite, there were multi- ple paint crews working in different areas of the facility. To collect and report data efficiently for all of these tests with minimal interruption to the production, electronic instruments and reporting were selected for use. Tests could be performed quickly, and reports could be customized to include non-routine tests. Data collection was generally performed when tests did not interrupt the crew blasting and the crew painting and when blast dust and overspray would not cause damage to the electronic instruments. Often, measurements were made while climbing and adhering to the "three-point rule" regarding safety. Measurements were performed relatively fast to meet the client's needs: ambient conditions, dry film thickness (DFT), surface profile depth, and conductivity. is data was collected and stored in the gage memory as batches and, in some cases, multiple sub-batches, and then the data was downloaded to a computer to incorporate into an inspection report. General inspection data, such as paint batch numbers, surface cleanliness, adhesion test results, mixing times, pot life, air cleanliness, and percent of thinner added, were manually added into the paperless report. Capturing data electronically proved valuable in time management while working from one crew site to another. Data was kept separately in batches. For example, measuring film thicknesses on a clarifier consisted of five sub-batches because of the different components of the clarifier. is process proved to be much faster than it would have been if manually performed with a Type 1 DFT Magnetic Pull-Off Gage since data was automat- ically stored without having to pause to manually record it in a notebook. A lso of particular help was the ability to continuously monitor ambient conditions overnight to determine the minimum recoat time. Hourly measure- ments were recorded and automatically calculated by the gage to show an average overnight temperature, which was then plotted on an Excel spread- sheet using the coating manufacturer's minimum recoat schedule. A photo- graph of the annotated graph was included in the electronic report to document conclusively that the recoat time had been achieved before the next coat was applied. Other photographs included in reports were for adhesion tests and substrate pH. To promote a higher level of credibility in reporting data, a photograph was included whenever ASTM D3359 tape adhesion tests were performed. T his illustrated the accuracy of the adhesion rating that the inspector reported for the newly applied coating. A photograph of the pH indicator paper wetted on the substrate overlaid w ith the pH colori- metric chart was added each time the pH was tested. By date stamping photographs, the reports can show the status of work — for example which test was done, when, and where it was being performed. Daily reports for each crew at the facility were converted into PDF files, which were then posted into the job-specific folder on a file-sharing ser vice for the customer's view ing. Ever y day, the batch memor y on the gage was deleted, and a new day of creating batches was begun. T here were no paper reports to file, although there was electronic file manage- ment on a computer hard drive. T his required a separate document folder containing files designated based on the sales order number, date of work, and the customer's part number. In conclusion, on certain types of field work, the use of electronic inspec- tion equipment and paperless data reporting can give a more detailed and more convincing portrait of progress on a project. It might save you time and help you coordinate your projects better, too. Electronic tools just may be a good option for you. CP Cory Allen is d irector of qua l it y systems for Vu lcan Pa inters, Inc., an ISO 9001 and SSPC QP cer t if ied pa int ing cont ractor. He has more t han 40 years of e x per ience in indust r ia l coat ings and is a member of SSPC, NACE Inter nat iona l , A STM , and t he A mer ican Societ y of Qua l it y. He hold s a B. S. deg ree f rom t he Depar t ment of Chemist r y and a M . S. deg ree f rom t he School of Poly mers and High Per for mance Mater ia ls at t he Universit y of Sout her n Mississippi. For more infor mat ion, contact: Vu lcan Pa inters, Inc., (205) 428-0556, w w w.v u lcan-g roup.com Inspector's Corner

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of CoatingsPro Magazine - MAY 2017